A tale of three chassis - floppy no more

[Neil]

Many years ago, sometime last century, I bought a Hornby Jinty, not the original one with the mazak chassis but the updated one with a moulded plastic one. It shared the X04 motor with its ancestor and as far as I can tell nothing else. It has sat in a drawer for years only resurfacing last month. Last month I bought a second hand (like new) Hornby J52 with a later version of the moulded chassis, different motor, traction tyres, flex built into the chassis. If I remember correctly this chassis was introduced with Hornby's Thomas. The photo should make clear what's what.

 

 

I was a bit disappointed with the performance of the J52, it didn't run as well as the dusty and neglected Jinty, I suspect the problem lies in the floppy chassis. It's left me pondering a replacement chassis for it. Can anyone tell me what chassis lies beneath the current Railroad Jinty, is it the floppy one? Alternatively can anyone tell me what the part number or official description of the X04 motored moulded chassis is so I can search for a decent second hand specimen.

 

Thank you.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Neil

[31A]

I've had a couple of those over the years neither of which ran well.

 

It seems like a good idea (as sprung axles improve pick up performance, especially in short wheelbase locos, see Bachmann 08 for example) poorly executed due to the drive being on the middle axle which is therefore not the sprung one, and the sprung axle having traction tyres fitted to its wheels thereby stopping them from collecting the juice.

 

From the Service Sheet (HSS201F 0-6-0 Locomotive), it seems that this design is still fitted and Hornby acknowledge that there may be a problem:

 

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/downloads/view/index/cat/21/

 

I improved my J52 no end by fitting a Bachmann 57xx Pannier Tank chassis (which has a sprung middle axle) to it!

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/121806-a-j52-for-finsbury-square/

[DCB]

The front axle drive X04 powered chassis is probably the rarest of the Jinty/ 08 etc chassis.   Most came with flangeless centre wheels and centre axle drive.  The safest way to identify one is probably by the front axle drive, lack of traction tyres and one piece coupling rods.

 
Most Ebay sellers show the bottom of the locos. I can't believe many lurk unsold on dealers shelves unless they charge full retail...

 

31A inproved his J52 by fitting a Bachmann chassis, I got fed up of Bachmann wheels coming loose and motors failing and I am fitting Bachmann bodies with Hornby chassis re drilled for the correct wheelbase using Bachmann rods and that super reliable X04 motor

[Neil]

Thanks for the suggestion Steve, the Bachmann 57xx conversion looks to be a fruitful avenue to explore.

 

Thanks for your advice David, your thoughts confirm my impression gained through a quick e-bay search for Hornby chassis.

[Podhunter]

I bought a Hornby Jinty, not the original one with the mazak chassis but the updated one with a moulded plastic one.

I don't think the newer chassis are wholly plastic.  I believe that they are mostly mazak with a plastic keeper plate, which (a) keeps the wheels in place and (b) holds the electrical pick-up springs.  The keeper plate is moulded in one piece with the lugs that keep loco body and chassis together (i.e. you don't need screws to fix the chassis to the body).

There have certainly been changes over the years: not all chassis are fitted with traction tyres on the centre wheel, some of which are flangeless.  I think that some also had a sprung rear wheel.  What hasn't changed for several decades is the overall shape and those fixing lugs: I've fitted a modern 0-6-0 chassis to a 30-year-old Southern E2.   The modern motors are a lot smaller than the X04, resulting in an empty cab free of the back-end of the X04 with its chunky magnet.

However, none of the above is documented anywhere that I know.

[BG John]

I've got two of the modern type. One I bought as just a chassis on eBay I understood was new and unused, so presumably the latest version, and the other one that came with a loco is the same. The chassis is metal, with a plastic keeper plate. I haven't given either of them a proper run yet, so don't know how they perform.

 

My current plan is to convert one to EM, and pinch a pair of flanged drivers off the other to replace the ones with traction tyres. I don't know what I'll do with the other one then! Unless I come across someone who has a couple of surplus pairs of flanged wheels .

[31A]

 

 

It seems like a good idea (as sprung axles improve pick up performance, especially in short wheelbase locos, see Bachmann 08 for example) poorly executed due to the drive being on the middle axle which is therefore not the sprung one, and the sprung axle having traction tyres fitted to its wheels thereby stopping them from collecting the juice.

