Wright writes.....

[Dominion]

Tony referred to the need for "scifi" articulation to allow for tight curvature. I hope the Hornby designers also consider simple solutions too that are a fixed distance once set. Perhaps an adjustable gap, with a set screw, like some of the Bachmann loco to tender draw bars, or perhaps the ability to couple in 2 or 3 positions.  Some of the dynamic coupling solutions seem to give trouble under load or after reverse curves sometimes.

Tom

[robertcwp]

On 16/02/2022 at 17:05, Tony Wright said:

 

 

I was delighted to learn that the BR versions of these wonderful streamlined cars are being considered as well; meaning that the likes of the South Yorkshireman, Master Cutler, West Riding and Talisman (among others) can be accurately modelled. 

 

 

With the additional doors in the correct places, I hope.

[Tony Wright]

10 minutes ago, Dominion said:

Tony referred to the need for "scifi" articulation to allow for tight curvature. I hope the Hornby designers also consider simple solutions too that are a fixed distance once set. Perhaps an adjustable gap, with a set screw, like some of the Bachmann loco to tender draw bars, or perhaps the ability to couple in 2 or 3 positions.  Some of the dynamic coupling solutions seem to give trouble under load or after reverse curves sometimes.

Tom

It was Headstock (Andrew) who mentioned 'sci-fi' couplings to start with. 

 

I'll mention to Hornby's designers the possibility of a moveable, but 'fixed', articulated coupling between the internal ends of the artics. As you say, like some of the adjustable drawbars. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Just now, robertcwp said:

With the additional doors in the correct places, I hope.

Good evening Robert,

 

There's no need to hope - those extra doors will be incorporated; Hornby has all the drawings. 

 

The BR manifestations present more of a problem than the original Coronation ones, inasmuch as those extra doors must be fitted (though not immediately post-War) and all the underframe detail will be visible. From what I understand, that underframe detail will be incorporated in the pre-War cars, even though, from most viewing angles, it'll be invisible. 

 

Proper HD Gresley bogies are also being designed, for both the 8' 6" and the 10' varieties. 

 

I think the Cowlairs' rebuilds of the two Observation Cars are also under consideration. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Dominion]

This is the articulation approach I am using on a cheap and cheerful project in progress. The vertical nylon screws are in tapped holes in the bogie, so in a fixed position that suits my curves.  However, a slot, washer and nut would allow them to be moved closer or farther apart. It is the upside-down of the Mailcoach approach I guess. It exploits the slot in the old Hornby Gresley coach ends. They run well like this so far, with 8 cars behind them.

 

Fabulous news that they are designing proper HD bogies in 2 lengths.

[Ollie K]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

From what I understand, that underframe detail will be incorporated in the pre-War cars, even though, from most viewing angles, it'll be invisible. 

 

I find this astounding. All that finely moulded detail, deliberately (correctly) concealed. I suppose if they're going to have to tool for it on the post-war versions, it's a 'might as well' situation. Maybe they're damned if they do, damned if they don't - if the valenced cars didn't have the real-life underframe detail, someone would be fuming. Especially with prices being what they are. 

 

That story about Roy Jackson oft-retold on here not even fitting trailing wheels to his Pacifics on the basis they couldn't be seen when the locomotive was operating springs to mind. 

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Dominion said:

Tony referred to the need for "scifi" articulation to allow for tight curvature. I hope the Hornby designers also consider simple solutions too that are a fixed distance once set. Perhaps an adjustable gap, with a set screw, like some of the Bachmann loco to tender draw bars, or perhaps the ability to couple in 2 or 3 positions.  Some of the dynamic coupling solutions seem to give trouble under load or after reverse curves sometimes.

Tom

The "dynamic couplings" tend to work better with a fixed link between them, such as the Hornby/Roco coupler or the Bachmann "pipes". If the coupler itself is flexible it can't force the "dynamic" part from side to side properly.

[Dominion]

Agree.  I was also thinking of the new Bachmann V2 tender drawbar which must act as a fixed link but can still induce crabbing.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It was Headstock (Andrew) who mentioned 'sci-fi' couplings to start with. 

