Hattons announce 14xx / 48xx / 58xx

[autocoach]

A small problem has emerged with the 1420 I purchased.  I noticed that the right front buffer would not stay in as the retaining clip appeared broken. On a trial at a large layout it appears the buffer and spring have taken flight and disappeared while running on a hidden section of the layout.  An extensive search over 150 feet of track and layout environs failed to locate the parts which I must assume have recalled into that great (western) land of lost parts.  I am trying to clobber up a temporary replacement but am thinking about a longer term solution.  

 

Looking through my collection of various buffers none appear to have the same diameter as the buffer head in this model. Can anyone suggest a suitable Collett parallel buffer suitable for a softer springing on the Hattons/DJM model. I actually found some old GWR tapered buffer shank buffers in my "buffer box" but these do not appear to have been appropriate for 48xx/14xx locomotives.

 

I could google for the parts but I would prefer getting some input from RMWEB GWR experts before placing an order from California. Recommendations for a supplier are also welcome as my old reliable "Mainly Trains" is alas no more. 

[gwrrob]

Alan Gibson does Collett parallel buffers.

[autocoach]

A small problem has emerged with the 1420 I purchased.  I noticed that the right front buffer would not stay in as the retaining clip appeared broken. On a trial at a large layout it appears the buffer and spring have taken flight and disappeared while running on a hidden section of the layout.  An extensive search over 150 feet of track and layout environs failed to locate the parts which I must assume have recalled into that great (western) land of lost parts.  I am trying to clobber up a temporary replacement but am thinking about a longer term solution.  

 

Looking through my collection of various buffers none appear to have the same diameter as the buffer head in this model. Can anyone suggest a suitable Collett parallel buffer suitable for a softer springing on the Hattons/DJM model. I actually found some old GWR tapered buffer shank buffers in my "buffer box" but these do not appear to have been appropriate for 48xx/14xx locomotives.

 

I could google for the parts but I would prefer getting some input from RMWEB GWR experts before placing an order from California. Recommendations for a supplier are also welcome as my old reliable "Mainly Trains" is alas no more. 

Thanks for the Alan Gibson suggestion. I had been planning a wheel order for some time.  

 

Here is my temporary fix:

 

 

Just a piece of brass tubing tapered to fit with a close in diameter buffer head of unknown origin found in a scrap box. Will do until I get a permanent replacement set for all 4 buffers as the buffer shank does not seem to be thick enough (sufficient diameter) and I like metal heads on locomotives.

[cctransuk]

Alan Gibson does Collett parallel buffers.

 

So do Slaters - they're what I fitted to my Heljan 1366.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[The Johnster]

To be honest, I had to look quite hard to spot the difference, and as a temporary fix it's pretty good. 

[PMP]

I have spare solid buffers from Bachmann 64xx's if they are any use. They don't have the step featured on them though. If you pm me your address I'll put a set in the post for you.

[57xx]

A small problem has emerged with the 1420 I purchased.  I noticed that the right front buffer would not stay in as the retaining clip appeared broken. On a trial at a large layout it appears the buffer and spring have taken flight and disappeared while running on a hidden section of the layout.  An extensive search over 150 feet of track and layout environs failed to locate the parts which I must assume have recalled into that great (western) land of lost parts. 

 

Given the strength of the springs in the buffers it is probably in the next county.  

[GWR8700]

Just wanted to say, after owning these models for 6 months the running qualities have only improved with more use and are still getting better all the time.  Very pleased with my models Dave and I am looking forward to future releases.

[Miss Prism]

On level track, the motor senses the drawbar load, via the tyres of the driving axles, and reacts accordingly, and the loosely-meshed spurs will quickly become 'in-sync', because each mesh is under under a similar torque. (The lack of any degree of equalisation in the vertical loads on the unsprung drivers will not help the situation of course, but let's draw a veil over that aspect for the moment.)

