AIRFIX AUTO-TANK - help required

[melmerby]

11 hours ago, Dave47549 said:

 

That's the Dapol 'improved' re-engineered chassis. The Airfix original had 'daylight'

OK

1970s original Airfix

Not much daylight there, only drivetrain:

 

Piece of white card behind so any daylight would be obvious.

 

EDIT

Are you not thinking of the Mainline locos, the Manor & 43XX (which I have) did have proper daylight under the boiler?

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by melmerby

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎07‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 15:10, The Johnster said:

...cromulent...

Although a Simpsons joke, local usages of terms not heard anywhere else are quite common. I have a mother in law who 'quilts'. Not what you are thinking, it's what she does to transport liquid from cup or glass to mouth. I was well baffled when she first handed me a glass of wine with the bidding "Have a quilt of that".

 

23 hours ago, timbowilts said:

Use of the same motor in multiple models saves costs and development time - seemples...

While true, sometimes use of the same (very competent) motor results in a model with avoidable balance problems, when a smaller motor - and there were such available at the time - would have made a better job of it.

 

Anyway, the original Airfix motor deserves to be in something that has real work to do. (I had one in a garden railway 9F weighted to 800g, and it eventually seriously broke the driveline, and is still going today powering another loco.)

 

Someone must have found a suitable substitute motor for the 14xx by now? What about the very short but larger diameter can motor that Rivarossi/AHM put in their North American models? Never had a 14xx to work on so no idea of the 'fit' potential, but its got a big box of side tanks to conceal such a motor layout.

[Graham456]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

Someone must have found a suitable substitute motor for the 14xx by now? What about the very short but larger diameter can motor that Rivarossi/AHM put in their North American models? Never had a 14xx to work on so no idea of the 'fit' potential, but its got a big box of side tanks to conceal such a motor layout.

 

They Did ! They Did !

i am looking at my Airfix 48xx (14xx to New for me).   with a portscrape ! In it

rather than hacksawing the chassis apart to fit a new motor just bung a comet chassis under it  sorts out the traction tyres at the same time? And gives you a gap between boiler and frames. Sorted !

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Someone must have found a suitable substitute motor for the 14xx by now? What about the very short but larger diameter can motor that Rivarossi/AHM put in their North American models? Never had a 14xx to work on so no idea of the 'fit' potential, but its got a big box of side tanks to conceal such a motor layout.

Unfortunately those nice big tanks are full metal to stop the poor darling sitting on it's *rse.

IMHO it needed a thin, long motor sandwiched between the ballast driving the front axle via a worm & gear, without the extra length of universal joints etc.

The original Airfix design was going the right way but the oversize motor with U/Js completely wrecked any chance of balancing the axle loads.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

10 minutes ago, Graham456 said:

They Did ! They Did !

i am looking at my Airfix 48xx (14xx to New for me).   with a portescap ! In it

rather than hacksawing the chassis apart to fit a new motor just bung a comet chassis under it  sorts out the traction tyres at the same time? And gives you a gap between boiler and frames. Sorted !

That's clearly a good solution, but I was thinking of the typically less expensive approach of carving of the existing mech to substitute a more compact motor so that the rear of the motor is no longer practically in the bunker. (Airfix' mechanism designer was clearly keen on this, he used the same layout on the N2 where there was nothing preventing a more conventional layout of motor above the coupled wheelbase; fortunately with no detriment to the tractive or pick up qualities of the resulting model, just a whole heap of motor in the cab...

[Graham456]

3 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

That's clearly a good solution, but I was thinking of the typically less expensive approach of carving of the existing mech to substitute a more compact motor so that the rear of the motor is no longer practically in the bunker. 

 Sorry you didn't say you wanted a cheep job ! Just a answer that couldn't resist giving as my 48xx was next to me 

 actually it should be a simple job to fit a smaller motor in the space, just a shame that won't sort out the problems (mechanical) with the Airfix running gear.

plunger pick ups, striped gears, rocking on the traction tyres, to my mind the motor is the most reliable bit,but I can't argue about it being intrusive 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I have never had one of these to look at, what with being a GNR territory type, and was simply suggesting a possible method from what should be economical RTR parts. I always start from the potentially cheapest method, what with having grown up in complete destitution (we lived in a hole in the road, only had gravel to eat...).