 

I'll mention to Hornby's designers the possibility of a moveable, but 'fixed', articulated coupling between the internal ends of the artics. As you say, like some of the adjustable drawbars. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

Not a criticism, but worth noting how the case of the 'sci-fi bogies' leaves me outside the mainstream and the orbit of the RTR manufactures. The 'sci-fi bogies' are a good example of this, because I don't need an extravagant design solution, that side steps but doesn't necessarily deal with the real problem. I would never need to produce such a complication, because I was taught that good track work is paramount before any stock starts to roll. Get the track right and everything else gets a whole lot easier.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Headstock

[Woodcock29]

1 hour ago, Dominion said:

Agree.  I was also thinking of the new Bachmann V2 tender drawbar which must act as a fixed link but can still induce crabbing.

That new Bachmann V2 drawbar is a diabolical thing in my view. I've recently received the LNER version. Apart from the fact that the gap opens up even further under load, it causes significant 'crabbing' of the tender with what I consider to be moderate loads, e.g. 9 coach mixed rake of Hornby/Kirk coaches. I've also found that twice it has led to the first coach, a Hornby BG derailing, which has not happened previously.

 

I'll need to change it when I make a range of other modifcations, none of which should have been necessary on a model of that price!

 

I'm really encouraged following Tony's visit to Margate! However, by the sound of where Hornby's at I don't expect to see the Coronation set until 2023. But we'll see?

 

Andrew

[Dominion]

I just inserted a piece of plastruct, 0.4mm thick, by 6.2 by 17something I seem to remember. Pictures on page 17 of the New V2 thread. Still working fine.

[robmcg]

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Rob,

 

During my two days at Hornby, I didn't see anything of the new 9F (to be fair, I didn't even ask about it). 

 

And, I'm sure you're right that any OO models of 9Fs, whether they be RTR or kits, will have an extended coupled wheelbase. I don't mind this, especially if the only way to tell is with a scale rule.

 

Nice picture, by the way. I think it's as good as anything I might achieve, especially from that low angle; perhaps even better. 

 

This is not a criticism of your picture, by the way, but that NEM pocket in the pony is gross. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thanks Tony, I won't show my large number of 9F photos since my post was mainly curiosity regarding the new Hornby version...   and of course many of my Bachmann versions are weathered.

 

Nobody appears to have noticed that I showed 92192 a page back paired with a BR1C Midland Region tender, a grave misdemeanour, my only excuse is that the Ebay seller offered the model at a very sharp price.

 

The compromises we make!

 

[DougN]

On the metric vs Imperial on timber sizing. I never have had to deal with a  "super foot" of timber (I cant even remember why that hides in my brain on this subject) I find the UK timber sizing curious. Here in Australia things like 4"x 2" is converted to 100x 50mm as the rough sawn size. This allows the "planing" or Dressing of the timber to bring it down in size to 90x 45mm. More related to model trains is the framing size we generally have is 42x 19mm in Pine which is 50x 25 rough sawn. My understanding was the rough sawn or OB (off Bench) was in the imperial and the dressed (DAR, dressed all round). So generally the size of timber of Dressed and OB is the same through out history of building and timber milling here in Australia.  When reading all the magazines over the years from the UK I have read framing made from 50x 25 metric... I have always raised suspicions... due to only having to do things here in Australia.  

 

Even the 8ft x 4ft boards, yes most of our sheet products are 2420x 1210 which allows for out of square and is a direct match to the imperial... Though the sheet is sold as 1200x 2400! 

 

As a left field item Australia is moving to more of a 600 increment on the sale of timber EG 600,1200,1800,2400,3000,3600,4200,4800,5400,6000. Though most timber is not 6000 long any more due to shipping! 

 

Australia moved to metric from 1971. Though in buildings as I tend to work I needed the knowledge of imperial measurements as older buildings tend to use these and it is convenient to be able to convert in ones head.  As a total aside My parents house in Mount Waverley architecturally designed in 1968 was a metric house (bricks 290x90x80mm high and room sizes) but the  architect had done the entire thing in imperial measurements! 

