Mainline 43XX

[GWR-fan]

I purchased a non-runner Mainline 43XX in cosmetically as new condition primarily to utilise the tender wheels for a Hornby Dean single and also because it was cheap and if unable to fix then I would use as a dummy double header.   After a little work I was able to get it functional although while the chassis is relatively quiet once the body is fitted it becomes quite noisy in the forward direction and more acceptable in reverse.  I suppose I cannot complain as I really just wanted the tender wheels.  My query is whether these Mainline 43XX are usually noisy with the body on.  The chassis is a very tight fit in the boiler section of the body.

[Gordon A]

Motor rubbing on the body?

 

Gordon A

[GWR-fan]

The small ringfield motor is secured inside the chassis halves so would not be touching on the sides,  but possibly at the top.  The chassis itself is tight inside the boiler so perhaps sound is being transmitted through there.  The drive is definitely better in reverse as long as speed is limited or else the rear driving axle derails on R4 curves in reverse.  There is side freeplay on all axles so it is not the axles binding up.  Forward direction there seems a lot of mechanical noise not as apparent in reverse direction.

[No Decorum]

I have loved Mainline locomotives since they first appeared. In my (very personal) opinion, they were very far ahead of the rival offerings. Even through my rose-coloured glasses hearing aid, I have to confess that the mechanisms are noisy and not as smooth as modern Bachmann offerings. When Bachmann produced a 56XX (South Wales 0-6-2T) with the old body and a new chassis, I was curious to compare it with my Mainline one. I don’t know how old the Mainline one is but my records go back to the mid-1980s, so it is at least that old. It is a tribute to Mainline that the body stands up well to modern scrutiny but the new chassis (DCC ready, of course) runs smoothly and quietly. The Mainline hadn’t been run for years but started straight away and ran roughly, sounding like a bag of spanners. I took the body off and lubricated it carefully. The running was transformed. Certainly, it wasn’t quite as smooth as the Bachmann and, whilst still quite noisy, it was a lot less so than before it was lubricated. If you have lubricated your 43XX, probably it is as quiet as it’s going to get.

 

The 43XXs are nicely observed models. They come with lever reverse and 93XXs were produced too, with screw reverse and side-window cabs. The 93XXs even depict the 1½ ton casting behind the buffer beam, intended to make the pony truck more effective.

 

All the same, I’m sure the Dapol model will be an improvement.

[bike2steam]

The best thing for a Mainline/early Bachmann 43xx  body is ;-https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/locomotive/gwr-4300-2-6-0-chassis-pack-lcp29/

[GWR-fan]

Many thanks.  I am fond of the 43XX and the 93XX and have several split chassis Bachmann models or Mainline bodies to which Bachmann drives have been fitted.  A few months ago I purchased an early crest BR non-runner model and try as I may I could not get it to run so I removed the tiny ringfield and simply made it a dummy.

[The Johnster]

Perhaps the body is acting as an amplifying sound box.  Once you have eradicated running issues as a source of noise and ensured that the loco is correctly lubricated, fill as much space inside the boiler and smokebox as you can; IIRC this model is pretty full up already with the split chassis mazak blocks.  Filling the spaces with blu tac or plasticene will deaden the noise, and provide a bit more traction weight which is no bad thing with this loco,  I'd also recommend ditching the traction tyre, which will reduce the loco's haulage capacity but greatly improve smooth slow running,  It's probably the cause of your reverse derailment on no.4 curves.

 

The ringfileld pancake motor was popular in RTR locos of this period because the demand was for a better scale appearance (still is), so body toolings that had skirts beneath the boilers and prevented a clear view through and mechs that were visible from the side were 'out'.  The answer for steam locos was a pancake over the rear axle hidden in the firebox.  They were gutless wonders, developing insufficient power unless they were run at very high rpm, and consequently drove through spur gears which induced friction and did not help with smooth slow running.  Even with these, traction tyres were used to enable the loco to pull at least half a reasonable load.  

 

Modern mechs have the benefit of small but very powerful can motors that are cheap, easily available in China, and can put out a good bit of low rpm grunt, so have reverted to worm and gear drive but still meet the realism demands of hiding the mech and seeing beneath the boiler

 

8 hours ago, No Decorum said:

I have loved Mainline locomotives since they first appeared. In my (very personal) opinion, they were very far ahead of the rival offerings.

No argument there, and nobody (bar Bachmann, who don't count because they are genetically Mainline anyway) came close in RTR until Hornby finally caught up with Bachmann about 15 years ago.  Some Airfix from those days wasn't bad, but let itself down with poor running and visible mechanisms.  Lima were fine above the running plates, but pathetic below them (reliable, though), and Hornby were stuck in a 1960s time warp until the 90s.

 

8 hours ago, No Decorum said:

. When Bachmann produced a 56XX (South Wales 0-6-2T) with the old body and a new chassis, I was curious to compare it with my Mainline one. I don’t know how old the Mainline one is but my records go back to the mid-1980s, so it is at least that old. It is a tribute to Mainline that the body stands up well to modern scrutiny but the new chassis (DCC ready, of course) runs smoothly and quietly

Bachmann have retooled the 56xx body but I think you are right in that early Baccy 56xx had the old Mainline body on a new chassis.  I agree that the Mainline body tooling still cuts the mustard; I have one running on a current Baccy chassis and two of the current Baccy version.  There are differences, but they are subtle and not obvious until you scrutinise the loco closely; the big differences are cab detail and lamp irons, and I have retrofitted these to my old Mainline body, which is about 45 years old,

 

8 hours ago, No Decorum said:

The 93XXs even depict the 1½ ton casting behind the buffer beam, intended to make the pony truck more effective

This was provided to beef up the front end and make it a bit less susceptible to damage from heavy shunts.  

 

8 hours ago, No Decorum said:

All the same, I’m sure the Dapol model will be an improvement.

We live in hope.  It should at least correct the main error of the Mainline 43xx, which was that the firebox was too wide, to accommodate the pancake motor, an issue shared with the Manor.

[Guest WM183]

Is the Dapol 43xx still planned?

[GWR-fan]

Many thanks

 

Edit:   one consolation is that I really purchased the loco for the tender wheels.   It had no problem hauling an eight coach rake but the noise and body movement going forward was painful.  In reverse the action is smoother and not as noisy.  I may retain operational purely for running in reverse.  My Bachmann split chassis fitted Mainline 43XX locomotives also exhibit a waddle when running although the drive is a lot quieter.  I have no intention of spending money on this to upgrade the drive.  It is marginally acceptable in reverse at low speed with a rake of wagons.    I hope that this model is not representative of other Mainline products.   I am surprised given that it has traction tyres that the power pickup is so good.

Edited November 16, 2019 by GWR-fan
Additional info

[No Decorum]

4 hours ago, WM183 said:

Is the Dapol 43xx still planned?

Indeed it is. Here’s a link to a picture of an EP on the Hatton’s website.

https://www.hattons.co.uk/333460/dapol_4s_043_001_class_43xx_mogul_2_6_0_6336_in_gwr_green_with_great_western_lettering/stockdetail.aspx