class T9 chassis rot

[Bigmet]

Quite what the long term developments will be there, it is wait and see. Lyndon Davies - the man concerned - has to his credit made it clear that he wants to repatriate the manufacture of small cast metal based toy manufactures; and has had a working lifetime career to date in this industry. He's no random choice to run Hornby, drawn from whichever managment school is in fashion this week.

[D605Eagle]

I think with the falling pound returning model manufacturing to the UK is looking more favourable. Little Loco Company who built the O gauge class 15 make really high quality models at a much better price than heljan, plus they gave us (C15PS) a very large donation out of the profits of the sales. So the evidence is there. I believe that Dapol were making mutterings about bringing more production to their Crich workshop but are severely limited by its size.
I guess the big question is as far as Hornby are concerned, would it make any difference if the castings were made here? After all most the raw materials for the Mazak would have to be imported as we don't mine much in the way of metals anymore, so would we still have the same quality control issues?

[GWR_fan]

.................................Now there's a problem for Hornby, there's no simple recourse to the manufacturing partner for replacement parts made on their watch: this operation no longer exists. (I have no idea of whether there is any further recourse possible under Chinese law, but I'd guess not.) So Hornby are going to have to foot the bill, if there are to be replacements. Difficult to do until operating profitably...

If a cottage industry like Peters Spares can source/manufacture replacement parts then it is time that the company that has been taking our money for years did something to show their appreciation of our custom. Simply ignoring the issue which they have done with the T9 and no doubt the crumbling 9F and Merchant navy bogies and most likely a miriad of other failures does not indicate a willingness to correct their faults. Regardless of whom actually made the parts, Hornby is ultimately responsible to correct the problems. Even with the release last year of a class 31 loco they were still claiming no spares were available for a replacement chassis. Bachmann are apparently replacing N class footplates when spares are available, not just washing their hands.

I am not after warranty repairs just a simple if there is a problem then admit to it and ensure that parts are available that do the job intended, not simply crumble away to dust. Remember that Hornby did a T9 production run last year and yet other than wheelsets and power pickup plates, basically nothing else is available.

[Peterm]

Bigmet. The way I see it ,(not necassarilly right) is that it's a bit of a horse and cart problem.

[Peterm]

... This company is really not helping itself by destroying peoples trust in their products and I really think they need to step up and put things right if they want people to support them in the future.

I imagine the T9 mechanism problem, (which I would summarise as an intrinsically weak design that has been manufactured with a significant materials defect) will be 'somewhere' on the long to do list that the new CEO at Hornby will compile.

Straight up, and in my opinion only: it is not going to be addressed as a top priority, because those slots will be fully taken with actions to restore the company to stable profitability, now that a refinancing deal has been achieved. (Colourful analogy: When the ship is rapidly sinking because there are huge holes below the waterline, repair of damage to deck T9's cocktail bar is postponed with no date for work to commence.)

There's a problem from a business perspective. The first and well known mazak rot incident in Hornby's China manufactures was with the Brush type 2 (30/31) diesel. This was manufactured by the Sanda Kan operation, at the time comfortably the largest manufacturer of model railway product in China; well respected for supplying several other brand names in Europe and North America, with a well established rep for good quality built up over decades. This contractor was not a cost cutting back street shop by any stretch. Hornby were able to do the right thing in supplying replacements for these failed mechs, by the nature of the contract with Sanda Kan, which was clearly responsible for the defect: they produced the replacement parts under the terms of the contract.

The T9 was also a Sanda Kan production, introduced towards the end of Hornby's partnership with that operation, which has now been wound up and closed. Now there's a problem for Hornby, there's no simple recourse to the manufacturing partner for replacement parts made on their watch: this operation no longer exists. (I have no idea of whether there is any further recourse possible under Chinese law, but I'd guess not.) So Hornby are going to have to foot the bill, if there are to be replacements. Difficult to do until operating profitably...

I should have quoted this in my last post.

[Bigmet]

... I believe that Dapol were making mutterings about bringing more production to their Crich workshop but are severely limited by its size...

They just installed a pretty hefty piece of injection moulding kit. Once you have the tooling, IM production on automated equipment is pretty low cost. Some will remember that the first Heljan products sold in the UK, the Nannestad family (who almost have toolmaking as their hobby!) tooled and produced the mouldings of bodyshells etc in their Denmark facility, contracted out manufacture of the chassis in China, and shipped these to Denmark for final assembly. They have moved away from this now, but it showed very clearly what is possible.

