The Design Clever era - durability of axles ? Please no negativity

[Covkid]

At the time these models came to market and were reviewed, there was some criticism of the long term durability of the axles in the square axle cutouts, as a result of Hornby's change from proper bearings.  I was put off from buying a "2884" / 38XX 2-8-0 because of this, but didn't really have the funds at the time anyway.  Time has moved on and I would still like a very grimy 1960s condition example ,but they are no longer in production. I could try the second hand market for one, but still have reservations about whether the axles or the axle slots have worn excessively.

 

Could anyone with running experience of the 28xx, 42xx 52xx or 72xx please advise how well they are after a good period of running ?

 

Many thanks 

 

[andyman7]

I can't answer the question directly but it's worth remembering that a lot of modern RTR end up being 'shelf queens' with limited or no running so there should be plenty of limited use ones around. How durable they are I will leave to others. 

[G-BOAF]

28xx/2884 (38xx) Heavy Freight Tender locos were NOT design clever and from what I am aware, have bearings....

I can't comment on the Freight tanks as, like you, avioded them due to square bearings (although I recall somewhere that later releases have bearings...??)

Edited July 15, 2021 by G-BOAF

[Hilux5972]

The original Heavy Tanks had square axle holes and no brass bearings, but I never had any issue with their running over the 5 years I had them. The 28xx/2884 had full bearings so never had any issues. 

[Legend]

Similar to Hilux . I bought a GWR 42XX when it was heavily discounted by Hornby .  Never had an issue with it . Superb hauling power and good low speed performance . Just right for long mineral train .  Must be now 5 years old . I'd give it a go . 

[tomparryharry]

The square slots on the early  42-72xx were a bit grotesque, but  shouldn't be a problem. The chassis still rests on a set of round axles, so it should be a 'point load'. The weight of the model isn't likely to wear through the chassis, but keeping the chassis pretty clean is the answer. As we know, oil can attract dust, and it'll start a grinding action between the axle (s), and the top of the  chassis horns ( slots ).  The chassis should reach (hopefully ) a happy medium, whereby the down-weight of the model equals the up thrust of the axles. How long that takes, however, I haven't a clue....

[didcot]

I would agree with the previous posts. I had one of each from the first batch. All ran well and I even had the 42xx banking the 72xx on a long train of wagons with no derailment. Spent an hour going around in circles without missing a beat. The only issue I seem to remember was the dcc blanking plug bracket was plastic. Which would bend back onto the flywheel if you tried to stuff a Hornby chip and harness in. Was a bit of a fiddle, but got there eventually. 

[Covkid]

Thanks very much for the replies folks.

Will have to search for a "2884" then or wait for Hornby to issue a new batch.

 

I am gratefully reassured. 

[D410Monarch]

have you got an unbiased view of this as you requested no negativity ,therefore anyone with issues may not have posted perhaps ?

[The Johnster]

FWIW, my 'second generation' 42xx is now 4 years old and has given no running problems; it sort of plods about the layout very much like a real 42xx...  I have had trouble with the slide bars on the rh side going out of alignment, though, and this has now happened on 3 occasions.  I hope it is not going to develop into a repeat of the problems I had with my old Airfix large prairie, Trigger's broom, now on it's second body (Hornby, better smokebox door than Airfix) and 4th Airfix chassis.

 

I've had some irritating QC issues with the 42xx as well. a buffer loose inside the box and the rh connecting rod big end crankpin nut coming loose, also rear coupling falling off very shortly after I had the loco and having to be glued in to reliably stay in place.  All 5 wheelsets needed adjusting for B2B.  Nothing deal breaking, but it shouldn't happen...

Edited July 15, 2021 by The Johnster

[PMP]

12 hours ago, D410Monarch said:

have you got an unbiased view of this as you requested no negativity ,therefore anyone with issues may not have posted perhaps ?

Possibly because he may recall the absolute frothnami at the time of release, (not that it’s unique for any manufacturer).  He’s also asked for ‘longevity’ type reply’s based on experience hopefully precluding a foamers telling us all about his, (or more importantly those he’s heard of but not experienced), unrelated Hornby product issues, and/or telling us about Hornby’s shop retailers policies.

 

My 42xx converted to a 52xx Is fine with no running/reliability problems at all.  Because the model has to negotiate 2nd radius curves and points, it has a fair degree of lateral movement in the driving axles. If you’re using Peco medium radius as your minimum you can improve the running  of it with washers to reduce the lateral movement. 

https://albionyard.net/2013/06/29/is-42-really-the-answer-to-everything/

https://albionyard.net/2013/07/03/Hornby-42xx-chassis-modifications/

 

https://albionyard.net/2013/07/30/vitamin-c-for-hornbys-42xx/

 

As it’s a ‘Design Clever’ product some things like chassis guard irons weren’t included, but they’re easy to add, and the Brassmasters kit is also worth considering. The Chimney looks far better for replacement too. From that square axle bearing era I’ve also got their class 40, and that too has shown no abnormal wear and tear for the type of bearing, and that’s been used far more.
 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by PMP

[Ouroborus]

2 hours ago, cbrooks122000 said:

Sam's Trains is always criticising this setup..