 

On a falling gradient however, the forward component of the loco's (and train, if present) weight (sine theta and gravity, etc, and noting the freewheeling nature of the chassis from PMP's blog of "The chassis when disconnected from the body and motor gear worm, will freewheel though...") will take the load off the motor, and there will be a tendency, and please note not a certainty (because of track irregularities and varying vertical axle loads), that each spur in the spur train will begin to take up an arbitrary backlash position with respect to its neighbour(s), with a result that each spur will fluctuate between states of being 'under pressure' and 'under no pressure'. There is no regulation between the axles, because they are uncoupled, and therefore they are not presenting any consistent resistance to the motor. The asymmetrical placing of the motor's worm with respect to the spur train exacerbates the problem. Under these constantly varying (and essentially chaotic) loading circumstances, the hapless motor doesn't know what to do - "Should I stop rotating, or should I start rotating?". And a coreless particularly, being so load-sensitive. If the BEMF regulation is good, the situation will probably only worsen, although mitigated by some clever tweaking of CVs in the DCC case. The coupling rods, functionally useless on level track, will I suspect also play a part in the 'nudging' of the spurs in and out of sync in the falling gradient situation.

 

Dispensing with the need for functional coupling rods seems to be flavour of the decade in the whacky world of RTR steam chassis design, but the implications of it can be a disaster. If the transmission design is bad enough to have the effect of throwing axle load regulation out the window, then one needs to be thinking along a radically different approach of a stepper motor.

 

 

[melmerby]

Given the strength of the springs in the buffers it is probably in the next county.

38XX or 10XX?

 

Keith

[The Fatadder]

Has anyone removed the factory printing on one of these? I bought a bargain 58xx in BR black the other day from eBay and need to backdate (plus add auto gear left over from the mainly trains kit I used on my airfix / high level 58xx

[The Johnster]

38XX or 10XX?

 

Keith

 

 

10xx. The next county, under construction, is one of these, isn't it?

Edited September 5, 2017 by The Johnster

[Les1952]

 

On level track, the motor senses the drawbar load, via the tyres of the driving axles, and reacts accordingly, and the loosely-meshed spurs will quickly become 'in-sync', because each mesh is under under a similar torque. (The lack of any degree of equalisation in the vertical loads on the unsprung drivers will not help the situation of course, but let's draw a veil over that aspect for the moment.)

 

On a falling gradient however, the forward component of the loco's (and train, if present) weight (sine theta and gravity, etc, and noting the freewheeling nature of the chassis from PMP's blog of "The chassis when disconnected from the body and motor gear worm, will freewheel though...") will take the load off the motor, and there will be a tendency, and please note not a certainty (because of track irregularities and varying vertical axle loads), that each spur in the spur train will begin to take up an arbitrary backlash position with respect to its neighbour(s), with a result that each spur will fluctuate between states of being 'under pressure' and 'under no pressure'. There is no regulation between the axles, because they are uncoupled, and therefore they are not presenting any consistent resistance to the motor. The asymmetrical placing of the motor's worm with respect to the spur train exacerbates the problem. Under these constantly varying (and essentially chaotic) loading circumstances, the hapless motor doesn't know what to do - "Should I stop rotating, or should I start rotating?". And a coreless particularly, being so load-sensitive. If the BEMF regulation is good, the situation will probably only worsen, although mitigated by some clever tweaking of CVs in the DCC case. The coupling rods, functionally useless on level track, will I suspect also play a part in the 'nudging' of the spurs in and out of sync in the falling gradient situation.

 

Dispensing with the need for functional coupling rods seems to be flavour of the decade in the whacky world of RTR steam chassis design, but the implications of it can be a disaster. If the transmission design is bad enough to have the effect of throwing axle load regulation out the window, then one needs to be thinking along a radically different approach of a stepper motor.

 

 

All of which would suggest that with motors getting smaller in all locos our diesels have been doing something similar internally for some time which we've not noticed because there aren't any coupling rods there to make it obvious.....

