New Hornby 14xx

[Ian Hargrave]

So you are disagreeing with the facts?

The Hattons/DJM 48XX is still too tail heavy whatever you think.

It is miles better than the Airfix model but IMHO DJM missed a trick. If the front of the loco had been loaded more it could have balanced forward of the trailing drivers, which would move it's haulage capabilities from moderate to good.

The Airfix one in comparson is poor. (both mine have plain drivers.)

Even my grossly tail heavy K's one is better, mainly due to the extra total weight of the whitemetal body. (it's running quality however............... )

 

Keith

Just to be pedantic,I did say your theory might be fine...or am I mistaken ? Be careful of quoting facts at me because the one fact that I am 100% certain of is that they work perfectly well for me on Peco Code 100 ballasted,properly and professionally installed on two linked baseboards with curves and shallow gradients on DC analogue..tail heavy or not....and that one fact is all that matters .You can argue the toss about tails and tops until the proverbial cows come home but all that matters to me is that ,guess what ? It works and looks the part.

 

OK?

[IamDaniel]

Ran my Warley 14xx today. I've not got a DCC layout and the layout is quite long, spanning two rooms, going across the stairwell via a suspension bridge. It's at the limit of a controller without needing booster cables.

 

Near enough to halfway around, there is a small incline and my 14xx could just about manage two Hornby Mk1 Parcel coaches going forwards. Going backwards, it pulls them around the layout without fuss.

 

For the last half-hour or so, I've been running it around with a couple of wagons and one parcel coach, which seems to be fine.

 

As I live quite close to the old Tiverton branch, the wagons are both for Exeter registered companies. What would the best coach be though? A Collet? An autocoach? A regular Mk1? Choch/cream I'm guessing.

[melmerby]

From GWR Rule Book General Appendix 1936:

The max loading for an 0-4-2T was 168 tons up to a 1:100 gradient, above that it reduced, incrementally to 72 tons for a 1:40 gradient.

 

N.B.

The plated weight of auto trailers varies from about 21 tons for the lightest up to 33 tons or so for 70' wood panelled one, so a 48XX should be able to (in real life!) haul between 5 & 7 (empty) coaches on the level or on an up to a 1:100 gradient.

 

There is also mentioned that on mixed trains non-passenger carrying vehicles may in certain circumstances be formed behind the vehicle with the brake (i.e the passenger coach) but the continuous brake should be operating and the non pass vehicle should be coupled to the coach with a screw coupling.

If more than a certain number of non-passenger vehicles are carried a Brake Van must be attached at the rear.

 

Plenty more in the book to read but quite complicated at times!

 

Keith

[Quarryscapes]

Once more I will trot out 5801 on a train of 4 mixed bogie vehicles along the Mid Wales line, steepest gradient 1in 60

Edited December 4, 2017 by Quarryscapes

[miles73128]

Ran my Warley 14xx today. I've not got a DCC layout and the layout is quite long, spanning two rooms, going across the stairwell via a suspension bridge. It's at the limit of a controller without needing booster cables.

 

Near enough to halfway around, there is a small incline and my 14xx could just about manage two Hornby Mk1 Parcel coaches going forwards. Going backwards, it pulls them around the layout without fuss.

 

For the last half-hour or so, I've been running it around with a couple of wagons and one parcel coach, which seems to be fine.

 

As I live quite close to the old Tiverton branch, the wagons are both for Exeter registered companies. What would the best coach be though? A Collet? An autocoach? A regular Mk1? Choch/cream I'm guessing.

Ran mine today as well. It's very simple. The inside driver is sitting too high in the chassis, in effect creating a 2-0-2. The traction tyre’d driver is not actually in contact with the railhead. I would think that’s a generic issue with this chassis and impossible to resolve. Lovely model apart from that!

 

[The Johnster]

If the rear drivers are sitting too high and not touching the rail, raise the track level.  Oh, hang on a minute...