 

Do the square holes trap air and ruin the underwater running ability?

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, cbrooks122000 said:

Sam's Trains is always criticising this setup ....

 

If that is the worst that can be said of the arrangement, it should be just fine !!

 

CJI.

[tomparryharry]

22 hours ago, PMP said:

Possibly because he may recall the absolute frothnami at the time of release, (not that it’s unique for any manufacturer).  He’s also asked for ‘longevity’ type reply’s based on experience hopefully precluding a foamers telling us all about his, (or more importantly those he’s heard of but not experienced), unrelated Hornby product issues, and/or telling us about Hornby’s shop retailers policies.

 

My 42xx converted to a 52xx Is fine with no running/reliability problems at all.  Because the model has to negotiate 2nd radius curves and points, it has a fair degree of lateral movement in the driving axles. If you’re using Peco medium radius as your minimum you can improve the running  of it with washers to reduce the lateral movement. 

https://albionyard.net/2013/06/29/is-42-really-the-answer-to-everything/

https://albionyard.net/2013/07/03/Hornby-42xx-chassis-modifications/

 

https://albionyard.net/2013/07/30/vitamin-c-for-hornbys-42xx/

 

As it’s a ‘Design Clever’ product some things like chassis guard irons weren’t included, but they’re easy to add, and the Brassmasters kit is also worth considering. The Chimney looks far better for replacement too. From that square axle bearing era I’ve also got their class 40, and that too has shown no abnormal wear and tear for the type of bearing, and that’s been used far more.
 

 

That'll be the model following real life.  The coupling rods on the 42-72xx class had spherical bearings on the rods to combat sideways thrust on smaller radii trackwork. 

[PMP]

5 hours ago, cbrooks122000 said:

Sam's Trains is always criticising this setup especially on Bachmann locos. 

Which Bachmann locomotives had square axles bearings? I can’t  recall any. Many certainly run within a U shaped axle channel in the chassis, but without  square bearings. I’ve actually met and spoken with Sam, he’s a nice, personable guy but I wouldn’t trust him to review a brick accurately.

Edited July 17, 2021 by PMP

[bigherb]

47 minutes ago, PMP said:

Which Bachmann locomotives had square axles bearings? I can’t  recall any.

Fairburn tank for one.

[Legend]

On 17/07/2021 at 14:35, bigherb said:

Fairburn tank for one.

 Looks like Sam was right on this one then !

 

Generally I find Sam doesn't know to much about prototypes , he admits as much , but he does know his mechanisms . In previous years  he did repairs and he has fixed a few of my locos , so I wouldn't be quite as dismissive about his abilities.

[sparaxis]

A lot of highly respected European brands have used "square" bearings with no evident problems. Roco and Trix certainly, and I think some of the few Fleischmann locos with keeper plates did so as well.

Nice brass or bronze bearings are great, but with plastic gears that split and "throw away" motors with no available replacements, I suspect that they will be the least problem facing the longevity of locos.

 

An oddity is that Roco used/uses PLASTIC bearing sleeves on some locos, and these run in metal frames. 

[tomparryharry]

if modellers are concerned about wear in these frame cut-outs, I recommend using some 0.25 PTFE strip laid in to arrest any likelihood of the axle grinding through the chassis block. Either that, or the PTFE-Teflon type sheet.  We used to use this product to seal up resin baths, and low-resistance cooling tables.  These machines were used to make pre-impregnated glass-fibre rolls (for wind turbines ). Once  installed, either product ran 24/7 before being replaced, normally about a year. That's about 5,000,000 linear metres.  Somehow, my 42xx won't go that far....

 

In fact, the Teflon-PTFE might be the better product, being used like a one-sided tape. Available on 'Bay.  

 

HTH,

Ian. 

[tomparryharry]

On 22/07/2021 at 15:59, cbrooks122000 said:

Trouble with square holes is there are no bearings also grit can collect in the crevices and wear the axle away.

 

Some readers responses are sometimes a bit tongue in cheek. But, by & large, there isn't enough weight in the model to create a pressured grinding motion.  That said, keeping the horns clean is good practice.