... I guess the big question is as far as Hornby are concerned, would it make any difference if the castings were made here? After all most of the raw materials for the Mazak would have to be imported as we don't mine much in the way of metals anymore, so would we still have the same quality control issues?

It is just a matter of tight process control, and there's no mystery about it. The zinc alloys are in free supply and widely used in numerous industries still knocking out parts in the UK for automotive, household wares, and so on.

Regardless of whom actually made the parts, Hornby is ultimately responsible to correct the problems...

They certainly are. When they will have the capacity to analyse the situation and make the required parts, would be the question for me. (I should think it's fire fighting mode inside Hornby at the moment.)

I really don't know much personally about what Hornby product has failed in the way of mazak rot, beyond the well reported Brush 2 and T9; because despite a slew of Hornby purchases over the past dozen or so years, (since they started knocking out product suiting my interest from about 2004) there hasn't been a problem on what I have purchased as yet.

Those old enough that are likely to have shown the problem if present: 08, 7MT, 7P, 8F, A3, A4, B1, B17, L1, N2, O1, Q1.
Younger specimens that are 'wait and see': B12, D16, J15, J50, K1.
All these models are on the layout in an unheated building, and it is cold temperatures that accelerate mazak rot. If there's no trouble after seven winters, I reckon they are probably OK.

I am actually a beneficiary of mazak rot! I have bought several failed Brush 2 mechanisms s/h, and use the drives - which all still work really well - with different bodies, mostly Airfix Brush 2 bodies which look way better than Hornby's in one critical respect. (I didn't buy the Hornby Brush 2 because it offended by its appearance, the cab side windows are WRONG! and that makes the loco look like a BRCW type. Having stood on the platform watching the dear old ped rolling in more times than I can remember, a model that didn't look right was not a goer...

I may have now worked out a way to correct this, and hopefully have a suitable slightly damaged body coming on which to try out the process. Be nice if it works as the overall refinement of the Hornby body is very good, and the resulting model should be most pleasing.

[Bufferstop]

If you have suffered this problem, and you are intending to visit the Warley show this weekend, take the second right as you enter the hall and stop at stand A18, then bend some ears. You shouldn't be able to miss the stand as it has a full size tank engine adorning it. Past representations and appeals to their management, will have gone out of the door along with the old team.

[Bigmet]

That's a good idea. Proof positive that you buy the product, and a polite attitude will help. Ideally, have a letter with you giving name and address and description of the problem that you (hopefully) were able to show someone on the show stand. (Anyone who has worked a commercial show will know about the blizzard of information that comes in from customers: those who provide some easily used documentary input are very welcome indeed.)

[Mountain]

I suppose anyone who decides to put the effort in and make their own chassis, that there will be plenty of cheap bodies for sale. :/

[GWR_fan]

I suppose anyone who decides to put the effort in and make their own chassis, that there will be plenty of cheap bodies for sale. :/

Alas, wishful thinking. Whenever a recent super detailed body appears on evilbay I am sure that there must be a gold ingot hidden inside given the prices sellers demand.

[Bigmet]

That's a direct function of lack of spares. Whereas mechanism spares supplies from manufacturers are poor and intermittent, body shell spare supplies are to all intents non-existent. (There's a rare exception going on at the moment, with Dapol issuing repacement bodies for the incorrectly liveried batch of DRS class 68s; not spares supply as such, but it may generate some...)

[PanzerJohn]

Apols if posted before,

Peters Spares are doing cast brass replacement motor mounts

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Peters-Spares ... Sw-QZZzksz

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hornby-X9945- ... SwhvFZHXQ6

[GWR_fan]

Apols if posted before,

Peters Spares are doing cast brass replacement motor mounts

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Peters-Spares ... Sw-QZZzksz

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hornby-X9945- ... SwhvFZHXQ6

The brass replacement is an excellent product however, the stock rear motor mount is a fragile casting and basically a waste of time. On all of my six T9 greyhounds (five purchased new from dealers) the rear mount was broken upon receipt of the items, leaving the motor free to move about. Ideally, the rear mount should be an injected engineering plastic and not a fragile casting.

I will eventually replace the main motor mount/gear retainer and glue the motor down (minus the rear mount) once my blood pressure returns to a more healthier level after the frustration these locomotives have caused me.

[PanzerJohn]

It could be that at the factory they have been overtightened causing them to break, it may be worth buying a replacement bracket, they are cheap enough, and seeing if careful fitting does the job.

[Oxley]

For the rear motor mount I laminated a couple of pieces of plasticard and trimmed to shape.
Then drilled appropriate sized holes for rear motor bearing and wires and for the screw to mount it to the chassis.
Just have to be careful to get the holes in the right places.