robmcg Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 For those that haven't seen the posting, here's how well the Hornby model responds to a spot of judicious weathering. http://www.rmweb.co....post__p__615378 Personally I think it's a winner! Here's to more variations in the coming years Fantastic work, very nice indeed. I don't think you'd get that quality from a factory for less than a King's Ransom. Rob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Two more suitably work-stained examples to go with the excellent example overleaf. To say that the Hornby B1 'scrubs up well' is to make a gross understatement! Dave 15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) Wow! Who would have believed this standard of modelling from an RTR at around a hundred quid a few years ago? With very talented assembly of factory detailing and lovely weathering .... I especially like the first photo. With the pleasures of this particular Hornby model, the B1, in mind, I repaired a broken smokebox handle from the box, replaced a windscreen, and made this photo of an LNER version, with suitable rather clean Gresley non-gangway stock approaching a super-elevated curve at speed, the engine having just whistled to the photographer. Edited February 22, 2012 by robmcg 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markeg Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 To Max and Rob, those B1's look brilliant. both weathered and pristine. A question about the smoke box door on Bachmann and Hornby models, which is more correct, because they look a little different? I must get a couple of the books out to check. It won't matter in the end as I will buy the Hornby model. I have the old Bachmann LNER Roedeer, which I bought very cheaply hear £40apx/$60 in Australia and will flog it off once I get my hands on the new Hornby B1 but in BR this time. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 There were two types of smokebox door, Mark. Some Darlington-built locos had the same type of smokebox door as fitted to the K1 - easily identified by the hanging straps being mounted closer to the centre. Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Bigcheeseplant Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 There were two types of smokebox door, Mark. Some Darlington-built locos had the same type of smokebox door as fitted to the K1 - easily identified by the hanging straps being mounted closer to the centre. Dave. There were at least 3 types of door the third type being simular or the same as the B17 type, if you look at photos of the preseved 61264 it has this door while 1306 has the most common type, as as Dave states there was also the type with the close spaced hinges David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markeg Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Thanks Max and David for that. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 ... Who would have believed this standard of modelling from an RTR at around a hundred quid a few years ago?... Indeed. I cannot help but feel that the market for OO in decent quality could have been discovered from the 1970s; at which time it was perceptible that HO offerings in both Europe and North America had advanced beyond the best that the UK had seen in OO RTR by at least three recognisable cycles of incremental improvement since makers like Fleischmann and Marklin had been roughly on par with H-D in the 1950s. Still, not to complain, the good stuff is now arriving, and making my handbuilds look ever more sub-standard... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 .... Still, not to complain, the good stuff is now arriving, and making my handbuilds look ever more sub-standard... Oh, there is always great beauty in hand-built, or well-modified, or even simply enhanced models. My own efforts at enhancing ? pictures stems from my limited ability in actual modelling. Hand-built models always have an extra dimension of beauty. Which is not to denigrate the fine standards of production modelling now displayed by Hornby's B1. Rob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Rannoch Moor Posted February 26, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 26, 2012 Bought mine at Model Rail Scotland yesterday (thanks in part to a bit of a Max Stafford shaped red devil whispering "you know you want to" in my ear - thanks for pushing me over the edge Dave!) and I have to say he (Sir Harold Mitchell, but no disrespect to Dave!) is certainly gorgeous in the extreme. The weathering will be light when I get round to it, but the first challenge will be a conversion to EM. I am still in 2 thoughts - it might be nice to keep the Hornby drivers and replace the axles with something from Alan Gibson, but the one slight niggle I do have is the size of the boss around each crankpin. Therefore it may be worth replacing both wheels and axles and the coupling rods as well if the Comet or AG ones line up - otherwise the universal set from AG may be the only way ahead. Will need to think about that one - may be an opportunity to get my name in lights and offer to do an EMGS data sheet write up as well as a workbench post on the Web.... As an aside - anyone know why Alan Gibson couldn't make Glasgow? Gus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 RM, I too gave into temptation and purchased a Hornby B1 at Glasgow on Friday, like yourself it was Sir Harold Mitchell, appropriately of 65A! A quality model and I must say it really looks the part, especially the tender - more so than the already very good Bachmann example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timara Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Bought mine at Model Rail Scotland yesterday (thanks in part to a bit of a Max Stafford shaped red devil whispering "you know you want to" in my ear - thanks for pushing me over the edge Dave!) and I have to say he (Sir Harold Mitchell, but no disrespect to Dave!) is certainly gorgeous in the extreme. The weathering will be light when I get round to it, but the first challenge will be a conversion to EM. I am still in 2 thoughts - it might be nice to keep the Hornby drivers and replace the axles with something from Alan Gibson, but the one slight niggle I do have is the size of the boss around each crankpin. Therefore it may be worth replacing both wheels and axles and the coupling rods as well if the Comet or AG ones line up - otherwise the universal set from AG may be the only way ahead. Will need to think about that one - may be an opportunity to get my name in lights and offer to do an EMGS data sheet write up as well as a workbench post on the Web.... Gus One or two of us within the society are working on just that as it happens . My usual method is to reuse the entire set of valvegear and just replace the wheels (Gibson). No bushing of rods to do either. I suppose I might as well mention I've taken on a technical advisory role within the EMGS mightn't I..... Feel free to drop me a PM and I might just be able to assist! Cheers, Tim 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Rannoch Moor Posted March 2, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 2, 2012 Tim, Many thanks. I see Alan Gibson has a set available so I will get on the phone directly (day off today) and make a start once they arrive. Do you know if it's necessary to overlay the chassis or does it look OK without? When converting the Hornby Black 5 and Bachmann 4MT Tank the overlays certainly added to looks but also to the work and made setting up for decent running