EFE LSWR Cross-country coach sets

[Skinnylinny]

Unfortunately it looks as though the composite is missing a roof ventilator (second compartment from the right) - this was also the case with the previous SR and BR releases. Not wishing to find fault, but is there any possibility of the ventilators being made available as spares for those of us who'd like to add it? I have a few packs of ABS whitemetal LSWR "torpedo"s but it would be nice to have them all as exact matches - I'll have to compare size-wise when my set arrives.
 

8 hours ago, JSpencer said:

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Skinnylinny

[JSpencer]

A few more pics and notes.

 

I tested these being pulled by the Adams radials. The Hornby version copes quite well, the Oxford version struggles a little bit. 

Then on with some Bluebell picks. 488 (in LSWR and BR guise) with 1520 and 320 (SR green, the Hornby LSWR extended body on a Maunsell frame). 

 

 

[jonnyuk]

they look stunning and would fit right into my pre nationalisation ex LSWR stuff, can i justify the cost right? i need to see them in the flesh

[Mr chapman]

My lswr set arrived today and I must say that it is a bold livery! Pictures don't quite reflect the colour in real life. Wonderful models. Now to try and resist the olive set...

 

I am off to my friend's set track layout Sunday so will test them through all the curves and point combinations. 

 

Seriously though, grab some ear defenders because that livery is LOUD!

[JSpencer]

4 hours ago, jonnyuk said:

they look stunning and would fit right into my pre nationalisation ex LSWR stuff, can i justify the cost right? i need to see them in the flesh

 

I sat on the side for a long over a BR set (or late southern) and was tempted when they recently started appearing with more discount. But they were not really the set and colours I wanted. However my order was in at Kernow's for the full LSWR set within minutes of them appearing on their website.

I know manufacturers often save the better colours for later runs to entice 2 sales. But at these days prices (and with all the stock I already have), I sit and wait for the set I want.

[Iltman]

Got mine today and it looks very nice somehow though I managed to stab myself in the nostril opening it 😂

[PeterH]

They are very beautiful indeed. Need to give my M7 a service though as it hasn’t run in years - these have given me a good excuse to give it a little TLC!

 

 

[SRman]

3 hours ago, PeterH said:

They are very beautiful indeed. Need to give my M7 a service though as it hasn’t run in years - these have given me a good excuse to give it a little TLC!

 

 

 

Very nice. When my set arrives (soon, it is on its way!), I'll be able to run that combination as well. I have two of the Hornby M7s in variations of the LSWR greens, one as per yours in the photos, the other here.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by SRman
Swapped for a better photo.

[Harlequin]

I'm a GWR man (please don't hold that against me) but I bought a cross country set to run services up my imaginary 1930's branch line that connects to Southern territory - not unlike the DN&SR.

 

They are currently on my test circuit being hauled by a T9 with an 8-wheel tender and they look wonderful.

 

Would the wheels have been mansell wheels in reality? The supplied wheels are very plain and very shiny metal so I wonder if it's worth painting the supplied wheels or replacing them with some Mansells that have a bit more detail on them?

 

Although the coaches have kinematic mechanisms holding the NEM pockets, the tension lock couplings supplied hold the coaches too far apart, even on straight track. So, since the coaches will always run as a set, what kind of semi-permanent close-couplings would be best to use instead of the tension locks?

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Harlequin

[Ian Hargrave]

32 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I'm a GWR man (please don't hold that against me) but I bought a cross country set to run services up my imaginary 1930's branch line that connects to Southern territory - not unlike the DN&SR.

 

They are currently on my test circuit being hauled by a T9 with an 8-wheel tender and they look wonderful.

 

Would the wheels have been mansell wheels in reality? They are very bright metal as supplied and I wonder if it's worth painting the supplied wheels or replacing them with some Mansells that have a bit more detail on them?

 

Although the coaches have kinematic mechanisms holding the NEM pockets, the tension lock couplings supplied hold the coaches too far apart, even on straight track. So, since the coaches will always run as a set, what kind of semi-permanent close-couplings would be best to use instead of the tension locks?

 

Try Westhill Wagons magnetic couplings shorter variety.
 

