Hornby vs Bachmann Standard Cl 4 4-6-0 comparison

[Tony W]

I will shortly be purchasing one of these for conversion to P4 using a Comet chassis. The trouble is, I can't decide which one to get! Both appear to be very good models but when they first came out I dont remember seeing any comparisons of which was the better model. Personally I think the Hornby has the crisper detail on it but doesn't have any lower firebox, ie below the footplate. Does that mean that Hornby has compromised the dimensions of the firebox above the footplate to disguise this? The chimneys are quite different and I suspect that neither profile is spot on although the Bachmann looks very similar to the Standard V.

I almost feel guilty asking for peoples views on this in the first place as it shows how much we really are spoilt for choice for such models. However, if you don't ask the question you don't get the info. Apologies if this topic has been discussed elsewhere. If it has it passed between my ears without stopping!!

Any info/ advice gratefully received.

Tony

[Re6/6]

Hi Tony

Some useful debate on the old RMweb here http://www.google.com/cse?cx=006871480530319809890%3A4lvreqxvzgk&ie=UTF-8&q=bachmann+hornby+standard+4+MT&sa=Search+Old+RMweb+with+Google

Regards

John

[craig_whilding]

There we go Tony, knew it was on the old forum somewhere and I didn't even have to do the search . Good work John edit: Oh you cheated, i've now read the new rmweb post!

My point to Tony on Monday was that the Hornby printing of the lining is better though the firebox may be compromised to narrow a bit more than it should.

[Captain Kernow]

Did you reach any conclusions and make the purchase, Tony?

[johnWM]

Above the footplate both fireboxes look good to me.
Below the footplate both look odd because neither hornby or bachman could get a full width firebox between 16.5mm gauge wheels.
Both had to compromise but have done it in different ways.
Bachman have gone for a step in the width of the firebox that follows the curve of the wheels. In photos to me this looks very peculiar.
http://www.bachmann.co.uk/image_box.php?image=images1/branchline/31-115.jpg&cat_no=31-115&info=70&width=650&height=254
http://www.bachmann.co.uk/pdfs/4mt_4-6-0.pdf
shows how bachmann have done it (see page 2)
Hornby took the view that putting a single horizontal step in width at the foot board height would be less obtrusive. It does show up less on photos, so Hornby's strategy seems to have worked.
http://www.hornby.com/steam-locomotives-129/r2714/
shows the hornby version, but it isn't that obvious even in close up.
http://www.semgonline.com/steam/std4-460_01.html
for the real thing.
Comets chassis does not include the lower firebox sides so this would need fabricating in either case.

[grovenor-2685]

Comets chassis does not include the lower firebox sides so this would need fabricating in either case.

There looks to be a fair chance that the Bachmann lower firebox sides will fit the new frames with the new frames hiding the step, while the Hornby version will definitely need new parts or the existing sides cutting off and respacing if the detail is OK.
Regards
Keith

[Tony W]

Tim

After I read athe correspondence that John had directed me towards I was non the wiser as there really didn't seem to be a consensus of opinion. Most people seemed to think that the detail above the footplate was finer on the Hornby (which I totally agree with but to be fair to Bachmann we are splitting hairs here), whilst the Bachmann model had a better chassis. However, I am not really interested in below the footplate as I will be putting a Comet chassis underneath it and therefore I went for the Hornby model. Its daft really but I always wanted a model of 75033 (the Bachmann model) as I've got a photo of myself murdering a packet of crisps next to the prototype at the end of Colwyn Bay station in about 1960, so it would have saved a job renumbering, but that loco wouldn't be suitable for Slattocks.

The sacrifices we P4 modellers have to make in pursuit of accuracy!!

Tony

[dcockling]

I've got a photo of myself murdering a packet of crisps next to the prototype at the end of Colwyn Bay station in about 1960
Tony

Hi Tony,
I'm sure that we'd all like to see that picture

All the Best
Danny

[Tony W]

I'm sure that we'd all like to see that picture

Hi Danny

I'm not proud! I'm the handsome one on the left, the other is my brother. The photo is dated 16th August 1959 which makes it 12 days away from my 3rd birthday. Fortunately the good Lord gave me the ability to remember things from my early youth and I recall the photo being taken. My Dad wanted me to stand next to my brother but I had already started to take a keen interest in railways and I'd noticed the signal to my left was raised which mean't that that big black monster was about to depart, so I was going nowhere near it. What you don't know is that I started out behind my Dad but he was determined to get a shot of the two of us before the train departed. I was having none of it but was bribed successfully with the packet of crisps to at least move in front of the camera. If you notice I'm not interested in the camera. I'm making sure I'm ready to run as soon as the driver turns to blow the whistle!

Regards

Tony

75033 at Colwyn Bay 2.jpg