Just a thought

Les

[Hilux5972]

10xx. The next county, under construction, is one of these, isn't it?

Yes, 1014 County of Glamorgan

[adb968008]

Yes, 1014 County of Glamorgan

What have the last few posts about the County got to do with the GWR 14xx? I love how quickly and easily people get off topic.*

 

* paying homage to this post,

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117156-national-collection-in-miniature-dean-goods-class-no-2516/?p=2842392

 

:-)

Edited September 7, 2017 by adb968008

[Captain Kernow]

 

On level track, the motor senses the drawbar load, via the tyres of the driving axles, and reacts accordingly, and the loosely-meshed spurs will quickly become 'in-sync', because each mesh is under under a similar torque. (The lack of any degree of equalisation in the vertical loads on the unsprung drivers will not help the situation of course, but let's draw a veil over that aspect for the moment.)

 

On a falling gradient however, the forward component of the loco's (and train, if present) weight (sine theta and gravity, etc, and noting the freewheeling nature of the chassis from PMP's blog of "The chassis when disconnected from the body and motor gear worm, will freewheel though...") will take the load off the motor, and there will be a tendency, and please note not a certainty (because of track irregularities and varying vertical axle loads), that each spur in the spur train will begin to take up an arbitrary backlash position with respect to its neighbour(s), with a result that each spur will fluctuate between states of being 'under pressure' and 'under no pressure'. There is no regulation between the axles, because they are uncoupled, and therefore they are not presenting any consistent resistance to the motor. The asymmetrical placing of the motor's worm with respect to the spur train exacerbates the problem. Under these constantly varying (and essentially chaotic) loading circumstances, the hapless motor doesn't know what to do - "Should I stop rotating, or should I start rotating?". And a coreless particularly, being so load-sensitive. If the BEMF regulation is good, the situation will probably only worsen, although mitigated by some clever tweaking of CVs in the DCC case. The coupling rods, functionally useless on level track, will I suspect also play a part in the 'nudging' of the spurs in and out of sync in the falling gradient situation.

 

Dispensing with the need for functional coupling rods seems to be flavour of the decade in the whacky world of RTR steam chassis design, but the implications of it can be a disaster. If the transmission design is bad enough to have the effect of throwing axle load regulation out the window, then one needs to be thinking along a radically different approach of a stepper motor.

 

So, in English, it doesn't run that well?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

[No Decorum]

The Fell locomotive had all eight driving wheels coupled at first. The middle four were connected by the internal gearing. Apparently, it was found that the internal gearing and the coupling rods fought with each other and the solution was to remove the middle pair of rods, leaving the outer four rods to transmit power from the inner wheels to the outer, ungeared wheels.

 

It was a long time ago. I suppose the lesson has been forgotten.

[Pteremy]

Does anyone know if there are going to be additional liveries? Particularly interested in plain (i.e. unlined) BR black which seems to be under-represented in the first 16 liveries produced. 

[The Johnster]

Can't resist the comment that unlined black is the simplest of liveries to apply yourself, though I recognise not everyone is comfortable with this.  If you decide to have a go, and are inexperienced, my suggestion would be to use an acrylic (water based) matt or semi matt black; avoid gloss or semi gloss finishes.  Buy reasonable quality brushes, in a range of sizes from 2mm down, and apply with even strokes in the same direction as far as you can.  Paint over any lining, lettering, or crest, and if it shows through apply another coat after the first one has dried and gone off properly (overnight) until you have an even finish.  Similarly, paint over the cabside number plates and replace them with etched brass ones.  As you are going for a BR loco, I am assuming that you want to keep the smokebox plate; your new number plates should come with a smokebox plate etch to glue over the existing one.