[Ian Hargrave]

Yes,they are indeed things of elegance and period charm. They are coupled to my OOWORKS Adams Jubilee atm. Which isn’t of course strictly correct for my choice of LSWR livery as the loco itself is Southern Green. But the train does look rather gorgeous so I’ll plead Rule 1 (weak) or a mismatch between the respective chronology of their repainting post grouping. Once again,I wax lyrical about the superbly designed and finished presentation and storage box. This is truly what I call “value added”. 

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I'm a GWR man (please don't hold that against me) but I bought a cross country set to run services up my imaginary 1930's branch line that connects to Southern territory - not unlike the DN&SR.

 

They are currently on my test circuit being hauled by a T9 with an 8-wheel tender and they look wonderful.

 

Would the wheels have been mansell wheels in reality? The supplied wheels are very plain and very shiny metal so I wonder if it's worth painting the supplied wheels or replacing them with some Mansells that have a bit more detail on them?

 

Although the coaches have kinematic mechanisms holding the NEM pockets, the tension lock couplings supplied hold the coaches too far apart, even on straight track. So, since the coaches will always run as a set, what kind of semi-permanent close-couplings would be best to use instead of the tension locks?

 

I've used Roco close coupler heads in mine with complete success. I only use those within sets that won't need to be remarshalled on the layout, so I remove the uncoupling loops and install them upside-down which looks much tidier. 

 

My set now has Gibson disc wheels, which are more appropriate for my BR era. They went in after quite a bit of work with a Truck Tuner tool as the EFE axles are shorter than the usual 26mm.

 

I gather Colin at AG will supply wheels (on request) fitted to "continental" length (24.5mm) axles. Had I remembered that a bit earlier, I'd have saved myself a lot of bother.

 

John

Edited August 26, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I'm a GWR man (please don't hold that against me) but I bought a cross country set to run services up my imaginary 1930's branch line that connects to Southern territory - not unlike the DN&SR.

 

They are currently on my test circuit being hauled by a T9 with an 8-wheel tender and they look wonderful.

 

Would the wheels have been mansell wheels in reality? The supplied wheels are very plain and very shiny metal so I wonder if it's worth painting the supplied wheels or replacing them with some Mansells that have a bit more detail on them?

 

Although the coaches have kinematic mechanisms holding the NEM pockets, the tension lock couplings supplied hold the coaches too far apart, even on straight track. So, since the coaches will always run as a set, what kind of semi-permanent close-couplings would be best to use instead of the tension locks?

 

I found a photo that seems to show a few nuts on the wheels and a drawing on the Roxey Mouldings website clearly shows Mansell wheels on their version of a diagram 124.

 

So I'm getting strong indications that these coaches really should have Mansell wheels in my mid-30s period. They would certainly add a lot of character to the model. Hopefully an SR expert can confirm.

 

[Dunsignalling]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I found a photo that seems to show a few nuts on the wheels and a drawing on the Roxey Mouldings website clearly shows Mansell wheels on their version of a diagram 124.

 

So I'm getting strong indications that these coaches really should have Mansell wheels in my mid-30s period. They would certainly add a lot of character to the model. Hopefully an SR expert can confirm.

 

Not my period, but I'd think they might well have still retained Mansell wheels in the mid-thirties.

 

AIUI, they were gradually replaced with steel wheels as track circuiting became more widespread. Stock mainly running on rural by-ways would have been well down the list for that but would instead receive "jumper strips" to make them electrically conductive. 

 

Intuitively, though, I'd not expect wood-centred wheels to last as long as steel, so they may have eventually needed replacing anyway. Does anybody on here know their typical lifespan? 

 

John

Edited August 26, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Oldddudders]

Mike King's drawing specifies 3'7" Mansell wheels. 

[JSpencer]

Test trains!

 

I decided to see which locos cope with a 4 car cross country set. So here is a summary:

1/ Hornby M7, pulls them with ease at scale speeds

2/ Hornby Adams Radial, pulls them with ease at scale speeds

3-4/ Hornby & Dapol Terriers - pulls them with ease though naturally slower than the bigger locos above, you could do a simple preserved scene or local scene

5/ Dapol B4 - this was a surprise but this light weight pulled them with ease, though very slowly of course

6/ Kernow O2 - struggled a bit, especially on point work. I was expecting this to be just behind the Hornby Adams radial

7/ Oxfordrail Adams Radial - struggled a lot. My impression is that there is not enough weight on the drivers.

