Hattons announce 14xx / 48xx / 58xx

[mikesndbs]

OK, feeling a bit happier now.

 

I fashioned a sheet of lead to the curve of the smoke box and slid it under the chip plug thing, insulated on top of course.

It has not addressed the balance issue but surprisingly has made it better.

 

Got at the gear train and applied light oil, added gear lube to the chain itself.

Spot of gear lube on all axles also.

 

She has now been running around the layout hauling three Bachmann Birdcages, and to be honest if she had run like this initially I'd never have posted.

There are hesitations as she goes from straight to curve but they are nowhere what they were and not consistent.

 

Testing will continue and if all is well I'll film her so you can judge.

 

Thanks for all the tips

[JSpencer]

In the USA and on mainland Europe, manufacturers have in the past, been sued for selling below standard models. Perhaps it is high time this happened in the UK.

Here we referring to attacking a one man band. The poor chap started ok, thought he was going well and for some reason the chassis regressed. Cab detail is remarkable on these engines, magazine reviews left me feeling a tinge of envy at the time as I had other priorities (a new house!). I,m certain he does not work with the said factory anymore but that means no chance for spares (except those stripped from returns).

Most chassis concepts on these models have appeared and work ok in N gauge, but history is full of examples of failure when scaling up or down inventions.

Ultimately I,m dubious suing works. In practice the big companies have resources to survive and even often use these sort of things to crash small rivals perceived as copying. We suddenly find there won,t be any small players through fear of being sued.

Few big players, pumping out higher standards equals greater cost I,m afraid.

And we can forget kit manufacturers, they would probably close up overnight through the same fears. I mean I,d expect we would see law suits because some one who built the kit found it to be sub standard being deformed and bad running and a terrible paint job!

 

We can vote with feet. Though personally I won't condemn entirely a make just because of a few rotten apples today. But I will wait and see how the 92 turns out before buying. Should be a cracker as it uses another factory.

[kandc_au]

We can vote with feet. Though personally I won't condemn entirely a make just because of a few rotten apples today. But I will wait and see how the 92 turns out before buying. Should be a cracker as it uses another factory.

Though at the end of the day...it falls on Dave Jones. He is the one that accepts are rejects the factory's product, as HE is their customer!

 

Khris

[jjb1970]

At the risk of sounding cynical, when a model knocks it out of the park the name on the box accepts the credit and basks in the glory, if a model is a bit of a lemon it's all the fault of the Chinese factory. If Chinese factories are expected to be blamed when things are less than great then they should also be accorded the accolades when they get it right. Or alternatively, if the names on the box are happy to take credit then they can also take the blame if they sell a bit of a dog.

[mikesndbs]

Morning, unable to sleep last night due to a prolapsed disc, so did a bit more running.

Couple more observations.

 

The coreless motor is unprotected by a meaningful gear reduction, in that it only just copes with the loads of turning the wheels, therefore any change in resistance to the loco results in slow downs or speed ups.

This is proved by the mad top speed of this loco (if only the 71 had a little more speed)

 

The other thing that I see has been stated already is this little loco is too rigid, even Hornby all those years ago realised that the chassis would need a sprung trailing wheel.

Therefore, any slight unevenness in your track results in loss of traction and therefore further slow downs.

If you load the 14xx up (I used four all metal coaches) you will find she has really very good traction (so that is a big plus) but when she gets to a slight bump she will spin to a stop.

Adding the required spring is outside of my abilities for sure.

 

So, it's still under review for me.

 

Ref the company responsibility, I do find it shocking that the instructions say about removing the cab roof for crew yet in a rare response DJ said it's not meant to be done.

 

I was a supporter of DJ Models with the class 71 project, am still 80% happy with that, knocking small companies is very counter productive because we need the competition in this hobby, but there do seem some basic design flaws that had been solved back in the 70s that should have been on this little gem. Its very sad for all us really

[Ian Hargrave]

Appreciate the many concerns that have been expressed about this model,some of them from direct experience and some from far off observation but really you can’t turn the clock back,can you ? We can play the blame game from now until the next decade ( and doubtless some will ) but fair enough mistakes have been made as we are all aware..Is it not now time to move on and cease threatening biblical retribution ? Perhaps we can return to the essence of this thread to exchange knowledge.....now there’s a thought.....on the subject of what actually CAN be done with this model. We of course know in graphic detail what can not.

 

Hattons are not a greedy corporate giant whose only aim is to fleece us all.It is their commission and they stand the loss if things go wrong as indeed they have in this case. So if you are not happy then your legal right is to return it for replacement or recompense.I’m sure they will honour that obligation,remembering that turkeys are for Christmas.

 

We do live in a litigious society I know. Useful if you are a VW diesel owner in California but for a£99 now reduced in sale model from Widnes....really? Sometimes things go wrong and we must surely accept that....principles notwithstanding.After all we now have products undreamed of just 20 years ago and they keep coming.

