Jump to content

OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie


Recommended Posts

On 17/11/2020 at 08:50, didcot said:

A picture of the real thing showing the cut out in the bottom slide bar. I don't think the Moguls are alone, I have a funny feeling the Manors have them too, I just cant find a photo.

 

1742433752_gws027.JPG.238d4b90780abdd96c67d33d244da28a.JPG

 

 

 

 

Granges and Manors had the cylinders well forwards of the leading drivers, with a longer con rod to match. So they wouldn't have the same problem.

 

Nigel

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, liathach said:

Just received 6336 this morning. 

 

Aesthetically, the loco looks excellent.

 

Control-wise,  I'm on DCC.  Zimo MX618n18 installed earlier.  I own many other steam engines and diesels the UK RTR manufacturers. 

 

I'm sorry to confirm that the starting from standing to step one is just not acceptable.  I have tried every conceivable alteration of motor-related CVs. At all values of CV9 below 101, the engine jumps seemingly instantaneously to a very, very fast step one.  If CV9 is set to a value above 100, you get annoying humming from the motor, although the transition from standing is improved.  I've tried changing max voltage, reducing CV58 throughout the range.  I've also tried alterations to CVs 57, 112, 23, 66, 95 and CVs145-150.  None of these have cured the instantaneous jump from standing.

 

Above step one, fine, but the starting performance is utterly unrealistic compared to everything else I have.

 

I'm toying with the idea of taking the loco apart to see if another motor would sit in easily in-case it's a poor motor.  If I was a better engineer in miniature, I would want to strip the thing down and change the gearing to improved slow-speed running.

 

I

 

 

 

As has been suggested a decoder re-set might be worthwhile. Certainly trying to set cv9 to three figures is wrong, the range is 10-99. As such I am not surprised the loco won't run well from a standing start.

 

cv9 & cv56 are the main BEMF motor control parameters. The range is as said 10-99 for cv9 and 10-199 for cv56. Until the latest firmware versions both have been set at mid-values of 55. Adding 100 to cv56 is purely for coreless motors. Zimo recommend here that cv9 to 51 and cv56 to 133 are good starting values. I find them to produce quite acceptable coreless motor control without further alteration.

 

With the latest firmware versions both these cv's now come as default at 0. This is auto configuration. You may find it works... or not. I find I prefer the fixed values I set.

 

Start voltage, acc/dec, and speed curves are of course separate issues.

 

Izzy

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, NCB said:

 

Granges and Manors had the cylinders well forwards of the leading drivers, with a longer con rod to match. So they wouldn't have the same problem.

 

Nigel

I wonder whether any of the Granges & Manors acquired slide bars from 43XXs when they acquired their wheels and some other motion parts?

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I wonder whether any of the Granges & Manors acquired slide bars from 43XXs when they acquired their wheels and some other motion parts?

Highly likely, Keith. Part swops were carried out all the time. Somewhere at Tyseley  there  is-are most  of the motion for 111 Great Bear/Viscount Portal.  Parts from 45622  are currently helping 41312 stay together, and pannier 9629 has parts from about 10+ other locomotives. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
23 hours ago, melmerby said:

I'm a little surprised that the actual slide that the con rod & piston rod connects to has no detail and is just flat sided.

 

I not noticed that before, the crosshead doesn't look very good does it.  It's a bit... Triang.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are all the 'grumpies' on here Hornby shareholders? The bodywork is a thing of beauty and execution. The mechanics need some bedding in, maybe some gentle 'fettling'. Hardly surprising for a small piece of machinery that is going to get a lot of scrutiny. There are compromises in the design - not surprising given that this is RTR, not high end finescale. We should be encouraging diversification and risk taking in the hobby - no one benefits from a monopoly.

  • Like 6
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 57xx said:

 

I not noticed that before, the crosshead doesn't look very good does it.  It's a bit... Triang.

(Crossshead, that's it - couldn't remember it's name)

I think Hornby win in the motion stakes, better execution overall.

However the rest is looking pretty good, I can't wait for mine to arrive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

Highly likely, Keith. Part swops were carried out all the time. Somewhere at Tyseley  there  is-are most  of the motion for 111 Great Bear/Viscount Portal.  Parts from 45622  are currently helping 41312 stay together, and pannier 9629 has parts from about 10+ other locomotives. 