 

 

 

 

Foot in mouth apology time - it obviously isn't the middle axle that's driven, is it - which makes it all the more a pity they didn't spring the middle axle.

 

 

The front axle drive X04 powered chassis is probably the rarest of the Jinty/ 08 etc chassis.   Most came with flangeless centre wheels and centre axle drive.  The safest way to identify one is probably by the front axle drive, lack of traction tyres and one piece coupling rods.

 

Most Ebay sellers show the bottom of the locos. I can't believe many lurk unsold on dealers shelves unless they charge full retail...

 

31A inproved his J52 by fitting a Bachmann chassis, I got fed up of Bachmann wheels coming loose and motors failing and I am fitting Bachmann bodies with Hornby chassis re drilled for the correct wheelbase using Bachmann rods and that super reliable X04 motor

 

 

I've never known Bachmann wheels to come loose - I'm not talking about the 'split chassis' design.

 

On reflection, I think I tried to improve the running of one of that kind of Hornby chassis by replacing the tyred wheelset with a plain one from another 'Jinty' chassis - it was for a white metal kit so there was plenty of weight anyway - but failed to get the quartering right when pressing the wheel back onto the axle, so it didn't really help!

[BG John]

Foot in mouth apology time - it obviously isn't the middle axle that's driven, is it - which makes it all the more a pity they didn't spring the middle axle.

The middle axle is driven and has the traction tyres. The rear axle is sprung, making it more like an 0-4-2.

[31A]

Seems I was right the first time, then - there must be more versions than I realised!

[Il Grifone]

I haven't tried it, but would experiment with removing the traction tyres and fixing the rear axle, basically converting the chassis to the earlier type. The centre wheel treads should just not touch the rail.

 

IMHO the correct way of arranging this chassis would be fixed outer axles (possibly equalised by allowing one axle to rock) and a sprung centre axle (which would require a separate gearbox).

[DCB]

 

I've never known Bachmann wheels to come loose - I'm not talking about the 'split chassis' design.

 

There are still a lot of Bachmann split axle locos out there being sold as new.  My son had a "New" Cambrian Coast Express set for his birthday present from my father in law this summer 2017 and the Manor shed a wheel within 20 minutes of running in. It went back on kept the quartering but doesn't bode well for the future.  My Mainline Manor on a Triang B12 chassis with an X04, Romfords etc, has been running for some 25 years or so with very little attention hence my preference for modified Triang/ Hornby chassis and Bachmann bodies.

[melmerby]

There are still a lot of Bachmann split axle locos out there being sold as new.

Some of the Bachmann chassis have, AFAIK, never been upgraded from split chassis. (43XX, Manor, Nelson(?)) maybe others

Most are not sold much these days

 

Keith.

[The Johnster]

I haven't tried it, but would experiment with removing the traction tyres and fixing the rear axle, basically converting the chassis to the earlier type. The centre wheel treads should just not touch the rail.

 

IMHO the correct way of arranging this chassis would be fixed outer axles (possibly equalised by allowing one axle to rock) and a sprung centre axle (which would require a separate gearbox).

 

 

 

I have a Hornby 2721 with what is AFAIK the current version of the generic Jinty chassis, bought very cheaply as a poor runner.  Investigation showed it to be fully gunged up with excess lubricant which had gone off solid, and a serious cleaning session with old toothbrush, Maplin's ratttlecan switch cleaner, my preferred gunge remover for this sort of thing, along with a careful reassembly gave me a runner.

 

But not a very good one, unhappy at low speeds and incapable of smooth starts or stops, also a staller on dead frogs.  My comparable Bachmann chassis were much better.  I stripped the Hornby down to components, thoroughly cleaned everything in switch cleaner and let them evaporate dry overnight.  Then, having downloaded the manual with the exploded diagram from Hornby's website, I set to work.  First job was to get rid of the traction tyre, a complete waste of time on a level layout where the maximum load is 3 coaches or 10 wagons and a van.  Traction tyres are IMHO satan's expectorant and a guaranteed way of messing up your loco's ability to reliably pick up current, because they stand proud of the wheel profile and the chassis tends to rock on them if they are on the centre axle, lifting one of the pickup wheelsets off the track.  

