Hattons announce 14xx / 48xx / 58xx

[Captain Kernow]

All were initially noisy but with running and the recommended lubrication they are now smooth and quiet with superb slow speed control (DC).

Do any of yours rival the slow running/creeping qualities of a correctly built and installed High Level mechanism, Ian?

 

For me, that's the bar that any RTR manufacturer has to reach.

[Seanem44]

Finally!  After owning mine since they were first releases, I had a chance to run-in my GWR Wartime Black Heavily weathered variant.  Ran like a charm.  No stuttering, etc.  Smooth running, so I guess I got a good one.  I did oil as directed.

[tomparryharry]

I think criticism of the Hornby, which I have contributed to by the way, should take the low price into account; I am prepared to forgive a lot in this model so long as the running is acceptable!  One would expect the Hatton's/DJM to be better on a 'pays your money takes your choice' basis, and the improved running when the model is run in is a good sign, but the cost for a loco on the 'like one but don't actually need one for an accurate model of my prototype' list is enough to dissuade me.  If it was on the 'definitely needed' list I'd bite the bullet!

I ordered a 48xx as soon as it was available to order. I wanted to have a non-topfeed locomotive, because all of the photos I have show both 4871 & 4821 without top feed. As with such a long-lived class of locomotives, there were a lot of detail differences, such to make the forum fairly lively at times. My model did about an hour on the rolling road, and very smooth it is. I will probably get another (4825), but it only depends on my eventual layout design. As such, the loco fills the need for an auto tank very well.

 

Having the 0-4-2 chassis (or, if you like, 2-4-0) leads into possible forays into Metros, 36xx,, and Stellas.

 

Hmm.....

 

Ian.

[Ian Hargrave]

Do any of yours rival the slow running/creeping qualities of a correctly built and installed High Level mechanism, Ian?

 

For me, that's the bar that any RTR manufacturer has to reach.

Apologies for the delay in posting this,I have only just picked up on it. I have no High Level mechanism with which to compare it. AllI can report is that all three of mine after careful running in and judicious lubrication are excellent slow speed runners .None of them have given me a moment's cause for concern.

[Sir TophamHatt]

Got mine a few days ago.

 

After following the instructions to lubricate, then run in for 15 mins each way (I did mine for about 7-10 mins, then got bored), it runs pretty well on DC at low-ish speed.

 

Will report back when I fit the decoder and get it on the track in the next week or so.  That'll be the big test.

 

My only gripe is that I can't for the life of me fit the lamps.

It seems the small "slit" shape on the loco doesn't fit the semi-circle shape on the lamp.

Edited January 9, 2018 by anotheruser

[Sir TophamHatt]

So... tested with a decoder and it didn't go well.

 

I used the 8-pin hattons own brand decoder and it appeared to stutter a fair bit every 5/6cm along the track.  I thought it might just be my track laying skills being awful but other trains run pretty well.

 

Will test later this aftrenoon but all I've changed so far is the decoder from 3 to the number of the train; no other CVs have been changed.  I oiled in the correct places and ran it in for 10/15 mins under DC - it ran fine on that front.

 

Will try and post a video if it's still dodgy see's what you think.

Edited January 17, 2018 by anotheruser

[Coach bogie]

, and Stellas.

 

Hmm.....

 

Ian.

Not convinced that it will lead to a Stella, which is essentially a 2361 (outside framed Dean Goods in K's terms), with the front wheels replaced by smaller carrying wheels.

 

One for Oxfordornby perhaps!

 

Mike Wiltshire

[thestourbridgelion]

A friend has passed me his Hattons 14XX as it’s not running well. I am a 0 Gauge modeller and not familiar with the Hattons decoder that’s fitted. Does anyone know if it can be fitted with Stay Alive capacitor (if I can find where to locate such a device!) A call to the shop drew a blank.

[sparaxis]

Mine is running very sweetly with a Soundtraxx 6-pin MC1 decoder. (Also sold in the disguise of a Bachmann decoder)

 

Initially it ran very roughly until I reduced the CV values for back EMF, i.e CV209, 210 and 212 to about half or less of their factory set values.

 

Then it well very well. Same for the O2, Beattie, and J94

[JSpencer]

I used the 8-pin hattons own brand decoder and it appeared to stutter a fair bit every 5/6cm along the track.  I thought it might just be my track laying skills being awful but other trains run pretty well.

