Jump to content
 

Bachmann J72


Lu4472ke
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Silver Sidelines said:

 

 Hi Edam you seem to have missed the point, even with cheap motors available Hornby and Heljan are not willing to provide replacement moptors.  Given past performance I don't see this changing .  Nothing to do with changing to coreless motors.

 

Cheers Ray

Ray,

That is correct and as I mentioned it in the message Model railroad manufacturers are having difficulties sourcing their spare motors and simply have to say to their costumers sorry out of stock because they can't source the motor anymore from a closed business or a company that doesn't make that type of motor anymore.

 

There are a few companies (Like Roco) that still wind their own motors and they always have possibilities to make a batch again but if you are dependant of sourced motors (and Hornby, Bachmann and Heljan do this for sure!) this will be likely to become normal and then you have to search the web to find stocks that someone still have. As in the coreless types the available range is much smaller and there are several companies that makes the exact model you can easily swap to another in case of diffuculties. But as Buhler, Mashima and lots of others stopped producing it will become a mayor problem to get spares.

 

The same happened to the old Tenshodo spud when they ran out of parts. Just when several small companies are producing alternatives they retooled the design, put a coreless motor in it and they are in the market again after leaving a gap for quite some years.

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, etendam said:

 

So before making comments what you think will happen in the market next time first look what is actually happening in the market and this is why I say that in a couple of years all motors are coreless! (and perhaps some after market companies earn money with making conversion kits to swap a coreless motor to a traditional motor for those who want to stick to their old motor types because they can't run models with their controller :laugh:)

 

I remember Dave Jones making a similarly confident prediction on the demise of non coreless motors in MRE's 'Have your say' several years ago, but since then of course it is DJM itself that has disappeared! I remember well the animosity towards analogue users back then and I was hoping it had abated, but maybe not. Is it really so unreasonable to want to use feedback controllers to maintain a steady speed and replicate the inertia of a full size train?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no reason for animosity towards either camp. Analogue still works as well as it always has.

 

DCC users need to know what type of motor is fitted* just as much as those using DC, were all in the same camp on this. Any argument is between all of us and the manufacturers.

 

It's perfectly reasonable to expect manufacturers to make clear any design feature which may be adversly affected by any operations which would be considered normal/accepted practice.

 

Anyone can buy small radius track and use it for DC, DCC, radio control, or clockwork. Manufacturers know this and usually give fair warning of the minimum radius that their models will negotiate properly. We may not be happy that a particular model will not traverse 1st radius curves, but at least we know in advance.

 

I think that we can all see from the response from Bachmann above, that notification of the coreless motor in this model, a change from current mainstream practice, was omitted in error. The use of a coreless motor was not a secret**, just not specifically mentioned as we feel it should have been. Bachmann have accepted this point.

 

**Some reviewers, Andy York and Hornby Magazine and probably other of which I am unaware, did make it clear in their appraisals before the model was released that the J72 has a coreless motor.

 

*DCC users need this information too since the motor control CVs will need to be aligned with the coreless characteristics. Many cheap DCC decoders do not have the ability to make such changes, so users of these will also face potential problems with coreless motors in the same way as DC feedback systems . There's no inherent bias against analogue or digital control.

 

Best regards,

 

Paul

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Broadway Clive said:

Is it really so unreasonable to want to use feedback controllers to maintain a steady speed and replicate the inertia of a full size train?

It is not but the majority of the feedback controller users are in the UK and US. In the rest of Europe they are not so common used as in the UK or US but with increase of DCC users Analogue users are declining. Hornby will of course say they stick to Analogue feedback ontrollers as they sell them as well otherwise they can't sell them anymore but time will tell how long they stick to this story.

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, pauliebanger said:

*DCC users need this information too since the motor control CVs will need to be aligned with the coreless characteristics. Many cheap DCC decoders do not have the ability to make such changes, so users of these will also face potential problems with coreless motors in the same way as DC feedback systems . There's no inherent bias against analogue or digital control.

 

Correct - several DCC decoders will not work and you should always look to decoders (A little more expensive now) that do work but in the decodermarket you see new brands and types popping up a couple times in a year.

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter how often new brands of decoder appear, same rule applies - check their capabilities before being seduced by price alone.

 

(One easy way is to check how many pages there are in the decoders' user manual, if they have one at all. If everything can be explained on a single sheet, there's obviously not much to explain so features must be very basic).

 

Does it have a full range of motor control CVs or is the lack of them one of the reasons for their low price?

