Hornby Rebuilt WCs/BBs and that darned fixed pony truck

Ian, I managed to get hold of a 'Plymouth' and think the model is superb, and the fixed pony truck isn't noticeable, unless you've got 'train set' curves, in which case large locos don't look right anyway! I also think it looks far better than the pony truck on the MN as it has allowed Hornby to put a lot of extra detail in. If I'm going to moan about anything, then its only that there should be weathering along the top of the loco as well. Regards, Paul.

wrote

Not to mention the front of the smokebox and the rear of the tender.

I wouldn't buy a current weathered Hornby loco at any price, and they could do to take note of Bachmann's far more realistic efforts in this area.

John.

I do not like the fixed rear truck at all, but it does look much better on Plymouth than on the Brits. I have bought both models, though, but would prefer it if the wheels remained on the track - it is a bit basic to the principle of a railway. Another minor gripe is that fitting the AWS guard on the front of the loco fouls the front bogie. Mine had a tendency to derail on points - traced to the front bogie mounting not being folded correctly. I gather this has surfaced as a problem on some other locos from time to time.

Overall, a great looking loco which pulls very well.

I'm not sure how many Hornby locos I'll be buying in the future, though, with DCC on board and the published price hikes.

Colin

Pardon my ignorance, but is it that the trailing truck on the Bulleid Pacific models (Hornby) are mere dummies? What an appalling thought.

Yes, rather like the Bachmann A1 but. unlike the A1, it is not as per prototype, and there is insufficient room for the necessary sideways movement of the wheels, so they are wide, slightly high, and flangeless. On anything less than about 3' radius curves, I guess, the dummy "truck" and wheels hang out of line with the rails in a most unrealistic fashion - that's my opinion, anyway. Others don't seem to mind so much as they regard the older style moving truck as just as big a compromise.

Colin

"Peter Abraham" wrote

That's correct but they mimic the prototype quite accurately. There is very very little lateral movement of the rear trailing truck of any protype loco (maybe an inch or so at most = 0.25mm on a 4mm:1ft model), and it's probably impossible to see it move at all under normal circumstances.

I'd sooner have the rear end of such a loco 'look right' rather than have the rear truck swing unprototypically. The fault is not with the model manufacturer, but those os us who insist on using ridiculously tight curves.

John.

Agreed, dealing with the unrealistic radii we use is a compromise either way.

I started off with trainset curves and Hornby-Dublo, so the radii on my layout do not seem that tight but they are obviously totally unrealistic as against the real thing. The thing that really grates with me is that the truck wheels hang way outside the line of the rails on what I consider to be acceptable radii - between 2' & 4'. The older "flexible" truck was a compromise, but it kept the wheel on the rail in accordance with the basic concept of a railway - and I got used to it.

I do agree that the back end detail on the new locos does look good viewed on a straight piece of track, and the West Country looks much better on curves than does the Brit as it's just that little bit shorter. I've bought them, so I'm not that upset. The unrebuilt WC/BofB's looked fine to my eye, but some earlier 4-6-2's - Coronations

- do have a lot of light under the rear end and would benefit from improvement. They are, however, very long locos, and a fixed truck would probably not look right any more than the current version.

I can't help but feel that a sliding wheelset - as per Bachmann A1 - would be better. I presume that the width under the prototype allows this arrangement in that model, and on the others it does not.

Colin

"John Turner" wrote in news:45a923bd$0$4816$ snipped-for-privacy@free.teranews.com:

...

Buy me a bigger house and I'll use larger radii curves.

A1 -

allows

That is, of course, more or less how the real trailing truck worked on the GNR/LNER Pacific's, using a self centring spring arrangement to manage side control.

I can't help thinking though that Hornby's choice to mount the 'axle box' to the chassis, rather than simply fix a more prototypically designed bogie in one place, lost them the opportunity to both have the cake and eat it. If the axle was attached to the bogie properly, then it would have been possible to have a design that could have been fixed for those that wanted to retain the extra detail, and have some movement for those like me who feel it should have such. It might even have been possible to have the amount of movement the prototype had, with a 'sliding axle' arrangement to accommodate those who have tighter curves...

Instead we get an arrangement with which, short of lots of metal cutting, simply cannot be rectified.

Ian J.

In message , Chris Wilson writes

What's wrong with the garden?

Most would need a bigger garden as well. We don't all have a garden as large as yours. Mine is a reasonable 10m by 50m, but there is a substantial slope, so the space available for railways is much less (unless I were to resort to rack railway).

Mark Thornton

Mark Thornton wrote in news:wsmqh.52169$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe2-win.ntli.net:

...

Ditto ... more or less.

I could always build a cable car thingie :-(

Seems like an elegant solution. The fixed pony truck is, for me, like tender drive and non-flanged centre drivers - a compromise too far. I would not therefore buy a loco with a fixed pony truck, but obviously some people would and have. 20 years ago Mainline and Airfix seemed to produce quite nice looking models that had fully flanged wheels that would go around 1st radius curves... now this seems to be impossible :( I might be wrong, but I think my many of my highly detailed continental locos also managed tight curves without these compromises...

At the same time houses are being replaced with flats (without gardens) and people have less space for a model railway than they did 20 years ago... perhaps N gauge, or TT is the answer...? If we are not careful people will be turned away from the hobby as our model trains will be too fragile/expensive for children and too space hungry for modern living...

I guess everyone has different needs. Some people, like me, are operators and want to get a decent run in which requires tight curves in modern houses. Others want maximum detail to create the perfect replica...

"Gerald H" wrote

That doesn't explain the significant upsurge im 7mm scale (O-gauge) modelling.

John.

Different age groups John. I'm guessing the new O-gauge converts are mainly

50+ living in larger, older properties.

(kim)

"kim" wrote

The age profile certainly fits, but I've just moved to a newer, much smaller property and am actively contemplating such a switch.

John.

I think you'll live to regret that decision John? I meet a lot of people who

*think* they would be better-off in smaller accommodation but then find they got used to having the extra space. The only thing I don't miss about living in a larger property is the heating bills which were absolutely horrendous.

(kim)

"kim" wrote

Who knows Kim? I'm certainly happy here at the moment, and only time will tell whether I will miss the larger heating bills. I still own the property I've left I could always move back, although I can't really imagine that happening.

John.