 

Odd, because the model uses a 6-pin chip holder ;-)

 

My Austerity (similar design) which is sound fitted Loksound V4, stutters too. Utterly annoying as the sound keeps cutting out. Will try the CV values above but suspect a stay alive will also be required.

[Sir TophamHatt]

Tested again last night and I think it's the chip settings.

 

They seem to be constantly stalling at low speeds, anything up to about 10-15 on 28 speed settings.  They'll stop but then restart again by themselves.

 

-----------------

EDIT

-----------------

 

Resolved! (for me)

 

Hattons emailled me some settings to try, and although they didn't seem to be specific to any chip, they have improved slow running on both the 58xx and a 64xx pannier.

The CV Settings are:

 

CV5 = 255 (0)

CV6 = 128 (0)

CV49 = 17 (0)

CV51 = 0 (32)

CV52 = 0 (-)

CV53 = 140 (-)

CV54 = 40 (-)

CV55 = 28 (-)

CV56 = 255 (-)

CV124 = 4 (-)

 

The value in the brackets is the default for my chip.

Also, my chips didn't have anything above CV52.

Edited February 9, 2018 by anotheruser

[4069]

This is the sort of thing that strengthens my resolve never to have anything to do with  DCC.

[BWsTrains]

This is the sort of thing that strengthens my resolve never to have anything to do with  DCC.

 

fact 1: I have many diverse locos, 18 at last count from 14xx to Class 91s and putting DCC in has been in every case trouble free, no esoteric tweaking of CVs required. Plenty of supporting evidence of the like here from other DCC users.

 

fact 2: read thru this topic's pages and there are many reports of problems getting DCC right for this loco, complex CV manipulations etc.

 

I'll leave readers to draw their own conclusions from this but it hardly makes a negative case for the technology overall. No need to throw baby out with bath water I'd say.

 

edit to fix typos

Edited February 11, 2018 by BWsTrains

[ROSSPOP]

This is the sort of thing that strengthens my resolve never to have anything to do with  DCC.

 

Unfortunately, DCC will never be able to improve on any example of an overcomplicated  chassis mechanism  and if a coreless motor is included then tweaking of `very few` CV`s may be required.

 

It also depends on the quality of the decoder being used and it`s motor control abilities.

 

DCC is only complicated if you make it so.......

 

Sorry I hav`nt any 4mm Auto -tanks.... but with a good old fashioned chassis mechanism where the coupling rods actually do the work they are intended to ......

 

you might be missing out on the wonders of true DCC..........

 

 

 

 

Having said all that...... this the best example of this 4mm model I have ever found...and it`s DCCCCCCC.....

 

 

 

john

Edited February 11, 2018 by ROSSPOP

[The Johnster]

fact 1: I have many diverse locos, 18 at last count from 14xx to Class 91s and putting DCC in has been in every case trouble free, no esoteric tweaking of CVs required. Plenty of supporting evidence of the like here from other DCC users.

 

fact 2: read thru this topic's pages and there are many reports of problems getting DCC right for this loco, complex CV manipulations etc.

 

I'll leave readers to draw their own conclusions from this but it hardly makes a negative case for the technology overall. No need to throw baby out with bath water I'd say.

 

edit to fix typos

 

 

I'll confess to being both something of a Luddite when it comes to DCC, and too tight fisted to pay for it.  I do not believe it simplifies wiring as much as is claimed, more transfers it to the locos instead of underneath the layout.  If you simply wanted to simplify layout wiring, a push switch single action repeater hidden in a chimney or exhaust will isolate your loco anywhere on the layout!

 

But I would agree if you are saying that if offers potential for sound, exhaust, and other effects that improve the illusion of reality on a model.  I have the impression that this is much more germane to diesel modelling at the moment, though, and videos of layouts featuring this are very impressive; I am unimpressed with steam sounds that seem to me to be just bursts of white noise that do not alter in volume with the work the loco is (or is being made to appear to be) doing.  Real steam engines don't sound like that, and it seems not to be that much better than the old Triang scraper to make a 'chuffing' noise.

 

Sound is also hampered by the limitations on physical size, and hence frequency response, of the speakers; headphones may be the way to go here, but need a different approach, and possibly the NFC circuitry to enable them would be more space consuming than the speakers!

[Paul_sterling]

I'll confess to being both something of a Luddite when it comes to DCC, and too tight fisted to pay for it.  I do not believe it simplifies wiring as much as is claimed, more transfers it to the locos instead of underneath the layout.  If you simply wanted to simplify layout wiring, a push switch single action repeater hidden in a chimney or exhaust will isolate your loco anywhere on the layout!

