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 :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Gerald H" wrote

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Martin S.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Railroad 9F runs sweet as anything, and to an amateur it looks good as well.
cheers, Simon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Martin S.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"MartinS" wrote

The latest Princess Coronations appear to have the fixed rear bogie.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 06:36:14 +1300, Alistair Wright

It's a "fixed carrying axle".

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail /

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: >> 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".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Jerry" wrote

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, as in 4-8-8-4, it implies a duplex or articulated loco, albeit an unusual arrangement for such a loco.
MBQ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"simon" wrote

Shouldn't the notation for that be a 4-8+8-4?
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:02:20 -0000, "John Turner"

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:37:07 +1300, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com

The LNWR made some rigid framed 2-2-2-0s :-)
Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What about Rowland Emett's 0-2-0?
--
Martin S.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And Adams?
http://www.railmotor93.org/why/why_01.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.