Unfortunately not many Granges survive (zero:() so we can't see if any have the cut-out as needed on the 43XX.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pteremy said:

Are all the 'grumpies' on here Hornby shareholders? The bodywork is a thing of beauty and execution. The mechanics need some bedding in, maybe some gentle 'fettling'. Hardly surprising for a small piece of machinery that is going to get a lot of scrutiny. There are compromises in the design - not surprising given that this is RTR, not high end finescale. We should be encouraging diversification and risk taking in the hobby - no one benefits from a monopoly.

I suspect I'm one of your 'grumpies.  I absolutely agree that we shoud all be encouraging divesification and risk taking among RTR producers, but there is no monopoly and I reckon the trade is in a pretty good shape at the minute.  I accept that 00 gauge involves compromises, and a perfect scale model cannot be produced for an incorrect track gauge, also that volume RTR production will inevitably mean even more compromise.  But the new mogul, which I am keeping an eye on as I may be interested in the propsoed 5101 which uses the same chassis and mechanism, is not up to standard however good the body tooling is.  I would be avoiding this chassis even if the look of it was better than it is; my layout is a fairly short BLT using DC control, and I have no place on it for a loco that does not run at least as well as my existing Bachmanns and Hornbys in terms of slow running and of smooth stopping and starting; unfortunately, this one as reported and videod does not cut the mustard.  Moreover, as Dapol themselves have stated that the loco does not need running in, this is  therefore as good as the performance is ever going to be, and waiting for it to bed in or gentle fettling is a hiding to nothing.

 

This sorry state of affairs is then compounded by the visual disaster of the splayed slide bars, which are not just wrong and avoidable in the ways I have suggested, but draw attention to themselves, and I am further dissuaded by the rather crude crosshead.  This is a ship that has been spoiled for a ha'porth of tar, and unless it is significantly improved I will be avoiding the 5101 version; I have no need of moguls or manors.  Were I in the market for a mogul, I'd be happy with the body tooling of this, but would be wanting to put a Hornby chassis under it for performance and appearance.

 

I have no shares in Hornby or Bachmann,  or anyone else, and the fact that I have no Dapol, Oxford, Heljan, EFE, DJM, Kernow, Accurascale or other makes of locos is simply down to the fact that those companies do not make anything I want, while Bachmann and Hornby do.  I have no brand loyalty to any RTR firm; it you make something I want to decent standards of realism and running and I can afford it, I'll buy it!  I'm no rivet counter either, my ownership of a Hornby 2721 and a 'Limbach' 94xx (not for much longer) proves that, but poor running and overtly obvious inaccuracies like the splayed slide bars are not acceptable to me.  This is not a grump, it is my choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

I am thinking of re-numbering 7305 (GWR Livery) to 6380 ....a Chester loco that received outside steam in 1944.

 

I intend to replace the smoke box door with the BR loco plate and shed code . Are there any other major differences between the Dapol 7305 and a 63xx with steam pipes?

 

Regards from Vancouver

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I suspect I'm one of your 'grumpies.  I absolutely agree that we shoud all be encouraging divesification and risk taking among RTR producers, but there is no monopoly and I reckon the trade is in a pretty good shape at the minute.  I accept that 00 gauge involves compromises, and a perfect scale model cannot be produced for an incorrect track gauge, also that volume RTR production will inevitably mean even more compromise.  But the new mogul, which I am keeping an eye on as I may be interested in the propsoed 5101 which uses the same chassis and mechanism, is not up to standard however good the body tooling is.  I would be avoiding this chassis even if the look of it was better than it is; my layout is a fairly short BLT using DC control, and I have no place on it for a loco that does not run at least as well as my existing Bachmanns and Hornbys in terms of slow running and of smooth stopping and starting; unfortunately, this one as reported and videod does not cut the mustard.  Moreover, as Dapol themselves have stated that the loco does not need running in, this is  therefore as good as the performance is ever going to be, and waiting for it to bed in or gentle fettling is a hiding to nothing.

 

This sorry state of affairs is then compounded by the visual disaster of the splayed slide bars, which are not just wrong and avoidable in the ways I have suggested, but draw attention to themselves, and I am further dissuaded by the rather crude crosshead.  This is a ship that has been spoiled for a ha'porth of tar, and unless it is significantly improved I will be avoiding the 5101 version; I have no need of moguls or manors.  Were I in the market for a mogul, I'd be happy with the body tooling of this, but would be wanting to put a Hornby chassis under it for performance and appearance.