[cctransuk]

On 22/07/2021 at 15:57, cbrooks122000 said:

Most of the stuff Sam criticises, he is usually right as in quite a few cases I have that model and would say the same. Some he is unlucky and gets a bad one. Out of all the reviews I have watched I would say his are closest to the truth. In my experience if he says it is bad it generally is, similarly I have bought a few models using his reviews and have been presently surprised that he is dead right. There are other reviewers I have watched and generally they either boost the model up to something it isn't or moan like hell about it without being constructive. 

 

Without wishing to be rude, Sam's reviews are probably fine for those who, like him, are more concerned about the model's ability to pull a decent train on set-track - on or off the floor.

 

He is far less concerned about prototype fidelity - as are, I suspect, the majority of his fans / audience.

 

We are comparing two totally different wings of railway modelling here and, I suspect, two different generations.

 

CJI.

[tomparryharry]

The thing to bear in mind (pardon the pun ) is to remember that someone else put your £200 loco together. They are just ordinary people, just like you & me. This is by no way negative; just a fact of life. My 42xx does exactly what I need it to do, which is to run reasonably scale-length trains.  All of my 42-72xx run well, so I'm satisfied with them. They are a bit 'light', but the model is capable of taking extra weight in the bunker, smokebox, and tank sides.  Please note that I'm not working with DCC or sound, so other modellers will need to form their own opinion & methods. 

 

Some modellers focus on the horn cut-outs on the chassis, and when I first saw this, I thought 'Oh...'  But, the basic chassis ensemble is pretty good, even if it looks a bit crude. There are lots of ways & means to address any perceived shortcomings on the chassis, and some modellers have taken the basic model, and worked up to a very high degree. 

 

For those who remember, there was a terrific 'Frothnami' when Hornby announced the models, and took a huge amount of pressure to get it done. You could call it a rush job, but it's all historical nowadays. The one thing that hasn't happened, is reports from people saying that the wheels are chewing through the chassis, as happened with Mainline-Palitoy.  With regard to the previous Mainline models, the original axles had no strength ability, being coated plastic, running in a metal  split chassis.  Once the electrical muff had worn down, that's when the reliability went....  

 

I should say that I hold no allegiance to Hornby, just an occasional purchaser of their models. 

 

 

[No Decorum]

8 hours ago, cbrooks122000 said:

Funny that, I am definitely not of Sam's generation and I am definitely not that bothered about how many carriages it can pull. What I am interested in though, is if my nearly £200 loco is going to fall apart and is vaguely worth the money. Most time on my layout I can hardly see the loco so whether it has the odd rivet in the wrong place doesn't really bother me. Now if it stalls or derails on points or bends, that knowledge is very useful as my layout is rather large and a pain to keep putting the loco back on the track. More importantly for me if how easy is it to fit a DCC chip, so getting the body off is really important and fix the pickups if they fail. 

Most locomotives produced nowadays are little gems and breathtaking when examined closely. They are, after all, supposed to be models of the real things. On the other hand, the three-foot rule is often quoted: if you can’t see a feature from three feet away, it doesn’t matter. Small details may not be evident from three feet away but jerky running certainly is. I’m greedy. I like good running, accuracy and detail. It may seem perverse, but if I can’t see something from a yard away, I know it’s there.

 

Colour can be seen from three feet away – Hornby please note.

[cctransuk]

9 hours ago, cbrooks122000 said:

Funny that, I am definitely not of Sam's generation and I am definitely not that bothered about how many carriages it can pull. What I am interested in though, is if my nearly £200 loco is going to fall apart and is vaguely worth the money. Most time on my layout I can hardly see the loco so whether it has the odd rivet in the wrong place doesn't really bother me. Now if it stalls or derails on points or bends, that knowledge is very useful as my layout is rather large and a pain to keep putting the loco back on the track. More importantly for me if how easy is it to fit a DCC chip, so getting the body off is really important and fix the pickups if they fail. 

 

I cannot see how test running a model on track laid on the carpet can provide a useful guide as to running capabilities.

 

If the model derails on such track, does that mean that it will do so on more conventionally located track?

 

CJI.

[charliepetty]

I quite like Sam's 'cheeky' approach to reviews, but definitely not to every ones taste !! He does stick to analogue not DCC though.  He recently got very excited about the Oxford Rail J27 on the last one I watched, but when I fitted a sound decoder in the loco its running is rubbish, The 8Pin blanking plug has a capicitor attached for analogue running, this confirms to me that its pickups are poor as otherwise it would not be needed.  If you get a Hornby J36 with a sound decoder it runs great but sadly the J27 on DCC is hopeless, a stay alive will need to be fitted I think to get the sound on dcc running spot on.

 

I think Sam should up his game and get on with upgrading his layout, his presentation style, in my opinion is perfect for his 'millions' of followers and he is the guy to get these guys to the next level in the hobby, especially adding modelling skills, scenery and in building their layouts.

 

Charlie

Edited July 25, 2021 by charliepetty