Re-Run of OO Gauge 14xx?

[Jon Harbour]

Does anybody think there is a likelihood of Dapol re-running their OO gauge 14xx any time soon? Having recently started collecting OO as well as N, this is one locomotive missing from my stable. I keep hunting for a good second hand one... but not having any luck.... 

[Steamport Southport]

Not unless they make a brand new one as Hornby now have it.

 

One of the models sold to Hornby a few years ago.

 

 

 

Jason

[No Decorum]

I have an old Airfix one and I’d be very pleased to have an up-to-date one. Hornby’s model is not up to modern standards and the DJ version is problematical. However, because of those two recent models, it might not be very likely.

[90rob]

Virtually zero chance of a re-run I reckon - but Hornby must be considering a new model, given the relative success of their new Terrier. For the record, I have two of the DJM version - they both ran well on DC from the very start, and are continuing to do so....

[Butler Henderson]

4 hours ago, No Decorum said:

I have an old Airfix one and I’d be very pleased to have an up-to-date one. Hornby’s model is not up to modern standards 

The Hornby one is the Airfix body on a 1995 Dapol chassis.

[tomparryharry]

I believe that Hattons are the 'proud' owners of the DJM/Hattons version of the non-Hornby/Dapol 14xx. Sadly for Hattons, they have shared a vastly disproportional share of this debacle, and are quite possibly blameless. 

 

That said, you don't see many of these so-called 'lemons' on the second hand market, so something must have worked out OK. What might, or could, happen is to release the model with an improved chassis, which supersedes the earlier attempt. 

 

A bit of a poisoned chalice for Hattons, however. If they go ahead and re-release the model so close on the heels of the DJM version, Hattons are/will be leaving themselves wide open for a flood of NFG models....

 

How about a nice 517? 

 

Cheers,

Ian.  

[tomparryharry]

As a slight aside, we might speculate on the possibility of some inter-company deals being struck, whereby a company (say, Hornby) speak to another company (say, Hattons). The object being of either company to make a model of said locomotive to a high standard. 

 

For instance, Hornby 'might' retire the ex-Dapol 14xx bodywork, in exchange for the Hattons tooling, and 'might' release something else to improve/recover Hattons position. That way, everybody wins. Hornby,  Hattons, and railway modellers at large. 

 

I was going to make a cheap joke about the chassis, and Davey Jones locker, but I confess I have a soft spot for the DJM/Hattons chassis, for both the 14xx, and the Hunslet Austerity. I can never understand how such a potentially capable 'winner' didn't make it. A classic example where the Quality Engineer was on holiday....

 

If it is to be an RTR model, then polite discussion, detente, and informed, factual observations will prevail.  

 

Cheers,

Ian.

[Butler Henderson]

But then the DJM Hattons body tooling still has issues like having to accommodate the oversize driving wheels that DJM incredibly managed to fit it with. From a normal viewing distance the ex Airfix via Dapol body Hornby use is perfectly acceptable. 

Edited July 25, 2020 by Butler Henderson

[Hal Nail]

1 hour ago, tomparryharry said:

As a slight aside, we might speculate on the possibility of some inter-company deals being struck,

 

Isn't collusion illegal?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 

17 hours ago, 90rob said:

...Hornby must be considering a new model, given the relative success of their new Terrier...

Reasonable to assume that Hornby will have it on a list for consideration, along with all their older product.

 

But what does the form book say? Hornby didn't respond with a competing newly tooled version, in response to the Hattons 14xx model announcement.

 

My bet, Hornby stand pat: holders of the best 14xx tooling, ready to make another production run when sufficient dealer orders are received.

[gwrrob]

1 minute ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

My bet, Hornby stand pat: holders of the best 14xx tooling, ready to make another production run when sufficient dealer orders are received.

 

Maybe so, my Hatton's version runs ok but Hornby have always lacked vision on varieties and liveries with Great Western models.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

Maybe so, my Hatton's version runs ok but Hornby have always lacked vision on varieties and liveries with Great Western models.

It's got be lined green with GWR or one of the BR totems on the tank sides. Been true since Adam were a lad.

[spamcan61]

50 minutes ago, Hal Nail said:

 

Isn't collusion illegal?

Plenty of car manufacturers using their competitors parts, for example, so no I don't think it is collusion.

Edited July 25, 2020 by spamcan61

[tomparryharry]

41 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

Plenty of car manufacturers using their competitors parts, for example, so no I don't think it is collusion.

 

Is collusion illegal? No, in this case. The motor industry has a long history of collusion. I always have a chuckle when I see BMW's speeding about. History will tell you that BMW started with the Austin 7. That said, I can't think offhand of any parts compatibility between a Bugatti Veyron and a 1974 Austin allegro,  Oh Yes! Tyre valves!

 

I like history...... Or, badge engineering.....

[The Johnster]

Happens with real locos as well; I give you the class 28 Metrovick Co-Bo which was a collusion between Metropolitan, who built the frame, bodywork, and running gear, and Vickers shipbuilders who had successfully bought in the Crossley prime mover in Royal Navy diesel electric submarines.  I imagine such collusive activity has to be run by what used to be called the Monopolies Commission, can't off hand remember what they call themselves these days, but they generally give the go ahead if there is competition elsewhere.