8/ Beattie well tank - Failed to pull them

 

Also below a couple of photos comparing the underframes with the original DJM/Kernow gate stock (that was corrected on the EFE versions).

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by JSpencer

[Mr chapman]

Well I had them on a set track today through a point crossover with no issues. Also around a 1st radius 90 degree curve, although unpowered as it was a tram line. Lovely models. Keeping up the theme of not quite right locomotives I was running a black C class. Although when testing them on a gradient a Heljan hymek in Dutch livery was used... It's quite a steep hill.

 

The only fault I could find was the kinematic couplings didn't quite return to straight so only one hook would connect. That may change with use or a puff of graphite powder. They were fresh out the box after all.

[Dunsignalling]

9 hours ago, Mr chapman said:

Well I had them on a set track today through a point crossover with no issues. Also around a 1st radius 90 degree curve, although unpowered as it was a tram line. Lovely models. Keeping up the theme of not quite right locomotives I was running a black C class. Although when testing them on a gradient a Heljan hymek in Dutch livery was used... It's quite a steep hill.

 

The only fault I could find was the kinematic couplings didn't quite return to straight so only one hook would connect. That may change with use or a puff of graphite powder. They were fresh out the box after all.

If you use these as supplied (i.e. as a set) it's best to switch the inside couplers for something rigid.

 

Either magnetics or one of the Continental HO types (Roco in my case as they are easy to source and can be mixed with the longer Hornby copies to vary spacing if necessary, all-Roco in this instance). 

 

This makes the kinematic linkages behave as intended (tension-locks cannot insist on this 🙂) and you then only need to deal with whatever is on the outer ends. If any tend to stick, rubbing a soft pencil (I use a 6B, but minimum 4B) over the floor above it, will help things slide smoothly.

 

TBH, I think it would be a good idea if coaches sold in sets, like these, were provided with more appropriate internal couplings as standard, leaving it to the Rule One mob to fit tension-locks if they really insist on breaking up authentic formations!

 

John

Edited August 28, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[3rd Rail Exile]

28 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

TBH, I think it would be a good idea if coaches sold in sets, like these, were provided with more appropriate internal couplings as standard, leaving it to the Rule One mob to fit tension-locks if they really insist on breaking up authentic formations!

Something more appropriate and better-looking provided as an option would certainly be great, but providing it as standard would cause problems for those who have tight Setrack (or equivalent) curves (even if hidden in fiddle yards). I've managed to get "one Roco one Hornby" to work well with these on my layout, but can imagine other people having issues. Given that a fair number of these sets might be bought on the basis of "that's a nice, short, pretty train" it's probably still best to cater for the worst case scenario as standard and leave coupling modifications to those with sufficient knowledge and understanding of the potential pitfalls (and/or the time and patience to experiment). 

[JSpencer]

22 minutes ago, 3rd Rail Exile said:

Something more appropriate and better-looking provided as an option would certainly be great, but providing it as standard would cause problems for those who have tight Setrack (or equivalent) curves (even if hidden in fiddle yards). I've managed to get "one Roco one Hornby" to work well with these on my layout, but can imagine other people having issues. Given that a fair number of these sets might be bought on the basis of "that's a nice, short, pretty train" it's probably still best to cater for the worst case scenario as standard and leave coupling modifications to those with sufficient knowledge and understanding of the potential pitfalls (and/or the time and patience to experiment). 

 

For a while, Hornby actually provided both. Which was a great idea.

 

I think selling these coaches as a set is a great idea and wished Bachmann had done the same with their birdcages. Obviously, we would not want sets when said coaches would mix around a lot. But when they were 2,3 or 4 cars then why not.

While I think the Cross country set box is a bit big (modern items seem to be coming in ever increasing box sizes, eating up storage space.... though Hattons generics and Cavalex warflats were nice small boxes), the box makes getting out a rake, putting them on the layout and then back away again, a very fast rapid operation with no need to worry about tearing the box ends or ripping off the plastic window.