 

For my own piece of mind I stick with one brand which I know has all bases covered for now and in the future.

 

Best regards,

 

Paul

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, micklner said:

Q6 motors on ebay £7 inc postage. You need to put the worm on from the old motor (detail n Q6 thread).

 

Thanks Mick - things have a habit of going round and round - except when they are bust.  Yes the posting on the Q6 thread should lead you back to my Blog.  https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/entry/22740-remotoring-a-Hornby-q6/

 

Yes after market motors are available for most Hornby models at a fraction of the cost of the genuine spare part - but sometimes the associated brass gears and flywheels have to be 'found' elsewhere.

 

Cheers Ray

Edited by Silver Sidelines
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Silver Sidelines said:

 

Yes after market motors are available for most Hornby models at a fraction of the cost of the genuine spare part - but sometimes the associated brass gears and flywheels have to be 'found' elsewhere.

 

Isn't it possible to re-use the gear and the flywheel? On Ebay you will find a small gear puller that will do the job. They start from just £ 2.98

 

image.png.470efe2ccaae6b4960a59cd686de3089.png

 

www.ebay.co.uk/itm/193298410620 This one can handle items up to 10 mm or have this one that can take larger items (like flywheels) up to 20 mm wide:

www.ebay.co.uk/itm/293357676792 These start from £ 8. I use them both and have not damaged any gear yet.

 

Ed

Edited by etendam
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, etendam said:

 

Isn't it possible to re-use the gear and the flywheel? On Ebay you will find a small gear puller that will do the job. They start from just £ 2.98

 

Hi Edam

 

I don't think you have been keeping up with my Blogs!!  See the link in my last message.

 

Regards

Ray

Edited by Silver Sidelines
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 17/01/2020 at 08:41, etendam said:

On Ebay you will find a small gear puller that will do the job.

 

I soon bent the type pictured. Problem with most types of puller of that type is there is not enough room to slip the plate between the worm/flywheel and motor casing. Even when there was sufficient clearance the "pusher" bent before the worm moved.

 

P

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎16‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 11:41, Broadway Clive said:

...Is it really so unreasonable to want to use feedback controllers to maintain a steady speed and replicate the inertia of a full size train?

No, it isn't; and as a DCC user it is one of the facilities I value most highly. But the tech will keep moving on, and many DC feedback controllers that  worked well with relatively inefficient high current draw motors , won't cut it with coreless motors. So if you want the coming models that may well have coreless motors, it is time to adapt to the situation.

 

One such path. Is there a brand of DC feedback controller that offers the high frequency control that coreless requires? If not and DC it has to be for the layout; then any DCC system with a few hardwired decoders makes a DC controller.

 

 

47 minutes ago, etendam said:

...I don't read all the blogs...

Make that 'any blogs' in my case. Not specific but general: if you have something to contribute to the ongoing conversation, I would suggest it is better directly in the relevant thread. Life is too short and busy to stuff mushrooms, and other such activity.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

I soon bent the type pictured. Problem with most types of puller of that type is there is not enough room to slip the plate between the worm/flywheel and motor casing. Even when there was sufficient clearance the "pusher" bent before the worm moved.

 

P

You can buy a gear wheel puller that does the job and has a very narrow jaw that can slip into a very small gap.

To do this it has to be made out of some good quality tooling steel and will cost rather more than the ones on Ebay.

Mine cost about £70 from memory and that was a good few years ago.

It is out on loan more than in use as a lot of people have found that it is a rather handy tool.

Bernard 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Mine cost about £70 from memory and that was a good few years ago.

 

Yep, I've seen those bent as well. Spigots & Jaws.

I've yet to see to see a standard two flywheel Bachy motor  (as fitted to class 37's 20's 24's etc.) removed successfully without resorting to heating the brass or machining a flat onto the flywheel till it splits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

No, it isn't; and as a DCC user it is one of the facilities I value most highly. But the tech will keep moving on, and many DC feedback controllers that  worked well with relatively inefficient high current draw motors , won't cut it with coreless motors. So if you want the coming models that may well have coreless motors, it is time to adapt to the situation.

 

One such path. Is there a brand of DC feedback controller that offers the high frequency control that coreless requires? If not and DC it has to be for the layout; then any DCC system with a few hardwired decoders makes a DC controller.