 

Possible solutions:- 

 

1) File the axle channels of the other two axles until all are riding at the same height, in which case the loco will be sitting a little too low over the track, or,

 

2) Pack the rear driver channel until all are riding at the same height, in which case the loco may be sitting too high!  I would suggest brass tube of an appropriate external and internal diameter cut in half lengthways for this, but am speaking theoretically as I have never actually done anything like this.  It might be possible to remove the wheels and place the brass tube over the axle as a sleeve.  In any case you'll have to ream the channel out for it to fit.

 

This is really too much fuss for a cheapo loco; by the time you've costed the work including a rate for your time and allowed for the operating that you couldn't do while you were doing this, you can afford a Hatton's!

 

This is why it was important for H to get this loco right, and they've shot themselves in the foot with an unreliable chassis.  Apparently some models work fine, which makes it a quality control issue.  Railroad means it is acceptable to produce a less finely detailed model to save production costs, but it must run properly!

[melmerby]

 

This is why it was important for H to get this loco right, and they've shot themselves in the foot with an unreliable chassis.  Apparently some models work fine, which makes it a quality control issue.  Railroad means it is acceptable to produce a less finely detailed model to save production costs, but it must run properly!

What exactly have Hornby changed on this latest release?

 

Cheers

 

Keith

[adb968008]

If the rear drivers are sitting too high and not touching the rail, raise the track level.  Oh, hang on a minute...

 

Possible solutions:- 

 

1) File the axle channels of the other two axles until all are riding at the same height, in which case the loco will be sitting a little too low over the track, or,

 

2) Pack the rear driver channel until all are riding at the same height, in which case the loco may be sitting too high!  I would suggest brass tube of an appropriate external and internal diameter cut in half lengthways for this, but am speaking theoretically as I have never actually done anything like this.  It might be possible to remove the wheels and place the brass tube over the axle as a sleeve.  In any case you'll have to ream the channel out for it to fit.

 

This is really too much fuss for a cheapo loco; by the time you've costed the work including a rate for your time and allowed for the operating that you couldn't do while you were doing this, you can afford a Hatton's!

 

This is why it was important for H to get this loco right, and they've shot themselves in the foot with an unreliable chassis.  Apparently some models work fine, which makes it a quality control issue.  Railroad means it is acceptable to produce a less finely detailed model to save production costs, but it must run properly!

Option 1 is what i’m considering.

 

Option 2 i think is a non starter, the traction tyres wheel is a geared axle for the motor, if it’s lowered it may fail to make contact with the motor gears and so not move at all !

 

It’s only off by a fraction, probably 0.5mm if that, so filing down isn’t a big job or a notable impact.

I’ll know more when I look at it next week, I have an airfix and an earlier Hornby one as point of reference.

[Legend]

What exactly have Hornby changed on this latest release?

 

Cheers

 

Keith

The chassis has been reworked compared to previous release. there are no brass bearings on this, just square cut outs. it appears that at least in some cases the loco is operating as a 2-0-2 instead of an 0-4-2 and significantly its the traction tyred wheels that are making little or no contact with the rails, which accounts for poor pulling ability.

[Fireline]

The chassis has been reworked compared to previous release. there are no brass bearings on this, just square cut outs. it appears that at least in some cases the loco is operating as a 2-0-2 instead of an 0-4-2 and significantly its the traction tyred wheels that are making little or no contact with the rails, which accounts for poor pulling ability.

 

Maybe I've missed something, but I have never seen brass bearings on a 14xx from Hornby, Dapol or Airfix. They were a staggeringly simple arrangement of two slots and two axles, from what I've seen. Oh, occasionally someone remembered to put some gears in there, too....

[adb968008]

I see the warley 1450 has made it to ebay.. £110.

 

https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hornby-R3578-0-4-2T-14XX-WARLEY-50TH-ANNIVERSARY-1450-LIMITED-EDITION-NEW/152815988134?hash=item23948aeda6:g:tSIAAOSwpvZaJpwo

[railroadbill]

From GWR Rule Book General Appendix 1936:

The max loading for an 0-4-2T was 168 tons up to a 1:100 gradient, above that it reduced, incrementally to 72 tons for a 1:40 gradient.

 

N.B.

The plated weight of auto trailers varies from about 21 tons for the lightest up to 33 tons or so for 70' wood panelled one, so a 48XX should be able to (in real life!) haul between 5 & 7 (empty) coaches on the level or on an up to a 1:100 gradient.