 

A box design to be copied and improved upon by others please... 

[Dunsignalling]

21 hours ago, 3rd Rail Exile said:

Something more appropriate and better-looking provided as an option would certainly be great, but providing it as standard would cause problems for those who have tight Setrack (or equivalent) curves (even if hidden in fiddle yards). I've managed to get "one Roco one Hornby" to work well with these on my layout, but can imagine other people having issues. Given that a fair number of these sets might be bought on the basis of "that's a nice, short, pretty train" it's probably still best to cater for the worst case scenario as standard and leave coupling modifications to those with sufficient knowledge and understanding of the potential pitfalls (and/or the time and patience to experiment). 

The whole point of having kinetic coupler linkages is that the coaches will go round Set-track curves despite being close-coupled when on straight sections.

 

However, they only work properly when the links are coupled rigidly, and tension-locks are incapable of that. My policy is for a minimum radius of 30" (*) out in the open with No.3 curves in hidden sections, but I test everything on No.2 curves to ensure some "margin". My 3-coach BR set was OK with all-Roco couplers within the set (but only pulling, I don't propel anything I can't keep an eye on). I'm guessing you may still have some "heritage" No.1 curves?

 

Times and models have changed, and few modern coaches or locos will tolerate those, with or without close-couplers. AIUI, Hornby supply No.2  No.3 (see next post) curves, even with their 0-4-0T starter sets nowadays.

 

Perhaps it's time to stop selling track that most of their models won't work on satisfactorily? 

 

John

 

(*) Chosen because that's the tighter radius on Peco Streamline curved points.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Dunsignalling
Correction

[PeterStiles]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

AIUI, Hornby supply No.2 curves even with their 0-4-0T starter sets nowadays.

Hornby supply 3rd radius curves in all their sets except for Santa's Express...

[Mr chapman]

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

If you use these as supplied (i.e. as a set) it's best to switch the inside couplers for something rigid.

 

Either magnetics or one of the Continental HO types (Roco in my case as they are easy to source and can be mixed with the longer Hornby copies to vary spacing if necessary, all-Roco in this instance). 

 

This makes the kinematic linkages behave as intended (tension-locks cannot insist on this 🙂) and you then only need to deal with whatever is on the outer ends. If any tend to stick, rubbing a soft pencil (I use a 6B, but minimum 4B) over the floor above it, will help things slide smoothly.

 

TBH, I think it would be a good idea if coaches sold in sets, like these, were provided with more appropriate internal couplings as standard, leaving it to the Rule One mob to fit tension-locks if they really insist on breaking up authentic formations!

 

John

I couple all my coaches in fixed rakes with something semi permanent. I was just testing them as supplied.

[3rd Rail Exile]

8 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I'm guessing you may still have some "heritage" No.1 curves?

Not personally - it's almost all flexitrack with approx 900 mm minimum radius curves, plus a variety of short and long Streamline turnouts. I wasn't saying I had a problem, but I was envisaging that a sizeable number of people might. 

 

I fully agree with your comments regarding the necessity of ensuring that kinematic coupling linkages are rigidly connected, and concur that set track which is too tight for current-spec models to traverse reliably should eventually phased out! But I don't think we're yet at a point where that is feasible...

[Dunsignalling]

11 hours ago, 3rd Rail Exile said:

Not personally - it's almost all flexitrack with approx 900 mm minimum radius curves, plus a variety of short and long Streamline turnouts. I wasn't saying I had a problem, but I was envisaging that a sizeable number of people might. 

 

I fully agree with your comments regarding the necessity of ensuring that kinematic coupling linkages are rigidly connected, and concur that set track which is too tight for current-spec models to traverse reliably should eventually phased out! But I don't think we're yet at a point where that is feasible...

But, until "they" stop making / selling new No.1 curved set-track, that point will never come!

 

Given that almost every model (with more than four wheels) that one can buy these days specifies "Minimum No.2 Radius, I'd suggest there'll be no better time to do so than right now.

 

It was pointed out earlier that even Hornby starter sets now come with No.3 Radius track, so making No.1 unavailable would prevent newcomers storing up future problems for themselves.

 

John 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Dunsignalling