I've thought about hardwired decoders but my understanding is that coreless motors will demand different  settings so that would make it impracticable for my layout which is semi-automatic and where I do not always know, or even want to know, what loco is on what train. My feedback controllers are Gaugemaster HHs and one KPC switchable, and the oldest locos are some split chassis Bachmanns. I've an 'On tracks' feedback controller on order to experiment with,  but unfortunately production of other DC feedback controllers seems to have been stymied by the bigger money to be made out of DCC. There are designs that would work, and also operate some features of decoder fitted locos, but unless one builds them one's self then they don't seem currently available to purchase. I imagine some big players prefer it that way and dont care about analogue DC users. The fitting of coreless motors has simply come about in order to squeeze in more gizmos and bigger speakers for DCC and its notable that both Dave Jones of DJM and the designer of this new J72, are N scale enthusiasts, which is where the idea originated. Its funny your valuing feedback as a feature in DCC because in 2005 when I had problems caused by Bachmann's first decoder sockets, their service department denied it was possible and suggested I ditch my feedback controllers because 'real trains do slow down and speed up with gradients'! Even their MD at the time defended their stance but his letter in referring to the business opportunities of DCC did rather suggest that was their priority, whatever the truths were. Later, after others complained, they quietly invented blanking plates for their sockets. So my feeling is that they probably prefer to keep quiet about their fitting of coreless motors so as not to inhibit sales, and that they anticipate many dissatisfied analogue 'newbies' and 'old duffers' will just blame themselves and become shamed into buying a lot of new DCC stuff!  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get back why most users want a

- Feedback controller:  Low speed & Constant speed (over points, around curves and up and down gradients)

- PWM Controller: Low speed

 

Coreless motors ALREADY start at a very low voltage so for the low speed you don't need a special controller anymore. The only thing that isn't achieved is the constant speed over points, around curves and up and down gradients. I am sure that companies like Gaugemaster, Trax controls and others are working on a new type of controller as they are afraid that their controllers are puhsed out of the market when major manufacturers swap to coreless motors and their current controllers are useless.

 

There is no problem to run coreless motors at high frequencies as a DCC decoder also works as a high frequency PWM controller. So the development shouldn't be that difficult.

 

Ed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Broadway Clive said:

The fitting of coreless motors has simply come about in order to squeeze in more gizmos and bigger speakers for DCC

 

Simply incorrect.

 

It's a development in the progression of model railways and that progress is usually driven forward by the manufactures. I'm sorry if the current developments don't suit your own personal desires but sometimes, not just in model railways, change is forced upon us.

 

I rarely see many clockwork locos being run at exhibitions nowadays.

 

2 hours ago, Broadway Clive said:

Even their MD at the time defended their stance but his letter in referring to the business opportunities of DCC did rather suggest that was their priority, whatever the truths were.

 

Quite astute foresight then.

 

2 hours ago, Broadway Clive said:

Later, after others complained, they quietly invented blanking plates for their sockets.

 

But DCC sockets always require  blanking plugs. Please explain further. Although maybe better not, just to keep this thread on J72 topic. BTW Bachmann had been fitting DCC sockets well before 2005. 

 

P

Edited by Porcy Mane
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

Simply incorrect.

 

It's a development in the progression of model railways and that progress is usually driven forward by the manufactures.

Beside the progression of Model railways it is a progression in general! As these motors use less current and are more efficient they are catagorized as "green Motors" or environment friendly motors and thats where investors & banks want to put money in. This is why it is changing so fast and it has nothing to do with model railways but with the reduction of energy consumption and that is why several old motor types (Including some of your favorite Model railway motors) are simply pushed out of the market and this is an ongoing proces.

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
57 minutes ago, GeoS said:

Getting back to the J72, does anyone yet know if the chassis will fit the Wills Finecast J69 body kit? Wheel diameter and spacing almost spot on.

G

Just had a go with an unmade J69 using the footplate only. The front end, with the motor, fits perfectly through the aperture in the Wills footplate. However, you'd need to take 3 or so mm off each end of the chassis to fit within the Will b.beams. The bigger problem is Bachmann's PCB, mounted aft of the motor, which increases the width of the chassis at that point considerably. The good news, though, is that the aperture for the chassis in the Wills footplate can at that point be hacked away considerably, as it's all hidden within the tanks. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read a little on "stay alive" threads, would this technique help run a J72 on feedback controllers? 

 

I'm guessing this could be done  either by adding capacitors etc or by fitting a DCC chip with stay-alive capability but still running on DC.  Clearly there would still be no feedback but how would the controller  cope?

Edited by 2750Papyrus
word deletion
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...