 

I have no shares in Hornby or Bachmann,  or anyone else, and the fact that I have no Dapol, Oxford, Heljan, EFE, DJM, Kernow, Accurascale or other makes of locos is simply down to the fact that those companies do not make anything I want, while Bachmann and Hornby do.  I have no brand loyalty to any RTR firm; it you make something I want to decent standards of realism and running and I can afford it, I'll buy it!  I'm no rivet counter either, my ownership of a Hornby 2721 and a 'Limbach' 94xx (not for much longer) proves that, but poor running and overtly obvious inaccuracies like the splayed slide bars are not acceptable to me.  This is not a grump, it is my choice.

I hope for your sake that the Bachmann 94xx is absolutely perfect in every way then, otherwise you’ll have to reject that too...

Edited by Harlequin
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, john dew said:

I am thinking of re-numbering 7305 (GWR Livery) to 6380 ....a Chester loco that received outside steam in 1944.

 

I intend to replace the smoke box door with the BR loco plate and shed code . Are there any other major differences between the Dapol 7305 and a 63xx with steam pipes?

 

Dapol isn't doing '7305'.

 

Suggest check the firebox style of 6380.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I await the arrival of my sound fitted version but when it arrives I will still run it in. I know Dapol say this is not necessary but I guess they mean the motor. My thinking is that any  mass produced 00 scale loco is likely to have varying tolerances in the gear train with attendant high spots/stiffness.

I have a Bachmann pannier which now runs beautifully but only after a year of “running in” including a trip back to Bachmann so if my Mogul does not run super smooth straight out of the box I will not throw my toys out of the pram. As far as I am concerned it is a beautiful model and I will enjoy owning it. And the inaccuracies on the motion?........ most of the time the loco will be ten feet away pulling coaches and my eyesight is not that good!

  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, liathach said:

I've just emailed Dapol and Rails to seek assistance first.  I've even asked if they are aware of alternative motors or gear arrangements that might yield better results.  Otherwise, I shall intend to send this locomotive back. 

Personally if not 100% happy I would just return for a replacement, especially since others dont seem to be having the same issue.

 

Both times I've had to do this there was no fuss and the replacement was much better so I wouldnt think twice now.

Edited by Hal Nail
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I hope for your sake that the Bachmann 94xx is absolutely perfect in every way then, otherwise you’ll have to reject that too...

 

Cucumber sandwiches.   I read in a book, where a character was quoted  " I don't like cucumber sandwiches", having never tasted cucumber sandwiches.  To draw a parallel, it would be me passing judgement on said 94xx without actually seeing one, save having seen some press releases...

 

I'm rather in favour of this model: Not because it's Western, not because it's a mogul, or any of those things where partisan attitudes hold sway.  It's because  for what is probably the first time, a manufacturer has taken note of what modellers see, or perceive of the subject matter.  That, in my honest opinion, is possibly why I consider this model being fairly unique. I can't think of another situation where this has happened. 

 

Politely worded observations carry far more weight.  I'll stop now. There's a bricklayer in Goole I want to criticise.    I've never met him, and I don't know what job he's on, and, I've never been to Goole.... Cucumber sandwiches....

 

Cheers,

Ian.

Edited by tomparryharry
Missed a bit...
  • Like 2
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I hope for your sake that the Bachmann 94xx is absolutely perfect in every way then, otherwise you’ll have to reject that too...

I’m expecting the 94xx to be as good a runner at least as my other Bachmann panniers, and for it to need some running in and longer term bedding in to achieve it’s best performance, though I understand that there is a new type of motor with it.  I already know that the appearance is acceptable, having studied Andy’s photos closely. It is not a matter of expecting or demanding perfection, but of reasonably expecting it to be within the normal quality range of a typical modern RTR item.  It should be a significant improvement in appearance over my ‘Limbach’ but any improvement in running quality will be an unexpected bonus. 
 

And, yes, I will be sending it back if I’m not happy with it’s running after running it in.  My view is that I’m not being unreasonably critical of the Dapol mogul’s mechanism or the slide bar issue; I could live with the crosshead, which is a good bit better the one on my Airfix prairie chassis.  Dapol may well have improved matters by the time their 5101 hits the market, and I will reconsider.  
 

It will be interesting to hear from anyone who owns the Dap mogul who runs it in and experiences improved slow running, which would trigger a rethink on my part about a Dap 5101, which is why I’ve qualified my comments with ‘as things stand’.  Slow running is important to me, as real trains can run slowly so models of them should too, but it’s a big ask in DC to demand that a model runs well when voltage is low, and friction, rolling resistance, and inertia are proportionally at their maxima. Hornby and Bachmann mechs seem able to manage it routinely after initial stiffness though. 
 