 

Interesting subject really and the reasons behind it...

 

One thing though for Mike... yes Australia does measure distance in hours travelled... eg Melbourne to Canberra 7hrs... Melbourne to Sydney 10hours, and watch out for the description that "Oh its just up the road" This can mean 10minutes or 18 hours! 

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

Not a criticism, but worth noting how the case of the 'sci-fi bogies' leaves me outside the mainstream and the orbit of the RTR manufactures. The 'sci-fi bogies' are a good example of this, because I don't need an extravagant design solution, that side steps but doesn't necessarily deal with the real problem. I would never need to produce such a complication, because I was taught that good track work is paramount before any stock starts to roll. Get the track right and everything else gets a whole lot easier.

'The 'sci-fi bogies' are a good example of this, because I don't need an extravagant design solution, that side steps but doesn't necessarily deal with the real problem. I would never need to produce such a complication, because I was taught that good track work is paramount before any stock starts to roll. Get the track right and everything else gets a whole lot easier.'

 

But that's my point in earlier posts, Andrew.

 

Nothing you build is expected to go over rubbish trackwork (laid on the floor!) and around Hornby's second radius curves (around 20"!). But, that's what Hornby's products are confronted with. The 'sci-fi' solutions do 'deal with the real problem', or, at least, mitigate it.

 

With your building skills, you have no need of RTR (neither do I, though building over 90 Mk.1 equivalents of Bachmann's examples renders that notion a bit of a lie). But, you (and I, and LSGC's builders, and LB's builders) are in a tiny minority.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

That new Bachmann V2 drawbar is a diabolical thing in my view. I've recently received the LNER version. Apart from the fact that the gap opens up even further under load, it causes significant 'crabbing' of the tender with what I consider to be moderate loads, e.g. 9 coach mixed rake of Hornby/Kirk coaches. I've also found that twice it has led to the first coach, a Hornby BG derailing, which has not happened previously.

 

I'll need to change it when I make a range of other modifcations, none of which should have been necessary on a model of that price!

 

I'm really encouraged following Tony's visit to Margate! However, by the sound of where Hornby's at I don't expect to see the Coronation set until 2023. But we'll see?

 

Andrew

Good morning Andrew,

 

Late this year is what I'm told will be the delivery date for the Coronation.

 

However (always one of those), it's not just 'where Hornby's at', nor where models railways in general is/are at, it's the ever-rising prices and supply chain problems which impact on everything; not just model railways. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

Thanks Tony, I won't show my large number of 9F photos since my post was mainly curiosity regarding the new Hornby version...   and of course many of my Bachmann versions are weathered.

 

Nobody appears to have noticed that I showed 92192 a page back paired with a BR1C Midland Region tender, a grave misdemeanour, my only excuse is that the Ebay seller offered the model at a very sharp price.

 

The compromises we make!

 

Good morning Rob,

 

You know, I never noticed!

 

So much for my observational skills!

 

Why not show some of your other 9F pictures? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Northmoor]

23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

Late this year is what I'm told will be the delivery date for the Coronation.

 

However (always one of those), it's not just 'where Hornby's at', nor where models railways in general is/are at, it's the ever-rising prices and supply chain problems which impact on everything; not just model railways. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I was at a Manufacturing and Electronics Show last week and had some interesting discussions with electronics suppliers.

 

One, who sub-contracts manufacture to China and Vietnam, said before the pandemic, a standard 20' container to the UK cost £2.5k.  The last one they'd booked was £18k (so over 600% increase in two years).

[SRman]

10 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

That new Bachmann V2 drawbar is a diabolical thing in my view. I've recently received the LNER version. Apart from the fact that the gap opens up even further under load, it causes significant 'crabbing' of the tender with what I consider to be moderate loads, e.g. 9 coach mixed rake of Hornby/Kirk coaches. I've also found that twice it has led to the first coach, a Hornby BG derailing, which has not happened previously.