 

The rear axle is sprung by what looks like a crude arrangement where the springs bear directly on to the rear axle (I would expect a sprung plate to bear onto it), and a slight clicking noise showed where one had scored the axle slightly and was catching the burr.  I polished out the score and gave the ends of the springs a bit of a rub with emery cloth to make them more rounded.  The service sheet suggests that, if the chassis lifts at the back because the spring pressure is too powerful, it is possible to reduce it by trimming the springs, but that sounded like a recipe for a spring pinging off into another universe to me, so I have ballasted the bunker as heavily as I can to make the chassis sit properly.

 

In fact, the loco is packed with as much ballast as I can manage, mostly in the form of blu-tac.  The loco is now a much better runner; it still has an insane top speed which is annoying as it suggests performance could be further improved with better gearing, but is controllable down to a very low speed and starts and stops smoothly; in fact, it is now as as good a runner as my Bachmann 57xx, which is very good indeed!  The grooved, now rubber tyre-less, centre wheels have not been an issue at all, but  I will eventually replace them for the sake of appearance.

 

It is noticeably more prone to picking up dirt on the wheel treads and pickup than any of my other locos, Hornby or Bachmann, though, and requires much more attention with the wheel cleaner to keep it running well.  I assume, but do not actually know, that this is to do with the material used for the tyres and flanges.

 

A common way of improving this loco is to replace the chassis with a Bachmann 57xx one, but this was not an option in my case as I wanted to model 2761, the Hornby prototype, which spent it's last years of service allocated to Tondu shed, and this loco had fluted coupling rods not the plain fishbelly type that were fitted to 57xx and some 2721s.

Edited September 22, 2017 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

There are still a lot of Bachmann split axle locos out there being sold as new.  My son had a "New" Cambrian Coast Express set for his birthday present from my father in law this summer 2017 and the Manor shed a wheel within 20 minutes of running in. It went back on kept the quartering but doesn't bode well for the future.  My Mainline Manor on a Triang B12 chassis with an X04, Romfords etc, has been running for some 25 years or so with very little attention hence my preference for modified Triang/ Hornby chassis and Bachmann bodies.

 

 

To the best of my knowledge, no loco in the current Bachmann catalogue has a split chassis nor has for some time, and the Manor and 43xx have been out of production for a good while now.  Anyone selling these as 'new' is pushing veracity a bit; they will be old stock at least, though possibly not secondhand.  'As new', a description of condition with a lowered price to match, is less dishonest.  I am sorry to hear of your Father in Law's experience, and your son's disappointment at the hands of a dodgy retailer.  The Mainline split chassis have a poor reputation for wheels coming loose and losing quarter, something I had problems with in bygone days, but more recently have had trouble with the metal stub axles of Mainline chassis wearing through the top of the twin brass chassis plates, and seizing up.  

 

Bachmann continued production of Mainline split chassis locos with a new motor and drive train, a worm and gear design, which should have improved matters, but apparently didn't (I have no direct experience of them), as the quartering issue and presumably the wearing through at the top issue that I suffered were not addressed.  I imagine this is the version that your Father in Law bought for your son.  The market continues to await the re-release of the Manor and 43xx (a chassis which could be used for large prairies as well) and it would serve Baccy's right is someone stepped in to steal their thunder!

 

Current Bachmann chassis are very reliable performers with very good slow control and almost silent running, probably as good as it is reasonably to expect from RTR, though a question mark remains over the haulage capacitiy of some of the steam outline models, a matter which does not bother those of us with smaller layouts.

[melmerby]

 

A common way of improving this loco is to replace the chassis with a Bachmann 57xx one, but this was not an option in my case as I wanted to model 2761, the Hornby prototype, which spent it's last years of service allocated to Tondu shed, and this loco had fluted coupling rods not the plain fishbelly type that were fitted to 57xx and some 2721s.

One of the major problems with the 2721 is that the body was stretched to fit the existing generic 0-6-0 (Jinty) chassis with a wheelbase that is too long for a GWR tank loco, making the splashers out of alignment with the Bachmann 57XX chassis.

It's a pity because the 2721 with all it's inaccuracies is one of the very few (the only?) half cab GWR tank locos available.

I've got one of the plastic/XO4 variants and it runs reasonably well (for what is effectively an 0-4-0!) considering the undersize centre wheels

 

IMHO A nice half cab GWR saddle tank would be nice!