 

There is also mentioned that on mixed trains non-passenger carrying vehicles may in certain circumstances be formed behind the vehicle with the brake (i.e the passenger coach) but the continuous brake should be operating and the non pass vehicle should be coupled to the coach with a screw coupling.

If more than a certain number of non-passenger vehicles are carried a Brake Van must be attached at the rear.

 

Plenty more in the book to read but quite complicated at times!

 

Keith

Really interesting about make up of mixed trains, and also the max loading for a 14xx, thanks for that.

Edited December 5, 2017 by railroadbill

[railroadbill]

I got an Airfix 14xx in the early 1980s (didn't run that well). When I had a permanent layout I dug it out again (some years ago now) and with some tinkering got it to work ok.  I was inspired to run an 0-4-2T (plus 2 coaches) by coming across this again on youtube.

 

 

Being of a certain age.... 

 

Still a brilliant little film, imho

 

cha cha cha

Edited December 5, 2017 by railroadbill

[DKGL]

Option 1 is what i’m considering.

 

Option 2 i think is a non starter, the traction tyres wheel is a geared axle for the motor, if it’s lowered it may fail to make contact with the motor gears and so not move at all !

 

It’s only off by a fraction, probably 0.5mm if that, so filing down isn’t a big job or a notable impact.

I’ll know more when I look at it next week, I have an airfix and an earlier Hornby one as point of reference.

Having purchased and just tried on a test track that the chassis worked, I went about and detailed the body, so no chance of returning. I then had a look at what needed to be rectified, in order that the center wheels made contact with the track. I opted for option 1 above, but only on the rear wheels. Only requires a small amount of filing. I used a round needle file, and had to reassemble a few times until the fit was correct. Also shortened the pick ups on the back wheels. The other ones only need to be slightly bent forward. Make sure all of these are forced outward, to make good contact with wheel backs.

Now, for €50, another addition to the fleet. Should I have to do it ? NO, but as I was unable to return it, was left with no option. Now it runs like a dream.

I have 2 of the Airfix 14XX's, from the 80's. I have had to remove the motor from one, which now runs attached to an Autocoach, fitted with a Tenshodo bogie. The second one, is still running perfectly. Also, both had the wheel sets (with traction tyres) replaced.  

Anyway, just found my Xmas prezzie, hidden in a wardrobe. Hattons 48XX !!!! Better not say I found it. Might get returned.

[The Johnster]

Nice to hear something positive about this loco, and I must say that the idea of filing down the axle channel for the trailing wheels to bring the centre drivers into contact with the rail hadn't occurred to me.  I had imagined the process as involving a bit of trying out for fit.  If you have been able to do this without making the model sit back on the chassis, I.e, keeping the footplate level, kudos, sir!  It is very good value for money even if one has to do a bit of fettling to get the best out of it, so long as one understands prior to purchase what the fettling involves,

 

Also encouraging to hear of old Airfix versions still running well despite their poor reputation, as these often turn up very cheaply on eBay, though I would be reluctant to source a loco there as it seems likely to me that the owners are trying to rid themselves of bad runners.

 

OTOH I had a bargain some months ago (at my local shop, Lord and Butler, not on eBay) in the form of a s/h Hornby 2721, which was being sold for £35.  The test track in the shop showed a loco that ran like a 3 legged dog with legs from 3 different dogs, one going the other way, and Peter Lord went into the back of the shop to find me another one.  No luck, and he said he'd have to throw the model out as it was unsaleable; I offered him £10 for it 'as seen' and was a little dismayed at the eagerness with which it disappeared from my hand into the hungry till, but a 'deep clean' of a crud clogged chassis has given me a good little runner on the latest type of Hornby chassis; a bit of cosmetic work and a repaint and it's a tolerable little model for an occasional turn on the workmen's service.  Bad running s/h is not necessarily the world's worst thing!