 

But I would agree if you are saying that if offers potential for sound, exhaust, and other effects that improve the illusion of reality on a model.  I have the impression that this is much more germane to diesel modelling at the moment, though, and videos of layouts featuring this are very impressive; I am unimpressed with steam sounds that seem to me to be just bursts of white noise that do not alter in volume with the work the loco is (or is being made to appear to be) doing.  Real steam engines don't sound like that, and it seems not to be that much better than the old Triang scraper to make a 'chuffing' noise.

 

Sound is also hampered by the limitations on physical size, and hence frequency response, of the speakers; headphones may be the way to go here, but need a different approach, and possibly the NFC circuitry to enable them would be more space consuming than the speakers!

 

Maybe what we need is rather than sound speakers in the loco's, proximity sensors instead, as well as the DCC chip to provide locomotive type recognition, and a digital surround sound system plumbed up in and around the layout to provide top quality sound? 

 

Paul. 

[JSpencer]

Maybe what we need is rather than sound speakers in the loco's, proximity sensors instead, as well as the DCC chip to provide locomotive type recognition, and a digital surround sound system plumbed up in and around the layout to provide top quality sound? 

 

Paul. 

 

That actually exists. I remember in 2016, while showing my DCC plank layout at a show, someone asking me if I had cheated on the sound part by having speakers underneath the layout, he was impressed when he saw it was actually the locos making the sound.

 

While wiring of the actual loco itself is twice as complex compared to a pure DC model, the wiring itself is not for the user to do as most models are now supplied DCC ready and even DCC sound ready.

On a DC layout you can have simple buttons on the side to isolate sections and even trigger points, and my DCC plank has these to allow me to run in DC mode (though limited to runninf only one loco at a time), BUT the wiring gets really complex quickly if you want those buttons on one control panel and if you wish to place different sections of track under control to different controlers at different times. My home DC layout, uses 5 DC controlers, is 2m70 by 3m50 large and has 200 metres of cables running under it to link up all the sections, point systems and controllers to one panel. As it is in modules, there are about 20, 21 pin connectors too. Under DCC, the wiring would have required just 2 cables between one board and the next, maybe a total of 20 to 30 metres.

Edited February 14, 2018 by JSpencer

[Captain Kernow]

fact 1: I have many diverse locos, 18 at last count from 14xx to Class 91s and putting DCC in has been in every case trouble free, no esoteric tweaking of CVs required. Plenty of supporting evidence of the like here from other DCC users.

 

fact 2: read thru this topic's pages and there are many reports of problems getting DCC right for this loco, complex CV manipulations etc.

 

I'll leave readers to draw their own conclusions from this but it hardly makes a negative case for the technology overall. No need to throw baby out with bath water I'd say.

 

edit to fix typos

If it all works for you and you're happy with it, then good luck to you.

 

But DCC is not for everyone and it's certainly not for me, but I'm more than happy with things being that way.

[Strathwood]

Maybe what we need is rather than sound speakers in the loco's, proximity sensors instead, as well as the DCC chip to provide locomotive type recognition, and a digital surround sound system plumbed up in and around the layout to provide top quality sound? 

 

Paul. 

I am sure I have read somewhere about wiring up small branch line type layouts using an O Gauge version of a DCC sound chip with the output going direct to the tracks instead of the motor, making the layout conventional DC controlled via the chip which was mounted below the baseboard. The sound element supplied with larger O gauge style speakers hidden within the visual part of the layout. To prevent burning out the chip they wired an overide in via a bulb in the event of derailment causing a short. Seems the best of both worlds for smaller layouts as the chip could be bypassed or the sound turned down, when you or others got bored with it. Although the larger chip and speakers were more expensive they were better quality and it just meant the one chip. Not for all I understand, but something to consider, perhaps. Wouldn't try it on a larger layout though, and it means just one style of almost generic steam sounds available only.

 

Kevin

[Sir TophamHatt]

Without meaning to keep steering this off topic, the main draw for me and DCC is:

 

> I started with a brand new layout.

> It's the way trains are going. Most, if not all trains you buy these days are DCC Ready at least. Like TVs, soon enough, they'll all be DCC Fitted.

> I like ot be able to control individual trains without having different power districts or whatever.

 

If you have a half well established layout and a whole bunch of trains, I can see why DCC would put you off.

It has significant advantages and some disadvantages, but anyone starting a layout now, from scratch would be foolish to go for DC.