 

If you take the example of, say, a Bachmann 57xx, nobody else makes this loco in 00 gauge, so is Bachmann guilty of a monopoly?  No, so long as they do not exploit the situation by overcharging beyond what the market will bear.  Same goes for Heljan's Baby Deltic and of course many others.

[tomparryharry]

This takes us back a couple of days. You will get a monopoly, if there is only 'one game in town'. Hornby had this  situation some time back, and what do we get? Yes, well...... Bachmann were indeed vying for that slot, so fair play to Hornby, that's not the case anymore. 

 

Do they overcharge? A difficult question. Some will think it's overpriced, some will think fair. Charging £25 for a generic 16t mineral is a bit silly, but each & every manufacturer knows where the current money is at, and no silly discussions about "That rivet wasn't used in 1961" sort of thing. No one company will publicly say that they are creating a monopoly, but you can bet your Aunt Mabel's' mangle that they will try....

 

 

[Phatbob]

One person's colusion is another person's joint venture.

As for a new GW 0-4-2 mechanism, several manufacturers have made 4-2-2s which are, mechanically speaking, 4-4-0s, as the rear trailing axle is actually powered using gears to turn it fast enough to match the rotation of the larger driving wheels.
Existing models of 0-4-2s have a reputation for poor performance, given the disproportionate weight on the rear axle, compared to the prototype.  It occurs to me that the solution would be to engineer any new 0-4-2 chassis to actually work as an 0-6-0, with all 3 axles driven.

[Steamport Southport]

Shouldn't really need any difficult engineering.

 

A normal 0-4-2 chassis will work with the trailing pony wheel being fixed like the real ones were. Length wise it's just a small 0-6-0T, no need for the rear pony truck to swivel. That compromise should have went years ago with things like flangeless driving wheels.

 

Look at how the Comet chassis works.

 

http://www.cometmodels.co.uk/data/Catalog/pdf/LCP27.pdf

 

Or High Level.

 

http://www.highlevelkits.co.uk/14xxpage.html

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

The best answer, probably, is a fully compenstated chassis where the driving wheels sit properly on the railheads at all times; it will deploy the loco's tractive effort to the best advantage and improve current pickup as well.  Now, you are probably going to ask me how much this is going to increase the price of the model, and the answer is that I haven't got a clue, but that this is nonetheless the reason that fully compensated chassis will probably never be used in volume RTR models...

 

The idea of having all wheels including the trailing set driven is sound in theory, but in practice leads to complex gearing arrangements subject to excessive wear, and therefore poor running.  It might work if there were separate motors for the coupled wheels and the trailing wheels, with no mechanical connection between them.  It has been attempted I believe with the NRM Stirling Single, but this a high end product hardly typical of volume RTR products.

 

Most current RTR steam outline chassis have a form of compensation where one or perhaps two of the axles are sprung, but this is not the same as full compensation, which requires that each axle is able to move in both vertical and, to a lesser extent, horizantal planes and return at a dampened rate to their original position.  This may mean that the pickups have to move in accordance with the wheels, and thus need to be compensated either as part of the main arrangement or controlled automatically to replicate the movement of the main compensation in real time and separately for each axle, which is why spilt chassis pickup was recommended for fully compensated loco back in the 1980s by Chris Petherton.  The history of split chassis on RTR coupled locos is not a happy one.

 

The ultimate answer may be to have each axle independently driven by it's own small motor, and there seems little reason once this method of propulsion is adopted for the motor to be a direct drive traction motor, with the axle and motor shaft being one and the same and no need for gearing at all so long as the motor can be made to run slowly enough.  Otherwise gearing down will be necessary and axle hung motors will be adopted, the vital point being that the motors are not fixed in any way to the chassis frames or block.  Small enough motors exist, but the rpm is probably too high for this application.  Each axle can move as it wants, with the coupling rods keeping the rotation of the wheels in unison, no compensating beams or springs, no or few gears, and, if the motor shaft can be made of a non-conductive material, no pickups.  

 

Associated benefits accruing with such a system would include room for inside motion to be provided, room in the body of the loco for ballast, and for DCC sound and similar features, such as servo driven reversers and correct gear settings.

 

Humour an old drunk in his ravings...

[rprodgers]

Probably less chance of the 14xx being reissued in 00 than Dapol introducing a N gauge 14XX with an updated chassis

 

I think Hattons model has put paid to this for a few years. I would be surprised if their model was resurrected with a new chassis in the EFE railway range

[Les1952]

The N-gauge chassis upgrade for the 14xx is "somewhere in the aether", ie on Andy's "to do" list once the new mechanism for the M7 is done.  Last I heard of that he was still looking at the measurements for the M7, but that was at Warley and a lot has happened since then.

 

Once the M7 is done I suspect the 14xx wouldn't be that far behind it as it would be the easiest one to do next.....  That, however is NOT an insider's comment.

 

Les