No.73 Going backwards – the Hornby 52xx
I recently acquired one of Hornby’s 52xx tank engines to add to my fleet of ex GWR heavy good engines.
It is a good looking engine with some very fine detail. It runs forwards and backwards very smoothly
albeit at a prototypical slow speed. I
had to take my glasses off to study the handrails round the bunker – and yes
they are individual wires! I like the
full set of brackets on the rear of the bunker visible when using the engine in
reverse. However the footplate on my
model is not completely straight – possibly like the prototype! The footplate appears to be locked to the
bunker and side tanks by around eight plastic lugs – I can see me investigating
further – but it all looks very delicate!
I do sometimes buy things on impulse. I had been impressed by the preproduction
pictures of the model. However I did not
keep up with more recent correspondence and it came as a surprise to me to find
that the smokebox handles were moulded with the door, and that the buffers were
not sprung.
For comparison I have pictured my new Hornby 52xx alongside
some of my other ex GWR engines.
Bachmann 22xx (ROD)
versus Hornby 52xx
The Bachmann 22xx model dates back to Mainline times and I
think I am correct when I say that even the latest DC ready variants still have
the smokebox handles moulded integrally with the door. The detail on the 22xx is robust and the door
handles appear to me to be over heavy.
Bachmann 43xx (Split
chassis model) versus Hornby 52xx
One of my all time favourite engines is the 43xx Class. Again the Bachmann model is getting to be
dated. The lamp irons are robust but the
door handles are quite realistic, the top one being a separate moulding to the
bottom one, which is still integral with the door.
Bachmann St Edmund’s
Hall versus Hornby 52xx
The Bachmann model of St Edmund’s Hall is one of the newer
models and continues to use a separate moulding for the top handle. The lamp irons might be regarded as over
heavy?
Hornby Derwent Grange
versus Hornby 52xx
The Hornby Derwent Grange model is getting to be a little
dated but its introduction seemed to me to mark the start of some very good
super detailed models. The smoke box
handles were a completely separate moulding which did on occasions ‘go
walkabouts’. I did even wonder if the
handles were too thin!
Hornby 28xx versus
Hornby 52xx
My personal view is that the Hornby 28xx model marks a high
spot in both detail and performance. I
think the smoke box handles and the lamp irons are all about perfect.
Dapol County (with
added detail) versus Hornby 52xx
Readers of this Blog will remember that I recently posted an item on fitting wire smokebox handles to the old Dapol County. (I also fitted lamp irons, sprung buffers,
cab glazing and etched plates.) In the
view above I think the improved Dapol model compares very well with the latest
Hornby offering.
Dapol County with
added detail.
I have been most impressed with the Hornby 28xx model and I
must admit to feeling slightly cheated with the 52xx. Hornby in my opinion have taken a backwards
step with the detailing. We know that
our chocolate bars and our biscuits are all getting smaller as the prices go
up, so perhaps we should not be surprised that Hornby have started to back
track on expensive detail. It is quite fun
and cost effective to add detail to the old Airfix, Mainline and early Dapol
models – like my Dapol County. However I
am not so happy at the idea of purchasing sprung buffers and spending time on
adding proper smokebox handles to a model costing around £100.
Comments