[Coryton]

Nice to hear something positive about this loco, and I must say that the idea of filing down the axle channel for the trailing wheels to bring the centre drivers into contact with the rail hadn't occurred to me.  I had imagined the process as involving a bit of trying out for fit.  If you have been able to do this without making the model sit back on the chassis, I.e, keeping the footplate level, kudos, sir!  It is very good value for money even if one has to do a bit of fettling to get the best out of it, so long as one understands prior to purchase what the fettling involves,

 

Also encouraging to hear of old Airfix versions still running well despite their poor reputation, as these often turn up very cheaply on eBay, though I would be reluctant to source a loco there as it seems likely to me that the owners are trying to rid themselves of bad runners.

 

OTOH I had a bargain some months ago (at my local shop, Lord and Butler, not on eBay) in the form of a s/h Hornby 2721, which was being sold for £35.  The test track in the shop showed a loco that ran like a 3 legged dog with legs from 3 different dogs, one going the other way, and Peter Lord went into the back of the shop to find me another one.  No luck, and he said he'd have to throw the model out as it was unsaleable; I offered him £10 for it 'as seen' and was a little dismayed at the eagerness with which it disappeared from my hand into the hungry till, but a 'deep clean' of a crud clogged chassis has given me a good little runner on the latest type of Hornby chassis; a bit of cosmetic work and a repaint and it's a tolerable little model for an occasional turn on the workmen's service.  Bad running s/h is not necessarily the world's worst thing!

 

There seems to be a range of performance out of this batch...so does this imply that there is some variability in the wheel heights?

[DKGL]

There seems to be a range of performance out of this batch...so does this imply that there is some variability in the wheel heights?

Could be. But another thing I noticed, is if you were to remove too much of the channel, and then the rear wheels run too high, with the footplate level being affected, there seems to be space to fit some sort of spring, not a coil one, but maybe like one of the old Lima pick up plates, between the axle and chassis, which would bear down on the wheels. These are still available from Peters Spares.

[298]

If the rear drivers are sitting too high and not touching the rail, raise the track level.  Oh, hang on a minute...

 

Possible solutions:- 

 

1) File the axle channels of the other two axles until all are riding at the same height, in which case the loco will be sitting a little too low over the track, or,

 

2) Pack the rear driver channel until all are riding at the same height, in which case the loco may be sitting too high!  I would suggest brass tube of an appropriate external and internal diameter cut in half lengthways for this, but am speaking theoretically as I have never actually done anything like this.  It might be possible to remove the wheels and place the brass tube over the axle as a sleeve.  In any case you'll have to ream the channel out for it to fit.

 

 

...or, apply some Bullfrog Snot around the traction tyre to increase its diameter. Not got any? It might be worth experimenting with Maskol or similar.

[Coryton]

...or, apply some Bullfrog Snot around the traction tyre to increase its diameter. Not got any? It might be worth experimenting with Maskol or similar.

 

Maybe there's a market for corrective traction tyres?

 

IF the height mismatch is the same on all models, that would sound like the easiest fix for Hornby.

[The Johnster]

Could be. But another thing I noticed, is if you were to remove too much of the channel, and then the rear wheels run too high, with the footplate level being affected, there seems to be space to fit some sort of spring, not a coil one, but maybe like one of the old Lima pick up plates, between the axle and chassis, which would bear down on the wheels. These are still available from Peters Spares.

 

Springing the rear axle might work.  The aforementioned 2721 has a pair of coil springs, partially in recesses, which bear directly down on the rear axle of that loco, and one of the causes of the poor running was the roughly finished ends of these springs, which I have now had a go at with a file and bit of emery to the loco's benefit.  They are a little to strong, lifting the loco at the rear slightly, and a further improvement in pickup has been achieved by ballasting the bunker with lead shot.  The manual, downloadable from Hornby's website, suggests that the strength of these springs can be adjusted by trimming the length of them (or stretching them if they are not strong enough and you want to go the other way).  This sounded to me like a guaranteed recipe for at least one of them pinging off into whatever other dimension things like that ping off into, so I didn't do it.

 

To finally get to the point, all this leads to my suggesting care if you are going to try to spring the rear or any other axle; it would be easy to provide overpowerful springs that are no help to the running or underpowered ones that are make no difference.  It is a sort of Goldilocks thing that has to be 'just right', and might need a lot of trial and error to get 'just right'.  This is fine if you are prepared to put the time in and experiment, but not a quick fix!