a little bit of a challenge (especially the pick-ups), but nothing insurmountable. Gus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Hat Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 There were at least 3 types of door the third type being simular or the same as the B17 type, if you look at photos of the preseved 61264 it has this door while 1306 has the most common type, as as Dave states there was also the type with the close spaced hinges David 61264 has the North Eastern Railway type smokebox door, that was just a type with the ratios reformatted for smoke box door from a typical NER standard design. Evidence of this can be seen by looking at the work from the Darlington drawing office, which did most of the work on typical workhorses of LNER construction, while others did the more flamboyant top link, or heavy freight engines. Darlingtons use of the NER style door, matches with engines such as the G5, J21, Q6, etc, which continued on into LNER designs like D49, J39, B1, B17, O1, which all were supported by the Darlington office and used standard parts like Cabs, smokeboxes, etc. Other doors, such as the type used by the K1, were fitted but were based on other design works. Other drawings had the doors looking different and works interpreted them differently so that B1s ended up with different smokebox doors. The standard B1 door, as fitted to Mayflower, was due to a private company winning the sub contract to build the new engines and as a result made its own fabrications for doors rather than use a conventional practice that already existed. As a result I know the next B1 Hornby is doing will feature a K1 style door, based on GNR and NER (J27) freight practice layout, which should be 61270. However, with different toolings here, I hope the door as akin to 61264 follows later. Use of the K1 style door might also be an indicator of what is likely to follow from Margate, given the possibility of using standard parts for a new locomotive. They will have the tender, pony truck, cab, and smokebox for the K1. Given how the O1 suddenly followed from the B1, a K1 seems highly likely using logical assumption that the trend of using standard parts, leads to a new model. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Bird Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 (edited) I've recently acquired a Hornby B1 and am duly impressed by its quality. However, when test running it with a rake of Hornby Gresley coaches, there is a tendency for the leading bogie of the first coach to derail. Close inspection shows that there is a small but definite height difference between the tender coupling and that of the coach. The tender lifts the coach and, despite the fact that the coach coupling is attached to the floor and not the bogie, there is enough lift to cause the flanges on the leading wheelset to ride over the top of the rail, epsecially when exiting from a curve. Has anyone else experienced this? Edited April 15, 2012 by Les Bird Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Mine is ok . have you checked it with other coaches? . If all the same, try a thin shim under tender coupling to make it lower. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Bird Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Mine is ok . have you checked it with other coaches? . If all the same, try a thin shim under tender coupling to make it lower. I've checked it against another Hornby Gresley but not against anything else. I'll try lowering the tender couipling and see what happpens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Bird Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I have now concluded that the derailment problem seems to be associated at least in part with the weight of the train. I have reduced the formation from six coaches to five and the problem has gone away. If longer trains are required, perhaps a little extra weight in the leading coach may be the answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Mine pulls ten without problem. Something isnt right with the Loco , coaches or track ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Brit70053 Posted April 24, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 24, 2012 I've recently acquired a Hornby B1 and am duly impressed by its quality. However, when test running it with a rake of Hornby Gresley coaches, there is a tendency for the leading bogie of the first coach to derail. Close inspection shows that there is a small but definite height difference between the tender coupling and that of the coach. The tender lifts the coach and, despite the fact that the coach coupling is attached to the floor and not the bogie, there is enough lift to cause the flanges on the leading wheelset to ride over the top of the rail, epsecially when exiting from a curve. Has anyone else experienced this? Hello Les, The problem as you describe it in post #565 seems similar to something I observed with a friend's Hornby Duchess pulling a heavy rake of Pullman Coaches on Sunday. His problem was with the tender coupling, the type where the NEM socket is a detachable part located by a triangular wedge into a recess of the same shape on the underside of the tender. The small tension lock coupler clips into the NEM pocket as normal. We found that the top and underside of the NEM socket were of slightly different thicknesses and as originally fitted 'thick side up' was setting the coupling too low for satisfactory coupling to the lead coach. Simply unplugging the tension lock coupler from the NEM socket, re fitting the socket 'upside down' that is thin edge against the base of the tender, and re fitting the coupler, cured the problem. I don't know what the coupling arrangement is on your B1, but if it is similar to the Duchess tender this may be a pointer for you. Good luck, John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Bird Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Thanks for the tip John, I'll have a look at the socket Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Can anyone assist in suitable B1 name(s) version prefered or new numbers to allow a rename of a Black LNER B1 Roedeer which I have just acquired. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Via LNER Forum I have established that 1040 onwards were Black lined Red of which only Roedeer was named. The first batch 8301 - 8310 renumbered from 1946 1000-1009 were also Black . Does anyone know ? Where they lined Red ? Again on the LNER Forum someone states that the earlier batch may have had different driving wheels and smokebox door to the Hornby version? thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted May 12, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 12, 2012 Hi Mick, According to the RCTS 'Green Book', the first 10 (8301-10) were initially in unlined black with 'NE' on the tenders. Before nationalisation all of them had this changed to 'LNER', but three were repainted green - 8304 in September 1945 (still with 'NE' on the tender), renumbered 1003 in January 1946 and lettered 'LNER' in June 1946, numbers and letters changed to unshaded yellow Gill Sans in February 1947. 1000 (ex 8301), repainted green at Doncaster in September 1947, unshaded Gill Sans insignia. 61002 repainted green with 'BRITISH RAILWAYS' on tender at Cowlairs in April 1948. Hope this helps, Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Thanks for answer. I will go for a 1041 onwards version onwards at least it will save buying a nameplate !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now