[The Johnster]

A smaller motor might still be worth the effort if it frees up space for cab detail, but my suspicion is that someone trying to refurbish one of these is doing it for cost reasons, which is why they are unwilling to replace the loco with the current Hornby Railroad, which tbh would be my default advice.  

 

I think the OP probably wants to work with the chassis he’s got; all he wants is the missing spring.  

[Steamport Southport]

19 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

A smaller motor might still be worth the effort if it frees up space for cab detail, but my suspicion is that someone trying to refurbish one of these is doing it for cost reasons, which is why they are unwilling to replace the loco with the current Hornby Railroad, which tbh would be my default advice.  

 

 

Not really. It's the only way to get a 14xx apart from buying a DJM version and that has it's problems. No kits available since the old K's/Nucast kit disappeared.

 

Mine will eventually cost more than a brand new Hornby version. But the Airfix model is accurate dimensionally and with a bit of work scrubs up well. Comet chassis, Mashima motor, Gibson wheels, Mainly Trains parts, etc.

 

 

Jason

[Dave47549]

.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Dave47549
Removed pointless guff

[cctransuk]

46 minutes ago, Dave47549 said:

 

That's why I put 'daylight', rather than daylight   .

 

 

Let's be honest; you're struggling here, aren't you?

 

The Johnster posted "When Airfix introduced the 14xx, a big deal was being made of having daylight visible beneath the boiler in the correct places .....".

 

Melmerby posted "What daylight? It has a solid chunk of mazak where the underboiler clearance should be"!

 

You posted "That's the Dapol 'improved' re-engineered chassis. The Airfix original had 'daylight'".

 

Now where in that exchange is there anything to suggest that by 'daylight' you actually meant solid mazak?

 

It is clear that your memory let you down - why try to pretend otherwise?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[melmerby]

To be totally accurate I should have said 50% mazak & 50% drivetrain!

Whatever, there is no clearance under the boiler.

 

I don't understand the problems with the pickups on these locos as you wouldn't let crud build up on back of wheel wipers, so why let the plungers on the 14XX get totally stuck.

They are easy enough to clean, just soak them in IPA

(not the stuff from the pub!)

I have two of these locos, the one in the picture above has a full set of plain Airfix drivers and perfectly working plungers, the second has Gibson wheels and also has perfectly working plungers.

What is wrong with these locos is the oversize motor which makes them tail heavy (and it also fills the cab!)

 

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

A smaller motor might still be worth the effort if it frees up space for cab detail, but my suspicion is that someone trying to refurbish one of these is doing it for cost reasons, which is why they are unwilling to replace the loco with the current Hornby Railroad, which tbh would be my default advice.  

 

I think the OP probably wants to work with the chassis he’s got; all he wants is the missing spring.  

 

As well as the two Airfix ones I also have a Hattons one which fortunately runs reasonably (but not perfectly) well.

 

As to the OP, who must be getting cheesed off with all the peripheral guff, just putting a new spring in and giving the loco a good clean and service should provide a reasonable loco for an autotrain.

 

[Steamport Southport]

It did have daylight though. It wasn't solid like the example in this post.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/143665-airfix-auto-tank-help-required/&do=findComment&comment=3520554

 

 

 

http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/042.htm

 

 

 

Jason

[Dave47549]

.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Dave47549
Removed pointless guff

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

It did have daylight though. It wasn't solid like the example in this post.

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/143665-airfix-auto-tank-help-required/&do=findComment&comment=3520554

 

http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/042.htm

 

Jason

The picture I originally posted was a stock photo of a supposedly Airfix version.

The later one was one of my two proper ones.

 

There must have been a bright light to get that effect with the one on the Airfix site, as my own picture shows there is virtually no light getting through from the other side on a genuine 1970s Airfix 1466!

I've still got the original mini tension locks but the ones shown are Hornby clip-ins.

An unfortunate result of the large magnet in the bunker is that the hook gets attracted to the back of the bunker, which is why you can't see it.

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by melmerby
added clarity

[RosiesBoss]

G'day, all,

 

My original Airfix model had no daylight under its boiler and still lacked it when I first converted it to a 517 class. When its chassis died, I built a new one, as detailed here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/137953-gwr-517-class-no-848-–-a-tale-of-three-chassis/#entry3315390

 

As rebuilt, it now has daylight showing under the boiler and it now runs far better than it ever did. The new motor is perfectly adequate for its duties.