 

Keith

 

EDIT Mine has a diecast block and plastic keeper with front mounted nylon gear and an XO4

Just tried a Baccy 57XX chassis and it wouldn't go without a fair bit of hacking! (too wide)

Edited September 23, 2017 by melmerby

[The Johnster]

It's a terrible model in almost every possible respect, but people just seem to like it anyway; it carries off Edwardian style with a degree of conviction despite everything, and appears happily pulling rakes of Ratio 4 wheelers on many a layout whose owner should know better, mine included, where the loco is in black wartime austerity livery and the coaches in early BR crimson, a miner's workman's.

 

Of course, having the GW half cab tank market to itself does it no harm!

Edited September 22, 2017 by The Johnster

[hallmodelspares]

Neil your chassis you describe as an x-04 motor is in fact an x-03 motor. This is because it has a silver drive gear which is different ratio to the older x-04 type found in many triang and early Hornby after its separation from the triang toys company. The worm is different being black plastic and nearly all x-04 are brass. Hornby in some documentation recommend adjusting the rear axle using strips of paper between the axle spring to change the compression. I had for a while the railroad red and black 08 diesel, this has a different centre axle to many of the others. They put a set of wheels with no traction tyres whatsoever fitted even no grove for them. I do not know if the other railroad were changed the 08/09 in the railroad pack with 3 wagons

[Northmoor]

It's a terrible model in almost every possible respect, but people just seem to like it anyway; it carries off Edwardian style with a degree of conviction despite everything

 I had never realised it's inaccuracies until I joined RMWeb, but I'll own up to being one of those that "loves it anyway".  The loco has a real charm that allows me to overlook it's faults. I currently have three, only one of which is a keeper; that's going to get HMRS British Railways lettering (in Great Western style) and a front numberplate to suit my layout's intended era (mid-'50s).  Yes I know the last one was withdrawn in 1951 and they were based no further West that Llanelli, but Rule One, etc......

[hayfield]

I had never realised it's inaccuracies until I joined RMWeb, but I'll own up to being one of those that "loves it anyway".  The loco has a real charm that allows me to overlook it's faults. I currently have three, only one of which is a keeper; that's going to get HMRS British Railways lettering (in Great Western style) and a front numberplate to suit my layout's intended era (mid-'50s).  Yes I know the last one was withdrawn in 1951 and they were based no further West that Llanelli, but Rule One, etc......

 

Reply

If you like it then there is no issue, especially as the 00 track gauge is a far greater compromise

 

We are building/using models where for many reasons compromises have to be made and if you are happy with the looks and performance then all is well

[Il Grifone]

I believe the plastic and brass gears have the same ratio (18:1 IIRC the same as Hornby Dublo vertical motors. They run much faster because the X.03/4* turns at around 50% more r.p.m. - 18,000 off load). The plastic gears appear coarser because they are single start whereas the brass gears are double start.

 

* The difference is a plastic worm on the X.03 (later version - the code was first used in the early days of Tri-ang) and brass on the X.04.

 

My 2721 will end up as an outside frame 0-6-0PT. I can't recall the class but the wheelbase is nearer Hornby's The wheels should be 5' 2" diameter but, since they are hidden behind the frames and have overscale flanges anyway (Romford), I shall ignore it.

 

The most obvious differences between the 2721 and 5700 classes are the running plate valances and steps, the chimney, whistle mounted on the cab roof and 16 rather than 14 spokes in the driving wheels. (Assuming a 5700 style closed cab has been fitted. An open cab is an immediate give away - the old Gaiety casting has all the 2721 features despite bearing the number 5700!)

[The Johnster]

I believe the plastic and brass gears have the same ratio (18:1 IIRC the same as Hornby Dublo vertical motors. They run much faster because the X.03/4* turns at around 50% more r.p.m. - 18,000 off load). The plastic gears appear coarser because they are single start whereas the brass gears are double start.

 

* The difference is a plastic worm on the X.03 (later version - the code was first used in the early days of Tri-ang) and brass on the X.04.

 

My 2721 will end up as an outside frame 0-6-0PT. I can't recall the class but the wheelbase is nearer Hornby's The wheels should be 5' 2" diameter but, since they are hidden behind the frames and have overscale flanges anyway (Romford), I shall ignore it.

 

The most obvious differences between the 2721 and 5700 classes are the running plate valances and steps, the chimney, whistle mounted on the cab roof and 16 rather than 14 spokes in the driving wheels. (Assuming a 5700 style closed cab has been fitted. An open cab is an immediate give away - the old Gaiety casting has all the 2721 features despite bearing the number 5700!)