[JSpencer]

Though at the end of the day...it falls on Dave Jones. He is the one that accepts are rejects the factory's product, as HE is their customer!

 

Khris

 

We all know there are various complications working with China. Remember the same thing made in the UK would probably be thrice the price. Whether or not the factory over there fixes it or not depends on how much they appreciate you as their customer. And you cannot easily sue them either. He has stated on the class 74 thread that he already lost money on a bunch of CADs so small hope for addressing a chassis design free of charge.

 

My personal feeling is that the motor is too small which means if grease gets hard in the gear train (like it does over time) it becomes lumpy in running quite quickly. I have a 20+ year old Bachmann 03 which I had not used for at least 5 years. The motor on this is at least 4 times bigger than a DJM austerity. I put the thing on the track, its running was awful. I could not remember it ever running so bad. Of course the grease had become stiff over the years. Once cleaned up it became a smooth runner again. Now if the big motor on an 03 could not overcome a bit of stiff grease, (which doubtless hardens more and more over time) then the small motor of a DJM will be affected by this far sooner. I suspect Hattons remaining stock - which has been sat in boxes for close 2 years - have now all become lumpy due to a bit of hardening grease. The full geared drive compounds it further. Hattons and Dave could not possibly test for that unless someone has a way of aging grease quickly.

[mikesndbs]

LOL it's basic design flaws, agree re the grease but if only that were the whole issue.

 

Still, lets now see if we can come up with some workarounds or fixes that are within most modellers abilities.

It's a nice looking model, when it is happy with the track and loading it runs quite well.

So what can we do with the overly rigid chassis?

[Miss Prism]

My personal feeling is that the motor is too small....

 

I take your point about hardening grease, but the motor type and size, in itself, is not the problem in my view. Coreless motors are load-sensitive, and small coreless particularly so. They need well-engineered gear transmissions providing a good reduction ratio. Such transmissions should not be full of an inappropriate grease. A larger, non-coreless would have been a better torque source.

 

An 0-4-2T that will do 150smph, and with a bad weight distribution on a rigid chassis, is a design failure.

[JSpencer]

I take your point about hardening grease, but the motor type and size, in itself, is not the problem in my view. Coreless motors are load-sensitive, and small coreless particularly so. They need well-engineered gear transmissions providing a good reduction ratio. Such transmissions should not be full of an inappropriate grease. A larger, non-coreless would have been a better torque source.

 

An 0-4-2T that will do 150smph, and with a bad weight distribution on a rigid chassis, is a design failure.

 

But finer gears increases the risk of binding (and grease problems), requires greater assembly precision and maybe reduced side play. I do remember some mutterings over the chassis during development. Maybe it had fine gears but run like a dog and they changed to bigger teeth (at least on the worm). The O2, DJM Well tank (Dapol version is fast but uses a big open frame motor) and Austerity are the slowest tank locos (in terms of top speed) I own.

The choice of coreless was probably due to reduce noise. Cannot see any other advantage on a loco really but several disadvantages. Maybe in N gauge, it is easier to get cheaper powerful balanced motors using coreless but that quickly disappears when scaled up. And we don't need light weight in a loco.

 

Agree that it was an odd choice to regress to a rigid un-balance chassis while the Well tank and O2 were not. DJM is not alone, the Hornby H class and Merchant Navy are also unbalanced to the rear too. Indeed the heavier, more powerful motored bigger H cannot pull trains as heavy as the O2 with its small motor but well balanced chassis.

Edited November 15, 2018 by JSpencer

[Captain Kernow]

Hi Mike

 

Have a look at this post in my thread by Tim Captain Kernow. It refers how to remove the chassis to replace with an etched chassis, but I suspect some of the info may be of use.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/136923-cwm-prysor-capel-celyn-bala-blaenau-ffestiniog-branch/page-26&do=findComment&comment=3362903

There is also my blog - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/21/entry-21526-new-chassis-for-the-hattons-14xx-part-3/#commentsStart

 

There are currently three, separate blog entries on the work that I've been doing.

 

I had hoped to have the loco completed and running by now, but a number of non-modelling related issues have been keeping me busy elsewhere.

[mikesndbs]

Evening all

 

Here is my 14xx after a few simple mods.

I spent some time adjusting my track today as well.

She might be very helpful when I come to build may layout, as a track tester

 

[JSpencer]

She might be very helpful when I come to build may layout, as a track tester

 

My austerities and class 71 have won the same role. The stiffness might not be an issue if it was balanced and/or the wheels were not fine RP25s. You have to be careful about adding oil to the gears as that might leak into the bearings which are also used as pickups. The end result is then a loco that jitters. The O2 and Well tank avoid this, the O2 using a trailing bogie with bearing pickups but no chance of oil getting on them from the gears. The Well tank has a sprung front axle with wipers. 