Edited December 6, 2017 by The Johnster

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

There seems to be a range of performance out of this batch...so does this imply that there is some variability in the wheel heights?

 There's variability inherent to the manufacture of any product. This one has a plastic chassis from what I am reading. That's a fairly flexible material and  will therefore vary slightly in shape in the finished model, and that's probably the main reason for performance variability.

 

The solution DKGL proposes in post 114 is going to be simplest if the traction tyred wheelset is off the rail. Patient 'cut and try' removing a small amount of the top of the trailing (unpowered) axle location until the model has the traction tyred wheelset on the rail.

Edited December 7, 2017 by 34theletterbetweenB&D

[Coryton]

 There's variability inherent to the manufacture of any product. This one has a plastic chassis from what I am reading. That's a fairly flexible material and  will therefore vary slightly in shape in the finished model, and that's probably the main reason for performance variability.

 

Yes of course there will be variability in some level in anything. That's why we have tolerances and in a good design everything is OK so long as dimensions are within tolerance.

 

Any model will have some variability in wheel heights but normally not so large as to matter.

 

It seems that the variability here gives a range of performance from utterly unacceptable (won't pull its own weight) to OK.

 

If this really is inevitable with a plastic chassis then they shouldn't have used one.

 

But I doubt this is true because so far as I know previous iterations also had a plastic chassis without this problem.

 

So presumably the design tolerances were too high, or the manufacture is outside tolerance either because an unsuitable plastic was used, or an unsuitable manufacturing method, or some other reason.

 

[Miss Prism]

One day Hornby will wake up and smell the suspension gravy.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...So presumably the design tolerances were too high, or the manufacture is outside tolerance either because an unsuitable plastic was used, or an unsuitable manufacturing method, or some other reason.

 

 I may be wrong on this, but I don't recall Hornby working with any of their recent/current outsourced manufacturing suppliers, introducing a plastic chassis steam model in about two decades. The chassis block material on new introductions has uniformly been cast mazak. Which would suggest to me inexperience of using plastic for this component as the underlying cause, leading to one or more of the outcomes you propose.

 

In support of this, I have had several of the Hornby J94's (pre 2000 origin with Dapol) which has an all plastic chassis, to look at over the past dozen years, with a view to making them run nicely. The chassis parts are often not true, which Dapol (per Miss Prism above) had found their way around to some extent by springing the centre driver, (and doing something unmentionable to the crankpin hole in the rigid side rods). A little fettling of the plastic chassis parts so that the motor shaft is in a better relationship to the gear shaft, and the like, extracts the sweet running performance easily enough. That the moulded chassis parts are not all they should be, leads to a suspicion that the knowledge of manufacturing process requirements isn't all that it might be among the various manufacturing contractor's shops. That's just my guess on the limited information I have available.

[DKGL]

 I may be wrong on this, but I don't recall Hornby working with any of their recent/current outsourced manufacturing suppliers, introducing a plastic chassis steam model in about two decades. The chassis block material on new introductions has uniformly been cast mazak. Which would suggest to me inexperience of using plastic for this component as the underlying cause, leading to one or more of the outcomes you propose.

 

In support of this, I have had several of the Hornby J94's (pre 2000 origin with Dapol) which has an all plastic chassis, to look at over the past dozen years, with a view to making them run nicely. The chassis parts are often not true, which Dapol (per Miss Prism above) had found their way around to some extent by springing the centre driver, (and doing something unmentionable to the crankpin hole in the rigid side rods). A little fettling of the plastic chassis parts so that the motor shaft is in a better relationship to the gear shaft, and the like, extracts the sweet running performance easily enough. That the moulded chassis parts are not all they should be, leads to a suspicion that the knowledge of manufacturing process requirements isn't all that it might be among the various manufacturing contractor's shops. That's just my guess on the limited information I have available.

Just to be clear, the chassis is metal. The keeper plate (?) is plastic. What you have to file are the channels in the metal chassis.

Hope this explains all.