 

 

To add to obvious differences, coupling rods, which were fluted on some locos, plain parallel on others, and plain fishbelly like a 57xx on still others.  It is possible to trace a line of development from early 2721 conversions from saddle tanks to the initial batch of 57xx, with some 2721s being to all intents and purposes identical to early 57xx except for the valances, with taper chimneys, cab rear plates, whistles on the firebox and so on.  Photo evidence is always advisable, but particularly so with these locos.  

 

Some parts were interchangeable with 57xx, including boilers, and pannier tanks (although another one of the Hornby 2721's inaccuracies is that the pannier tanks are deeper and mounted higher than the ones on the Bachmann 57xx, which I assume to be correct).

 

I have improved the look of my 2721 with a parallel chimney and a replacement safety valve cover (these items are probably the weakest parts of the Hornby moulding, with the chimney actually tapered inwards like a Drewry exhaust) which are survivors from an old Westward 64xx which no longer runs.  A job for the in tray on this loco is to model the canvas weather sheet in position over the cab, something I once did many years ago on a Mainline Dean Goods, and which attracted much favourable comment at exhibitions.  I used Band Aid plaster...

 

The motor on mine is not an XO4, but a can motor with non-replaceable carbon brushes.  As it is secondhand, I have no idea how many hours it has run, and the current situation is that spares are not obtainable from H, or Peter's, so when the brushes give out, that's end of sports.  But she has light duties on a small BLT, and I am hoping to get a few years out of her before that happens!

 

IIRC the outside frame half cabs are 2021s, some of which were auto fitted.  The prototype 54xx was a rebuild of one, later itself replaced with a brand new locomotive.

Edited September 23, 2017 by The Johnster

[melmerby]

 

IIRC the outside frame half cabs are 2021s, some of which were auto fitted.  The prototype 54xx was a rebuild of one, later itself replaced with a brand new locomotive.

The 2021 were inside frames just like the 54XX

 

No 2080 was the guinea pig which which had it's 4' 1½" wheels replaced with 5' 2" wheels (and appropriately larger splashers) and apart from that looked little different to it's modernised brothers.

It had already acquired pannier tanks and a closed in cab before conversion. It ran for a while as 2080 before being renumbered 5400 but was scrapped 7 months after the 54XXs went into production.

 

Keith

[Neil]

Thanks for all the replies, the range of thoughts and opinions is most welcome. To bring the story of the J52 up to date I decided to take a look at the chassis to see if it might be possible to fix in  place the wobbly axle by taking out the springs and adding suitable shims. Once the keeper plate was off and the springs and wheelsets out I noticed some debris lurking in the slot for the sprung axle. Wondering if the bits of plastic had been the source of the rough running I reassembled the chassis with springs, just as Hornby intended. Fate smiles on me as the running was transformed. Even using a cheap Hornby trainset controller from yonks back it showed promise; enough for me to make a start at painting the chassis to take the toy like shine away. Here's the weathered chassis under the stock body.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cobach47]

the problem is in the rear springs being too long even Hornby recommend shortening the springs by cutting off some of the coils

 

[melmerby]

My 2721 will end up as an outside frame 0-6-0PT. I can't recall the class but the wheelbase is nearer Hornby's The wheels should be 5' 2" diameter but, since they are hidden behind the frames and have overscale flanges anyway (Romford), I shall ignore it.

 

There is plenty of choice with wheelbases.

Most were the standard 7' 3" + 8' 3", (some were 7' 4" + 8' 4") usually with 4' 7½" wheels

 

One unusual batch were 7' 9" + 8' 0", these were the 1661 class which had frames intended for the 2361 Goods with 5' 2" wheels.

 

Another batch of just 6 (322 class) were rebuilds of Beyer Peacock tender engines of 1864 and had 8' 0" + 8' 3" spacing with 5' 2" wheels. The cabs were a different profile to others and they had curved frames.

 

The subject of early GWR 0-6-0 tanks is an extremely complex one as some had three different tanks (side, saddle & pannier) during their lifetime, frames and springing arrangements varied even amongst one class, as did cabs and there was constant rebuilding/updating during their lifetimes so the locos at different stages could be seen together.

 

Good luck with your conversion!

 

Cheers

 

Keith