 

My chassis replacement scheme would work just as well for an otherwise unaltered Airfix 14XX.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

Rob

[DCB]

1 hour ago, RosiesBoss said:

G'day, all,

 

My original Airfix model had no daylight under its boiler and still lacked it when I first converted it to a 517 class. When its chassis died, I built a new one, as detailed here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/137953-gwr-517-class-no-848-–-a-tale-of-three-chassis/#entry3315390

 

As rebuilt, it now has daylight showing under the boiler and it now runs far better than it ever did. The new motor is perfectly adequate for its duties.

 

My chassis replacement scheme would work just as well for an otherwise unaltered Airfix 14XX.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

Rob

 

The three chassis thread is interesting.  I have a Dapol with extra travel on the trailing axle so it can cope with uneven track but the problem I can't resolve is keeping the rear "ride height" right can't as it sits down on its rear end when pulling and lifts the leading wheels.   If I built an etched brass chassis I would consider driving the front axle and keeping the front and rear axles rigid in the frame. The the middle axle could then float with trailing arms a la Mini rear suspension etc pivoted round the leading axle to keep the coupling rod centres constant and  instead of springing could have some heavy ballast hung on it. The small Hornby (Type 7?) motor  should be quite able to cope especially if the Airfix U/J and gears were used

[John_Hughes]

8 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

 

The three chassis thread is interesting.  I have a Dapol with extra travel on the trailing axle so it can cope with uneven track but the problem I can't resolve is keeping the rear "ride height" right can't as it sits down on its rear end when pulling and lifts the leading wheels.   If I built an etched brass chassis I would consider driving the front axle and keeping the front and rear axles rigid in the frame. The the middle axle could then float with trailing arms a la Mini rear suspension etc pivoted round the leading axle to keep the coupling rod centres constant and  instead of springing could have some heavy ballast hung on it. The small Hornby (Type 7?) motor  should be quite able to cope especially if the Airfix U/J and gears were used

 

The Comet chassis solution is to treat the driving axles as a unit which can pivot up and down, while the rear axle has almost no vertical play at all. Theoretically I can see all sorts of problems with this, but it seems to work pretty well in practice.

[DCB]

18 hours ago, melmerby said:

 

 

I don't understand the problems with the pickups on these locos as you wouldn't let crud build up on back of wheel wipers, so why let the plungers on the 14XX get totally stuck.

They are easy enough to clean, just soak them in IPA

(not the stuff from the pub!)

 

The issue with the plunger pickups is they can't take more than about 1/2 an amp without taking the temper out of the springs.  If you get a dead short, loco stalls etc, you give it some welly to get it going and the little spring glows red hot, curls up and dies.  If its DCC then death is instantaneous.  The dead short occurs when you have a live frog point set against the loco.  The frog will be at the wrong polarity as will any rail connected to it by a conductive rail joiner. As the loco approaches the leading wheel  will cross an insulated rail joiner and be the opposite polarity to the other wheels ON THE SAME SIDE.  That is when the pickups fail.  I keep forgetting to set the right hand end point when running round at the branch terminus which is probably why I have 5 spare Airfix motors, a box of bodies, about 16 failed plungers and about 3 serviceable ones and no remaining serviceable Airfix 14XX.

Plunger pickups are a great idea but they need to have more robust springs or to be kept well away from live frog points

[melmerby]

If that's the case don't try using Alan Gibson plunger pickups as they have a much finer spring.

 

TBH I've driven mine into wrongly set points with a 5A DCC system and it shuts down so quickly the springs wouldn't have time to heat up. It hasn't done either of my locos any harm.

[Graham456]

7 hours ago, melmerby said:

If that's the case don't try using Alan Gibson plunger pickups as they have a much finer spring.

 

TBH I've driven mine into wrongly set points with a 5A DCC system and it shuts down so quickly the springs wouldn't have time to heat up. It hasn't done either of my locos any harm.

  And back in what was it 78 DCC didn't really exist in great quantitys it may even may have came out pre zero one and Airfix MTC but what I do remember is the box of 500 plunger pick ups we had in the shop I worked in so even in 12volt days we got through them all right, I got very accomplished in changing them, 

 P S only have two left of the stock I bought to keep my four going fourty  years ago