[Paul_sterling]

Without meaning to keep steering this off topic, the main draw for me and DCC is:

 

> I started with a brand new layout.

> It's the way trains are going. Most, if not all trains you buy these days are DCC Ready at least. Like TVs, soon enough, they'll all be DCC Fitted.

> I like ot be able to control individual trains without having different power districts or whatever.

 

If you have a half well established layout and a whole bunch of trains, I can see why DCC would put you off.

It has significant advantages and some disadvantages, but anyone starting a layout now, from scratch would be foolish to go for DC.

 

I totally agree. 

 

My friend and I have been lifelong model railway enthusiasts. About 10 maybe 15 years ago, under pressure from a neighbour who complained about TV interference, he sold up, and discovered drink, tattoos and women. He came back into the hobby around 5 years ago, and started from scratch with DCC, now admittedly he often tears up his railway layout and starts again, but for him, the control aspect of DCC and the facility for DCC sound is most appealing. 

 

I on the other hand, have never left the hobby, and have always stuck by DC, as I had too many trains to economically switch over to DCC, particularly ones which would require modification to fit a DCC decoder. I guess I could sell a few to fund conversion of the rest/chip purchases, but I'm just not that bothered to go to DCC, my wiring is rudimentary, but evolving, so I manage without it, but I can fully understand the advantages of its operation, just as I could the adverts for Zero 1 when I looked back at old Railway Modeller magazines as a child.  

 

Perhaps my desire to recreate the past in my railway and other hobbies (Tractors and Stationary Engines) highlights a psychological aversion towards modern technology? haha.

 

.......and perhaps an underlying laziness to research the different DCC decoders (as to my mind there are a bewildering range) as to which suits me best, and also the work to rewire the older locos. Swings and roundabouts.............

 

Paul. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Paul_sterling

[JSpencer]

My layout can run DC and DCC alongside each other at the same time. The cab control was design to allow any controller to control any section (this was done to allow trains to switch sections or circuits with ease and without stopping and without having 2 controllers being live on the same bit of track at the same time.

 

When I run a DCC loco, I have 2 choices:

1/ run it under plain DC, basic chip fitted locos will act exactly the same as a non chip fitted loco under DC. Sound fitted will go through a start up routine and then act like a DC loco (although I don't like running sound fitted models in DC mode).

or 2/ give a DCC controller, control of the sections where the DCC locos are, leaving the DC ones under DC control.

 

Point work etc still remains under cab control so I cannot exploit the full advantages of DCC under the old layout. The next layout will be pure DCC.

[BWsTrains]

Without meaning to keep steering this off topic, the main draw for me and DCC is:

 

> I started with a brand new layout.

> It's the way trains are going. Most, if not all trains you buy these days are DCC Ready at least. Like TVs, soon enough, they'll all be DCC Fitted.

> I like ot be able to control individual trains without having different power districts or whatever.

 

If you have a half well established layout and a whole bunch of trains, I can see why DCC would put you off.

It has significant advantages and some disadvantages, but anyone starting a layout now, from scratch would be foolish to go for DC.

to steer nearer back on topic, the whole point of my original post (#2117) was that WRT Sir Topham's comments on the Hattons DJM 14xx, 

 

Hattons emailled me some settings to try, and although they didn't seem to be specific to any chip, they have improved slow running on both the 58xx and a 64xx pannier.

The CV Settings are:

 

CV5 = 255 (0)

CV6 = 128 (0)

CV49 = 17 (0)

CV51 = 0 (32)

CV52 = 0 (-)

CV53 = 140 (-)

CV54 = 40 (-)

CV55 = 28 (-)

CV56 = 255 (-)

CV124 = 4 (-)

The value in the brackets is the default for my chip.

Also, my chips didn't have anything above CV52.

 

 

goes to point out that this particular loco has its issues under DCC, echoing older posts on this Thread.

 

This is not the case with the vast majority of locos including the 18 I refer to. Those committed to DC setups have their own needs fully met and no need to switch but should not dismiss a perfectly good technology (as in post #2116) based on their own POV and highly selective data picking of one specific problem DCC situation.   

Edited February 27, 2018 by BWsTrains

[D9020 Nimbus]

I notice that Hattons have two DCC-fitted 14xx listed—one with sound—both stating "inconsistent runner". If they can't sort them out...

[Captain Kernow]

anyone starting a layout now, from scratch would be foolish to go for DC.

Er, not really, some of us are happy sticking with what we know and remaining in our cosy comfort zone (it's not called a 'comfort zone' for nothing!).