 

I'll need to change it when I make a range of other modifcations, none of which should have been necessary on a model of that price!

 

I'm really encouraged following Tony's visit to Margate! However, by the sound of where Hornby's at I don't expect to see the Coronation set until 2023. But we'll see?

 

Andrew

 

Going back many years, I noted that the slope-sided tenders on Bachmann's SR N class 2-6-0s tended to crab under load, but this didn't seem to occur with the straight-sided tenders (which had other problems initially). The drawbar design was unique to the N class, and itself would not allow for stretching of the gap or crabbing due to any sideways movement of the drawbar, so the problem there was in the tender itself. I noted that these tenders had a lot of side-play in the leading and trailing axles. although we need to retain that in the centre axle. My solution for that was to add small pieces of plastic into the axleboxes at each end to eliminate the side-play completely. 

Not having seen the new V2 in the flesh, I can't say this will work for the tender on that, but it may be worth a look.

[zr2498]

32 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

Late this year is what I'm told will be the delivery date for the Coronation.

 

However (always one of those), it's not just 'where Hornby's at', nor where models railways in general is/are at, it's the ever-rising prices and supply chain problems which impact on everything; not just model railways. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I guess this might devalue my Coronation set from Golden Age Models - and after all the work I did modfying the wheelsets to reduce drag!

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

'The 'sci-fi bogies' are a good example of this, because I don't need an extravagant design solution, that side steps but doesn't necessarily deal with the real problem. I would never need to produce such a complication, because I was taught that good track work is paramount before any stock starts to roll. Get the track right and everything else gets a whole lot easier.'

 

But that's my point in earlier posts, Andrew.

 

Nothing you build is expected to go over rubbish trackwork (laid on the floor!) and around Hornby's second radius curves (around 20"!). But, that's what Hornby's products are confronted with. The 'sci-fi' solutions do 'deal with the real problem', or, at least, mitigate it.

 

With your building skills, you have no need of RTR (neither do I, though building over 90 Mk.1 equivalents of Bachmann's examples renders that notion a bit of a lie). But, you (and I, and LSGC's builders, and LB's builders) are in a tiny minority.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

I understand your point but your original question was, why don't you get involved with Hornby? I'm only trying to answer the question. Your points are probably doing a better job of answering your own question.

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

A couple of empirical points.

 

1. Bachmann have had a dynamic tender coupling under their SR N Class moguls for around two decades that has always seemed to work just fine. Why do it different on the V2?

 

2. The Close-coupling linkages under Hornby coaches also work fine, so long as one discards the tension-lock couplings and fits either a rigid link or couplers that form one when united.

 

For articulated coaches, a straightforward adaptation of the principle should be possible that enables "link + bogie + link" to function the way "link + couplers + link" currently do. There should be no need for any "New-tech" solution.

 

John

Edited February 18, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Barry Ten]

20 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

A couple of empirical points.

 

1. Bachmann have had a dynamic tender coupling under their SR N Class moguls for around two decades that has always seemed to work just fine. Why do it different on the V2?

 

 

There are any number of threads on RMweb about derailing N class tenders so I don't think the linkage was as problem-free as you remember. I believe Bachmann modified the design at some point.

[t-b-g]

5 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

A couple of empirical points.

 

1. Bachmann have had a dynamic tender coupling under their SR N Class moguls for around two decades that seem to work just fine. Why do it different on the V2?

 

2. The Close-coupling linkages under Hornby coaches also work fine, so long as one discards the tension-lock couplings and fits either a rigid link or couplers that form one when united.

 

For articulated coaches, a straightforward adaptation of the principle should be possible that enables "link + bogie + link" to function the way "link + couplers + link" currently do. There should be no need for any "New-tech" solution.

 

John

 

My experience of the coupling on the Bachmann Southern Moguls was that it was not fine at all. The design was such that if you put a heavy load on the coupling, it moved the tender sideways in relation to the loco, causing derailments. So it was fine on short, light trains but if you asked it to do some serious pulling, it just fell off the track, even on plain straight track. The layout mine worked on had long trains and gradients and the loco was unusable as supplied due to the constant derailing.