 

With hindsight, the 14XX should have had smokebox full of weight, the chip located behind the motor next to the cab. The rear axle sprung with wiper pickups. You would have to remove the chassis to fit the chip - but I don't think that is really an issue as we all like our models to have easy access to the insides. The chip through the smokebox is a trait from the Dapol Well tank, ok here where the weight is needed to rear anyway. Amazingly included in the O2 but still keeping the model balanced. Then the same via the smokebox was used again in the austerity and the 14XX with weight shifting to the rear.

The Hattons P class is a much better designed. It has weight, spaces for speaker and chips. Body is easy to removed. The motor has grunt.

[217 RIVER FLESK]

Having lashed out on 5816 in the week I finally got round to giving it a proving run last night, up & down a short length of track & I’m pleased to say that it ran fine, though it did do a funny little hop for the first two revolutions of the driving wheels, but I think there must have been a foreign body sitting on the tread of the wheel that I’d not noticed. After that, all appeared fine - phew

[PMP]

 

I’ve finally put mine into the operating roster, it’s had a makeover of the cab, including replacing the glazing and the cab shutters and top vent opened. On the chassis the ash pan has been added, I’ve not yet added the rear brake pull rods, the brake rod design on the model not being conducive to to adding them. The coupling rods have been changed, and the front gears removed which has improved the running. I experimented with additional weight but removed it as it had no improvement on the descending performance of the model, and marginally improved the climbing. It’s still a possible candidate for a replacement chassis. I have seen a good one running today, climbing and descending gradients, so there are good ones out there.

Further details here on the blog https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/hattons-14xx-finale/

[woodenhead]

I popped mine back on the track this afternoon just in case, it still runs ok

[The Fatadder]

2FB9B92B-490B-4BF1-BE6F-01B1F2776569.jpeg

 

I’ve finally put mine into the operating roster, it’s had a makeover of the cab, including replacing the glazing and the cab shutters and top vent opened. On the chassis the ash pan has been added, I’ve not yet added the rear brake pull rods, the brake rod design on the model not being conducive to to adding them. The coupling rods have been changed, and the front gears removed which has improved the running. I experimented with additional weight but removed it as it had no improvement on the descending performance of the model, and marginally improved the climbing. It’s still a possible candidate for a replacement chassis. I have seen a good one running today, climbing and descending gradients, so there are good ones out there.

Further details here on the blog https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/hattons-14xx-finale/

I had forgotten the missing ash pan, I think I know what I will be working on tonight.

 

Is it just me or are most of the images on the blog post not loading?

[Pannier Tank]

Is it just me or are most of the images on the blog post not loading?

 

Also having same issue.

[PMP]

Should be displayed ok now, looks like a Wordpress loading glitch!

[The Fatadder]

Should be displayed ok now, looks like a Wordpress loading glitch!

Thanks, all working now.

 

Will definitely be building an ash pan for mine once the girls are in bed!

[The Fatadder]

Not the clearest photo, but I have now fitted the missing ash pan to my model of 1470.

I ended up

Using the high level etched chassis from my 58xx as a template and cutting the part from 40tgou Black plasticard, glued to some 2mm square plastic spur for extra strength.

 

I now need to finish off the weathering, as it needs to be a lot dirtier! I have a detailed auto coach which needs a coat of wartime brown paint to go with it.

 

I also need to fit a new smokebox door dart as the original was damaged when removing the BR front numbers.

 

 

I really need to give it another run and fit a decoder, hopefully I will get to the club tomorrow and have a prolonged run on the test track...

[boxbrownie]

I read a lot of the thread last week and it really put me off getting this model, but the lure of a new layout and change of scale from 7mm to 4mm has forced me to spend money.......I gave in and decided at £74 it was too good a chance to not go for, boy am I glad I did, OK at present I only have a circuit of track with a few points thrown in to test my 4mm stuff out at present.

 

But I am as pleased as punch, only running on DC today but the little thing ran sweet and smooth, slow running is great, both directions seem to be fine......now I am worried because I want it converted to DCC sound......time will tell.

 

But as for DC I sure got a good one!

Edited November 23, 2018 by boxbrownie

[Tom F]

Well, I've been very critical about this model....I maintain the chassis design is incredibly poor.

 

However, here is my now finished 5810 (Bala allocated) weathered and detailed, running nicely on Cwm Prysor.

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by 9793

[Covkid]

Well, I've been very critical about this model....I maintain the chassis design is incredibly poor.

 

However, here is my now finished 5810 (Bala allocated) weathered and detailed, running nicely on Cwm Prysor.

 

Very nice indeed Tom. 

If that were mine and maintained that level of performance longterm, I would be happy. 

 

Great work

[boxbrownie]

Well I bought mine to have a sound decoder fitted and as I can no longer do this myself has anyone recommendations as to a reliable (as in it'll work!) and knowledgeable fitting service?