I’ve had cucumber sandwiches and 

know that I prefer other types, and do not know any bricklayers or anyone else for that matter in Goole.  I know one in Cardiff who is hardly an advertisement for them, who stole a camera from a house he was building an extension on and sold it to me without telling me it’s real provenance (mea culpa, caveat emptor), and reserve the right to criticise him...

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

Highly likely, Keith. Part swops were carried out all the time. Somewhere at Tyseley  there  is-are most  of the motion for 111 Great Bear/Viscount Portal.  Parts from 45622  are currently helping 41312 stay together, and pannier 9629 has parts from about 10+ other locomotives. 

111 The Great Bear became 111 Viscount Churchill.  Viscount Portal was 7000.  You would be amazed at the ex Barry bits I saw in the late 70's sat in the dirt or on shelves with interesting numbers but with the relevant locomotive far away.  Did you know that Castles and Kings apparently have the same smokebox door?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MG 7305 said:

111 The Great Bear became 111 Viscount Churchill.  Viscount Portal was 7000.  You would be amazed at the ex Barry bits I saw in the late 70's sat in the dirt or on shelves with interesting numbers but with the relevant locomotive far away.  Did you know that Castles and Kings apparently have the same smokebox door?

 

Thank you, and you're quite right. I recall seeing a set of 'castle' motion on display at GWR 150, when we took TVR 28 to Tyseley. Closer inspection showed certain parts were off the 'Bear'. With pannier 9629, we were able to collect very nearly all of the locomotives original motion, from many diverse places. From those vendors, we thank each & every one. 

 

Cheers,

Ian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Here's my 6336 starting up and running at speed step 1 for 4 chuffs:

 

Zimo MX659N18 decoder. Speed table set up to reduce top speed by half.

Tender middle axle rotates fine.

No hesitation, no jumps.

 

(Tender body off while I test out different speakers.)

 


Performance here looks great. I’ve just watched the Sams trains review and, as a few others pointed out, I think the performance of mine is more aligned with his. So, thinking this through, how did yours run on DC before chipping? I wonder if DCC settings have improved the situation? Also, have you got an ability to measure the b2b’s to see if they are the same as Sam quoted in his review?

 

Either way, I wonder if I consider returning and requesting a replacement, to see if that runs any better. Maybe mine and Sam’s were of a few within the batch that aren’t running as well as they should...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MG 7305 said:

 Did you know that Castles and Kings apparently have the same smokebox door?

That must be about the only part common with other classes as the King was pretty non-standard in practically everything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Adrock said:


Performance here looks great. I’ve just watched the Sams trains review and, as a few others pointed out, I think the performance of mine is more aligned with his. So, thinking this through, how did yours run on DC before chipping? I wonder if DCC settings have improved the situation? Also, have you got an ability to measure the b2b’s to see if they are the same as Sam quoted in his review?

 

Either way, I wonder if I consider returning and requesting a replacement, to see if that runs any better. Maybe mine and Sam’s were of a few within the batch that aren’t running as well as they should...

 

I don't have a DC setup, only DCC, so I can't tell you how it runs on DC I'm afraid.

 

There are no unusual settings in the decoder - only a linear speed table to reduce the top speed (i.e. Speed step 0 = 0 volts, then a linear progression up to speed step 127 = about half max voltage).

 

I think it's more about good motor control, which all good DCC decoders have these days. So if this loco was run on a DC setup with pulse width modulation and feedback I would expect it to run similarly.

 

I'll try to measure the b2bs later.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, melmerby said:

Unfortunately not many Granges survive (zero:() so we can't see if any have the cut-out as needed on the 43XX.

 

But they are making one out of parts............which is what formed the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Dapol isn't doing '7305'.

 

Suggest check the firebox style of 6380.

 

 

Thanks you for the swift reply.  My apologies for the typo, I meant 7301.  I was guilty of thinking ahead   ....7305 ( or 7308) were Croess Newyd locos and my back up if 6308 did not pass muster.

 

I cant see any difference between the firebox of the Hattons photos of 6385 and 7301 but I am no expert. I get the sense I am venturing into a minefield here. The 6308 plates were ordered for 6385 I didnt do my due diligence about smoke pipes!:(. I guess rather than compound the error 7305 would be a safer bet?
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, john dew said:

 

 

 

I cant see any difference between the firebox of the Hattons photos of 6385 and 7301 but I am no expert. I get the sense I am venturing into a minefield here. The 6308 plates were ordered for 6385 I didnt do my due diligence about smoke pipes!:(. I guess rather than compound the error 7305 would be a safer bet?
 

 

Something to do with washout plugs? (Just guessing as it's to do with the firebox)

  • Thanks 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.