 

Don't paint the smokebox, as these often had a slightly different finish to the rest of the loco, but include any other black areas of your loco.  You should be able to preserve the red buffer beams and buffer stocks.  2 coats will usually cover everything well enough but you may need 3 or even 4. You will need to replace the crest with a new one; I find HMRS transfers fine for this.  Finish off with a coat or maybe 2 of diluted acrylic matt varnish.  The advantage of acrylic paint is that it is water based and can be easily diluted or thinned, does not smell of paint, and can be fairly easily removed with warm water if you mess the job up.

[adb968008]

Or you could just buy a plain black one, and renumber it at will...

 

http://www.hattons.co.uk/94512/DJ_Models_Dave_Jones_H1410_Class_58xx_0_4_2T_5819_in_BR_Unlined_black_with_early_emblem/StockDetail.aspx

 

Number plates available from fox, bit of double sided tape and jobs a goodun.

Edited November 4, 2017 by adb968008

[The Johnster]

Fox numberplates are very good, not expensive, and will significantly improve any model they are applied to, and of course you can use the mark left by the old numberplate as your positioning guide.

Edited November 6, 2017 by The Johnster

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

All of which would suggest that with motors getting smaller in all locos our diesels have been doing something similar internally for some time which we've not noticed because there aren't any coupling rods there to make it obvious.....

The effect is most readily detected audibly on centre motor both bogies driven designs when running fast, as the leading bogie enters or departs a small radius curve, or on fairly steep descents, as a curious gear grinding noise.

[Pteremy]

Yes - repaint a 48xx or fit auto gear to the black 58xx are both options. I am just surprised that - say - the heavily weathered black 48xx option was seen as a likely to be better seller than a plain, unweathered one. 

[Robin Brasher]

I recently bought a model of 1420 which is based on the South Devon Railway. This is a replacement for my Airfix model which had a poor performance although the model railway press gave it excellent reviews when it came out. I sold the Airfix model to Hattons but kept the autocoach.

 

After oiling it I ran the Hattons model in for 15 minutes at the Godlingston Trials at Swanage. At 40% power on the Gaugemaster model D controller running in light it overtook a Hornby 'Duchess of Atholl' hauling 10 coaches at 60% power.

 

After running in I attached the Airfix autocoach. 1420 normally started at 20% power in both forward and reverse but it did sometimes need a helping hand to start. It ran very smoothly and was a huge improvement on the Airfix model. It also ran much better than the Hornby H class. I liked the packaging and comprehensive instructions on the Hattons model.

 

The picture shows 1420 at Dunster station on the layout in the barn at Godlingston Manor, Swanage.

[Captain Kernow]

Can't resist the comment that unlined black is the simplest of liveries to apply yourself, though I recognise not everyone is comfortable with this.  If you decide to have a go, and are inexperienced, my suggestion would be to use an acrylic (water based) matt or semi matt black; avoid gloss or semi gloss finishes.  Buy reasonable quality brushes, in a range of sizes from 2mm down, and apply with even strokes in the same direction as far as you can.  Paint over any lining, lettering, or crest, and if it shows through apply another coat after the first one has dried and gone off properly (overnight) until you have an even finish.  Similarly, paint over the cabside number plates and replace them with etched brass ones.  As you are going for a BR loco, I am assuming that you want to keep the smokebox plate; your new number plates should come with a smokebox plate etch to glue over the existing one.

 

Don't paint the smokebox, as these often had a slightly different finish to the rest of the loco, but include any other black areas of your loco.  You should be able to preserve the red buffer beams and buffer stocks.  2 coats will usually cover everything well enough but you may need 3 or even 4. You will need to replace the crest with a new one; I find HMRS transfers fine for this.  Finish off with a coat or maybe 2 of diluted acrylic matt varnish.  The advantage of acrylic paint is that it is water based and can be easily diluted or thinned, does not smell of paint, and can be fairly easily removed with warm water if you mess the job up.

Fair enough, but wouldn't it be easier to spray it using Halfords Matt Black aerosol? (comes out slightly satin).