Hornby Railroad Black 5

The Hornby Railroad Black 5 seems to be available now. Has anyone seen it? I understand that it's loco drive and the pictures on Rails' website suggest that it's not using an ex tender drive tender if that makes sense :)

"Gerald H" wrote
  Quoted Text Here  
We got them in stock yesterday and they are definitely loco dive, although I think the tender is a demotorised former tender drive jobbie.
Why on earth they've re-used the number 5112 is anyone's guess; that was the number used on many of the tender drive versions. It must reduce potential sales.
The loco still looks an abortion, but at least it runs nicely - far better than the old tender drive models.
John.

  Quoted Text Here  
The A1 and A4 use the old tender chassis, with a dummy Ringfield motor. The locos have the fixed rear bogie, but the Super-detailed Princess Coronation doesn't.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Railroad 9F runs sweet as anything, and to an amateur it looks good as well.
cheers, Simon

  Quoted Text Here  
I bought a Bachmann 9F when they came out - for almost twice the price. Looks nice and runs well, but is finicky about some (but not others) of my second radius points.

"MartinS" wrote
  Quoted Text Here  
The latest Princess Coronations appear to have the fixed rear bogie.
John.

  Quoted Text Here  
Pedantry and semantics demand that I tell you that 'two wheels do not a bogie make' - this two wheeled trailing supporter of many a firebox is called a 'pony truck'. We may have to come up with a revised name now that it doesn't actually swivel. Suggestions?
I was not much enthused by this innovation by Hornby till I saw what an improvement in appearance was possible, and on my curves (4ft 6in and bigger) it makes not a whit of difference. Pity it took so long for this penny to drop- both for me and Hornby.
Alistair
  Quoted Text Here  

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 06:36:14 +1300, Alistair Wright
  Quoted Text Here  
It's a "fixed carrying axle".
  Quoted Text Here  

: >> The latest Princess Coronations appear to have the fixed rear bogie. : >> : >> John. : > Pedantry and semantics demand that I tell you that 'two wheels do not a : > bogie make' - this two wheeled trailing supporter of many a firebox is : > called a 'pony truck'. We may have to come up with a revised name now : > that : > it doesn't actually swivel. Suggestions? : : It's a "fixed carrying axle". :
Surely that would make the loco a "4-6-2-0", think about it...
What Hornby are doing with their models is some what similar to how Gresely engineered his Pacific's - allowing an element of *axle* side movement via the axlebox or horn-guides design, rather than the axle moving with the bogie frame - and it's simply known as a "trailing truck".

"Jerry" wrote
  Quoted Text Here  
Not absolutely sure on this, but think 4-6-2-0 would imply that both the '6 & 2' were powered.
There's one odd-ball example which contradicts that. It's the Gresley W1 which is generally referred to as a 4-6-4, but some learned scholars say it's really a 4-6-2-2 as the four carrying wheels under the cab are not connected in a conventional bogie.
John.

  Quoted Text Here  
Yes, as in 4-8-8-4, it implies a duplex or articulated loco, albeit an unusual arrangement for such a loco.
MBQ

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Yes, as in 4-8-8-4, it implies a duplex or articulated loco, albeit an unusual arrangement for such a loco.
MBQ
Should check but thought you could have a 4-2-2-2 where the middle 2's are fixed carrying wheels of same size but not coupled. Think there were some on either LNWR or Midland which then had these 2nd pair coupled to give a 4-4-2 ?
Cheers, Simon

"simon" wrote
  Quoted Text Here  
Shouldn't the notation for that be a 4-8+8-4?
John.

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:02:20 -0000, "John Turner"
  Quoted Text Here  
No. Because they are not fully independent power units. The rear unit on a Mallet is rigid, with the front unit hinged off it. Sometimes described as semi-articulated
When Whyte developed his notation in 1900 wheel arrangements were't as complicated as they later became.
Wikipedia has a web page but it is from an American perspective, especially the nicknames given to the various arrangements.
  Quoted Text Here  

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
That depends on whose notation you are using! " + " is normally used to indicate two seperate locomotive units permanently coupled together. examples might be the Swiss Ae 8/14 where two single cab 7 axle (4 driving axle) are coupled together. One might call an 0-6-0 with a Stirling driven tender an 0-6+6-0. (or 0-6-0+0-6-0) In most of Europe trucks and bogies are designated with a ' to show a separate frame: eg - 4'2 0 for a leading bogie. - 4 2 0 for a Crampton with the carrying wheels on the main frame.

<snip>
: Yes, as in 4-8-8-4, it implies a duplex or articulated : loco, albeit an unusual arrangement for such a loco.
WRONG again MBQ, you obviously have never heard of the 4-2-2-0 Drummonds of the LSWR have you...
What usually indicates an articulated locomotive is either class, maker (designer) or nickname, NOT wheel arrangement.

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:37:07 +1300, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com
  Quoted Text Here  
The LNWR made some rigid framed 2-2-2-0s :-)
Greg.P.

  Quoted Text Here  
What about Rowland Emett's 0-2-0?

  Quoted Text Here  
And Adams?
http://www.railmotor93.org/why/why_01.html

  Quoted Text Here  
I wasn't aware of that one even tough I am aware of Emett. It might well have had some stability problems?
There was me thinking those French Le Trague (sp?) 0-3-0s were the minimum.
Greg.P.