Hornby B1 Stembok (R3451)

Discuss model railway topics and news that do not fit into other sections.
muggins
Posts: 588
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:24 am

Hornby B1 Stembok (R3451)

Postby muggins » Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:25 pm

Is it realistic to expect that a new Hornby B1 should be as good a runner as my Hornby K1 is? Or are there marked differences between them that would affect the performance?

Bigmet
Posts: 8241
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:19 pm

Re: Hornby B1 Stembok (R3451)

Postby Bigmet » Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:47 pm

In principle they ought to perform very similarly. But there are some significant mechanical differences between them, the K1 has both a flywheel and smaller diameter wheels than on the B1; both factors helpful for drive smoothness.

I have had several examples of both to look at, some my own, others that are fellow LNER/ER modelling friend's property that came to me for running in, decoder fit and programming.

The K1's have all been exemplary runners as received, very smooth on 'vanilla' DC test from a dead slow crawl and effectively silent as the loudest noise was the wheels on the rail, with very good traction for the weight on the driven wheels. That all RTR models should be so good...
The B1's more variable as received. They all 'came good' with extended running, But none quite as good as the K1's dead slow, quietness, and traction. Fixed the traction with added weight, the dead slow with DCC, and the quietness is fully acceptable, just don't compare it to the K1, (D16/3, B12/3, J15...) Hornby have definitely raised their mechanism game over the past decade.

muggins
Posts: 588
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:24 am

Re: Hornby B1 Stembok (R3451)

Postby muggins » Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:43 am

Thanks once again, BIgmet. Knowing how good the K1 is, how much a good B1 would cost me and the fact that I'm DC, I think I'll remain B1-less.

Bigmet
Posts: 8241
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:19 pm

Re: Hornby B1 Stembok (R3451)

Postby Bigmet » Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:12 am

Of course, it is all very realistic! The B1 was a wartime design, and the design effort focussed on materials cost down, simplicity, steaming and power output, and well established refinements such as provision for axle bearing adjustment to take up wear were absent as a result.

That could be fixed once peace had broken out was the likely thought: but it never happened, and they ran to the end of their service rattling about once wear set in. By all accounts it had little effect on performance in service, provided the crew were willing to tolerate the mechanical roughness. (Cannot remember now where I read it, a GE section driver described nearly nodding off in the comfortable cab of the smooth riding Brush type 2 - the diesel which was the replacement for the B1 on that section - which in his opinion would never have happened on the footplate of the 'kicking brute' where you were positively shaken awake.)

Side note, Hornby's B17 which came out at much the same time as the B1: my experience may not be typical but all four I have seen were very good mechanically, smoother than the B1. (I bought one of mine with a Hornby decoder on board, and the mechanism outperformed this decoder for smoothness, doing better at dead slow with the decoder removed and running on resistance controller DC.) The mechanism layout is almost identical to that of the B1, save for the 6'8" wheels: quite properly so as the B1 owes much to the B17 design layout, with 6" smaller wheels and two cylinders instead of three,


Return to “General Model Railway Discussion / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests