Hornby’s New 4Vep Model – Comprehensive Review

When, on 10th January 2022, Hornby announced that it was to produce a revised version of their 4Vep models it was met with interest by the Southern Electric modelling community. The original 4Vep models, released in 2011 and 2014, were widely thought of as flawed due to a number of errors and adverse design and manufacturing decisions. Whilst these models have some extremely good and accurate elements – the model had the potential to be excellent – the negative issues are a significant detraction. My review of the original models can be viewed by clicking here (this will open in another window). The revised versions were originally due to be released in autumn 2022, but this and a number of subsequent anticipated delivery dates came and went. The models finally appeared, with very little warning, a week before the end of January 2024.

The first two revised versions do not replicate liveries covered by the original three BR models. Instead they cover the privatisation era, being R30106 4Vep unit 3514 in Southern green livery and R30107 4Vep unit 3455 in Stagecoach South West Trains livery. Are they an improvement?

Let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start….. A very good feature is the packaging. Over the past two decades packaging of models has become more and more snug to protect the delicate models during transit from China. Whilst they may arrive undamaged (but by no means not always) the models then have to be extricated with extreme care to avoid damage during handling. Damage when taking models out of their boxes is fairly common. Hornby have used a reduced amount of petro-chemical based packaging for these Veps. Within the box is a sturdy moulded cardboard tray (with a clear plastic lid) which holds the models firmly enough, but they are easy to take out. The three unpowered coaches are merely wrapped in polythene, the powered MBSO comes in a plastic cradle enclosed within a plastic sleeve of the sort used commonly for many model locomotives. I found there was no damage during transit and I managed to remove all vehicles easily and without damage. Whilst on the subject of packaging, the box art is misleading. The pictures of the train are probably digital renderings and fail to illustrate the obscured windows due to the motor bogie in the MBSO.

I bought three of these revised 4Vep models. I have two of the SWT version as I am intending to re-number one of them so I can run an eight car formation. The choice of Southern livery, smart though it is, is an interesting commercial decision. There was only ever one in these colours – 3514. So renumbering is not an authentic option and thus inhibits buying more than one. Dreadful though the colour scheme was, surely the Connex white and fading yellow scheme offers a lot more renumbering possibilities, thus more sales?

As one expects from Hornby, these models are crisply moulded and decorated to an excellent standard. They are impressive looking. I have not made an assumption that the accurate and good features on the original models continue on these revised versions. I have spent hours poring over these models, measuring with a ruler and micrometer, and checking against scale drawings and numerous general and detail photographs. I will go into details later but most of the flaws in the original models have been corrected. The models fare extremely well against drawings, published dimensions and photographs, excepting one important element – the cab front. Having already commented about the excellent standard of decoration – the colours are credible, attention to detail is fine and the livery applied accurately – it may be churlish to comment that I have found a small error on both versions of the bodies.

On the SWT DTCs the “FIRST” legend below the window light on the doors into the first class compartments is missing. The SN version correctly has overhead electrification warning stickers above the cab windows and unit numbers, near the corridor connection, however both cabs have these either side of the connection. There is much photographic evidence that at least one cab end was without an OHL sticker on the secondman’s side before withdrawal. On the SN version the door window bars are printed onto the glazing, and along with the door opening edge yellow highlight strips, mighty good they look too. The flush glazing is pleasingly flush with minimal prismatic effect.

On these models both the SN and SWT interiors are blue. SN Veps had a blue moquette from their Network SouthEast days called “Blue Blaze”. There is clear photographic evidence that 3514 did. Not all of  SWT Veps were re-upholstered with a bright red moquette and I have been informed from someone who has photographs of the unit that 3455 was one that retained Blue Blaze, so is also correct.

In the cardboard tray are also two small plastic bags of additional details. One contains cosmetic dropped buckeye couplings, a bar coupling to close-couple two units together and a small enclosure for a sugar cube loudspeaker. The other bag contains headcode blind stickers (of which more later).

The supplied instructions include a diagram of how to assemble the four vehicles in the correct order and this is aided by the four pin couplings being handed. The instructions also specify that the correct assembly is confirmed by the junction boxes on the inner ends of the cars being on the same side of adjacent cars. However, and I am writing from experience, this does not ensure that the DTC cars are on the correct ends of the train. I resorted to consulting my 2004 Platform 5 EMU book to ensure the correct formation. The correct formations are listed at the end of this review. On a positive note, the 4 pin couplers connect and take apart refreshingly easily, yet couple well. Much unlike some multipin couplers on other models. To assemble the train, my preferred technique is to place 4 sheets of paper towel (for protecting the train’s paintwork) alongside a long straight piece of track. I then place the cars in the correct order on their sides onto the paper towels with their roofs away from the track and the wheels close to the track. This is best done with the conductor rail being on the other side. The cars are then coupled together whilst on their sides. The entire train is then rolled upright onto the track, and then the wheels manoeuvred onto the rails.

I choose to remain a DC modeller. Thus I have been unable to test the DCC facilities. These models come “DCC Ready” with a 21 pin DCC socket in the vicinity of the guard’s compartment in the MBSO. Also in this vicinity is the mounting for a sugar cube loudspeaker for those using DCC Sound. I was able to inspect these accidentally. Whilst the bodies of the SWT MBSO are firmly fixed the body of the SN MBSO was loose and it came off the chassis when I lifted the coach by holding its body. The lower sides of the body are slightly splayed out so the fixing lugs on the body – which incidentally are very small – do not fit into their corresponding recesses in the chassis

On DC the internal lighting, headcode box illumination and high intensity headlights come on full soon after applying voltage – and very bright they are too. All lighting is with LEDs. Headcode box illumination is directional, white for the front cab in the direction of travel, red for the rear cab. Unless you change the headcode blinds when the train reverses this leads to a numeral headcode being red. On the other hand, the only blank headcode supplied is a double white blank, which when on a rear cab appears red. For my eyes, for a BR era unit they (excepting the headlights) are a bit too bright. The headcode box LEDs also shows up all too clearly how accurately you have applied the headcode blind stickers. Mine all leaked bright light around the outer edges. But maybe they are a poor fit anyway? Fortunately Hornby have incorporated switches to be able to toggle the headcode illumination on and off. A gentle tap to the roof above the cabs operates the switches and there does not need to be power to the model for the switches to work. I suspect these switches are so that there is no headcode illumination at intermediate cabs in a multi-unit formation, but I think the train looks better with such bright light, and its attendant leaks around the blind, off. Whilst on the subject headcode blinds, the supplied headcodes are self-adhesive stickers to be applied over the front of the windows. Whereas in reality the headcode blinds are behind the window glass. This is without doubt the tackiest part of these models, and in using the word tacky I am not referring to the adhesive used. This is definitely the ha’porth of tar issue on this new version. Headcode stickers are also used on the original models but criticism about them was eclipsed by worse issues. Headcodes should not still be represented by this method in 2024! I hate these stickers, but concede the cab ends look better, but not realistic, with them applied.

One of the most widely criticised issues with the original model is that the look of the cab front – the “face” as some describe it – is clearly wrong. Getting the “face” of a model right is extremely important because it is very visible and if wrong will detract from any good and accurate elements. The previous models appear to look “crosseyed”. On comparing to photographs, and measurements, the corridor connection on the cab front was found to be 1.6 mm narrow, which in turn resulted in the cab front windows and jumper recesses being 0.8mm to far in from the cab sides. In addition, the headcode window and high intensity headlamp (where fitted) are not the right size, the position of the corridor connection door is incorrect, and the corridor connection protrudes too far out.

The “face” of this new Vep model is much improved and is now credible. However, it is still not 100% right. The size of the cab windows and jumper cable recesses, and the width of the corridor connection, are correct and look of the corridor connection door and high intensity headlight is improved. However, the “face” still looks slightly “crosseyed”. When taking measurements of the cab front it was noticed that the window pillars between the cab sides and outer edges of the cab windows are still a fraction too thick. In addition, a slender vertical strip of the cab body’s front between the inner edge of the cab windows and the corridor connection is next to non-existent. I know some modellers made adaptations to their original Vep models by cutting off the corridor connection and substituting MJT’s correct width casting of same. Doing this also covered the thin strip of body between the cab windows and corridor connection, but the look of the front, whilst still not perfect, was improved. One wonders if Hornby’s corrective measures are similar.

Regarding the cab front corridor connection sticking out too much. Comparing with photographs it looks as if it is represented as extended for connecting to another cab. I have a number of broadside photographs of a Vep cab side and from them I have measured the amount the connection protrudes. Then for scaling I measured the width of the cab window. The ratio of measurements was pleasingly the same, within the tolerance of measurement, between all photographs. I then took the equivalent measurements from the model, compared the ratios and these reveal the corridor connection protrudes too much by 1.5mm for a cab not connected to another.

The headcode window, referred to only as LED’s (sic) in the instructions, is approaching 1mm too shallow, which also alters the look of the ends.

Conclusion – a definite improvement in the look of the cab front, but it is still visibly incorrect. I can live with the cab front of this new version, which I cannot for the original versions. But getting it right would have been even better.

A second widely criticised issue of the original models is that the corridor partitions in the DTC are moulded solid, i.e. without windows and doors. It looks dreadful. We were told at the time it was not technically possible to mould them. This was met with incredulity from those of us who had (and in some cases still have) Mk1 coach models by Tri-ang and Hornby Dublo from the 1960s with partitions with windows and doors. Why could something not be done in the 2010s that had been done regularly over the previous half a century? The final batch of the original versions – in BR blue and grey livery which emerged in 2014 – have this rectified. And much better they look for it too. The new version Veps have corridor partitions with windows and doors. Conclusion – good. A previous improvement has been maintained.

The third major issue with the original models is that Hornby had decided to place the pancake motor bogie in the large saloon of the MBSO vehicle, where it is very visible. Many of us thought it would have been better placed at the brake end where on an original Vep with a large guard’s and luggage section it would hardly be seen. On a refurbished Vep with a small saloon it would have had less visual impact. This small saloon regularly appeared from the outside to be dark during daylight. At the time we were told the pancake motor had to be in the large saloon so it would not obscure the small compartment. Hornby oddly appeared to have traded it being very visible on both versions instead of just in the refurbished version. In this new version Hornby have thankfully moved it to the other end and enclosed it in a black plastic enclosure, like used on Bachmann Mk1 EMUs. All windows from the guard’s door to the end of the small saloon appear blacked out, which I think has less visual impact. A definite improvement.

Some modellers also complain that the pancake motor bogie with traction tyres on the wheels of the outer axle lack sufficient traction. Back in 2011, and still in 2014, I had no layout. So all I could do was to test run these units on a circle of track. I did not notice any traction issues, other than the relative lack of refinement you get from a pancake motor bogie compared to a heavy flywheel drive. This new version has a diecast chassis for the MBSO – the vehicle weights a healthy 425 grams. But still unfortunately with a pancake motor bogie, now without traction tyres. I have only recently got to the stage of having a layout on which I can do extensive running. I have yet to try my old Veps again but with my new Veps I found they run strongly enough. Models usually require running in and their performance should improve. Straight out of the box, whilst some models run well, for all three of mine the running is unrefined. The Hornby specification says the pancake motor bogies have three pole skew wound motors, which appear to be a retrograde step because the original version have five pole skew wound motors. What I did notice is that all three of my new Veps are very noisy, perhaps the noisiest trains I have run for a very long time. This is mostly wheels on rail noise, but there is a slight growl emanating from the MBSOs. One wonders if DCC sound can be heard over this racket and if turned up enough to be heard it would probably (given the very low power of the sound system and extremely small loudspeaker) be distorting.

Conclusion? It is a shame about still using a pancake motor and even more so it only being a three pole one. However, Hornby do not appear to have an alternative, more refined, drive for this sort of train. For instance a below the window drive mechanism. To develop one would have put up the cost, and thus the price of this model. I do not think this model will ever be the smoothest or most responsive of runners, but it is sufficiently operable.

To complete the retro comparisons. On the original models the B5 bogies had either been assembled onto the wrong ends of the cars or, in the case of the B5 bogies with pickups, moulded incorrectly. This result was the yaw dampers were oriented the wrong way. On the new version bogies are correct. Conclusion – good, a necessary correction, which was partially done on the 2014 version, has been implemented.

Incidentally the bogies are made to 4mm scale width, not compromised for OO gauge, so the pickups align outside of conductor rail fitted to 16.5mm gauge (i.e. “OO/HO”) track.

The correct unit formations are as follows:
3455 – DTC 76388, MBSO 62206, TSO 70899, DTC 76387
3514 – DTC 76683, MBSO 62136, TSO 71018, DTC 76684

If you are also thinking of renumbering a SWT unit, it occurs to me that choosing a unit where only the last two numerals of the unit and car numbers need to be changed might be a ploy. However, it remains to be seen if the Tampo printed numbers can be removed easily and then if exactly matching transfers can be found and applied without carrier film showing. I have been appraising and testing these models, photographing researching, writing and producing this review for three days so I do not have much spare time remaining. Therefore I have not yet been through the entire Vep rolling stock list, but the first possibility I arrived at is:

3426 – DTC 76386, MBSO 62208, TSO 70898, DTC 76385.

On this quick look I also noticed that quite a few units starting with the same three numerals as 3455 were unfortunately Connex units.

Final conclusions. Objective measurements have picked up some slight but visible discrepancies on the cab fronts, and there are some, mostly minor, decoration inaccuracies. Otherwise these are sufficiently accurate and well-made models. Subjectively, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck – is this model a duck? Yes, but a slightly crosseyed duck! These are good, but still falling short of being excellent, models. It is a great shame about the headcode stickers and the pancake motor bogie. At today’s considerably well ahead of general inflation prices of model railways , if bought at a common discounted price they are reasonable value for money. I am happy enough to buy further versions in other liveries if they are produced.

Colin Duff. Modelling Officer. 31st January 2024
revised 1st February 2024