 

I ended up just taking them off and making a conventional hook and bar. It is surprising just how close you can couple a loco and tender and still have it go round fairly tight curves if you give a bit of thought to the design. You need something that can move easily from side to side as you get problems with a cab swinging out on smaller radius curves, so a fixed pivot at both ends of a drawbar is not so good but a nice wide bar on the back of a loco and a simple hook on the tender and you can get them round quite easily with the minimum of play, so the loco and tender move together, not looking like loco pulling a truck with a long three link coupling.

 

The manufacturers are faced with a difficult decision in designing models nowadays. They seem to want to provide a model that will satisfy both the more finescale modeller and the train set on the floor player. My preference would be for them to supply two couplings, a short and a long one, that simply plug in. They seem to want to invent a coupling that will give close coupling sometimes and at other times will be longer. Their attempts really don't fill me with confidence and cause more problems than they solve.

 

I have spent much time on a layout I work on (my only experience of RTR locos and stock) removing fancy arrangements that give lots of trouble and replacing them with simple ones that don't. 

[Dunsignalling]

13 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

There are any number of threads on RMweb about derailing N class tenders so I don't think the linkage was as problem-free as you remember. I believe Bachmann modified the design at some point.

After replacing the link on my first N with no improvement, I found the problem on mine to have been caused by inadequate side-play on the centre tender wheelset. The tender was rocking on that and allowing the outer sets to lift off the rails.

 

With that axle removed, the derailing issue disappeared, so I just filed a bit off the pinpoints to create a bit of slack. I've done the same on a number of other Ns for friends with similar success.

 

John

Edited February 18, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Tony Wright]

7 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

My experience of the coupling on the Bachmann Southern Moguls was that it was not fine at all. The design was such that if you put a heavy load on the coupling, it moved the tender sideways in relation to the loco, causing derailments. So it was fine on short, light trains but if you asked it to do some serious pulling, it just fell off the track, even on plain straight track. The layout mine worked on had long trains and gradients and the loco was unusable as supplied due to the constant derailing.

 

I ended up just taking them off and making a conventional hook and bar. It is surprising just how close you can couple a loco and tender and still have it go round fairly tight curves if you give a bit of thought to the design. You need something that can move easily from side to side as you get problems with a cab swinging out on smaller radius curves, so a fixed pivot at both ends of a drawbar is not so good but a nice wide bar on the back of a loco and a simple hook on the tender and you can get them round quite easily with the minimum of play, so the loco and tender move together, not looking like loco pulling a truck with a long three link coupling.

 

The manufacturers are faced with a difficult decision in designing models nowadays. They seem to want to provide a model that will satisfy both the more finescale modeller and the train set on the floor player. My preference would be for them to supply two couplings, a short and a long one, that simply plug in. They seem to want to invent a coupling that will give close coupling sometimes and at other times will be longer. Their attempts really don't fill me with confidence and cause more problems than they solve.

 

I have spent much time on a layout I work on (my only experience of RTR locos and stock) removing fancy arrangements that give lots of trouble and replacing them with simple ones that don't. 

Thanks Tony,

 

It might well be that the best answer to the close-coupling problem is to have two different lengths supplied (as you suggest). I'll certainly suggest it to the designer. 

 

I've used the 'hook & goalpost' system to couple tenders to locos; but, I prefer the system below............

 

 

This is 'my' preferred method (seen on an under-construction DJH A1). It's really simple, consisting of a hook made from .45mm nickel silver wire which is soldered centrally to the tender's soleplate between the first and second axles (this gives sideways flexibility through a slot in the tender front frame). The hook then engages into the eye of a split-pin, fitted through a central hole in the loco's dragbeam, which is held in tension by a standard coupling spring (the split-pin's ends being splayed to retain this). 

 

On tight curves, the spring just extends (it's strong enough not to be deflected by a heavy train's weight). 

 

The big advantage this system has over the simpler hook & goalpost is that the hook can be bent left or right to make sure a 'crabbing' tender always lines up with the loco.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.