rovex Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 a good driver will control the six feet of approach aiming to stop and "tickle" the buffer faces I'm really having to restrain myself from posting a Sid James, Kenneth Williams or Frankie Howard style response to this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted September 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 2, 2015 In "Design Clever" sprung buffers would have to go. Sprung buffers on a model are almost certainly a waste of money and a complication in manufacture and assembly, in model form they are far too soft, on the "real thing" the buffers are very stiff, close to solid, I know I'm a driver! You really have to hit hard to compress the buffers more than a couple of inches when coupling up, a good driver will control the six feet of approach aiming to stop and "tickle" the buffer faces But that little bit of spring in the buffers is really useful for close coupling stock Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Decorum Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 But that little bit of spring in the buffers is really useful for close coupling stock Indeed it is. Hornby's Thompson non-gangwayed stock was not designed and built with the same precision as the Gresley and even the Hornby "close couplers" left an excessive gap between coaches. Short Kadees were the solution, with the sprung buffers preventing derailing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted September 2, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 2, 2015 Wow. I note that Hornby have just emailed offering bundles . 5 Railroad Mk1s in Choc and Cream or Maroon for £62.95. Now just put that in perspective , 5 coaches for less than the list price of a Bachmann Autocoach. Yes I know they are not the same and one will be more detailed, but 5 times as much??? 2 new LNER CCTs for £19.95 . That's half price I reckon. Other wagon bundles available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black 5 Bear Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Wow. I note that Hornby have just emailed offering bundles . 5 Railroad Mk1s in Choc and Cream or Maroon for £62.95. Now just put that in perspective , 5 coaches for less than the list price of a Bachmann Autocoach. Yes I know they are not the same and one will be more detailed, but 5 times as much??? 2 new LNER CCTs for £19.95 . That's half price I reckon. Other wagon bundles available. Good value I agree, the coaches in particular are a pretty good representation of the MK 1 which can be the basis of a super-detailed version if required. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted September 3, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 3, 2015 Wow. I note that Hornby have just emailed offering bundles . 5 Railroad Mk1s in Choc and Cream or Maroon for £62.95. Now just put that in perspective , 5 coaches for less than the list price of a Bachmann Autocoach. Yes I know they are not the same and one will be more detailed, but 5 times as much??? 2 new LNER CCTs for £19.95 . That's half price I reckon. Other wagon bundles available. These deep discounts indicate that most potential buyers have all the Mk1s/LNER CCTs they want and Hornby need to clear hangover stock which now constitutes dead money. Even at full price, the Railroad Mk1s represent superb value but many of us have not purchased a single one. Why? Simply because that we already have all the BR Mk1s we want, purchased from Bachmann years before Hornby got round to replacing the former Tri-ang ones they sold previously. The last thing I need is another yard-and-a-half of them! Conversely, the Bachmann model, as yet unreleased, is of a prototype not previously available r-t-r and is much more suited to those with limited space for a layout. Yes, it is expensive, and I shall probably only buy one when I would certainly have taken a couple if they were priced below £50 but many of us awaiting a Hawksworth auto-trailer are just not the same people who want bulk supplies of main line stock, however cheap John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted September 3, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 3, 2015 Wow. I note that Hornby have just emailed offering bundles . 5 Railroad Mk1s in Choc and Cream or Maroon for £62.95. Now just put that in perspective , 5 coaches for less than the list price of a Bachmann Autocoach. Yes I know they are not the same and one will be more detailed, but 5 times as much??? 2 new LNER CCTs for £19.95 . That's half price I reckon. Other wagon bundles available. Clearance of surplus stock going on by the sound of it - but no doubt yet again undercutting retailers who bought stock in from Hornby at the normal trade price (I wonder how many retailers will be buying the lots of 5 RR Mk1 coaches etc and making a significant saving on the trade price?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted September 3, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 3, 2015 If you look at that bundle of five Mk.1 coaches, you'll see that the BG is the same length as the others. Is this the latest Hornby Mark 1 stock? Surely the BG should be shorter than the others? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdseyecircus Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 If you look closer the BG is also taller suggesting the image has been stretched to make all the pictures the same length. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hilux5972 Posted September 3, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 3, 2015 If you look at that bundle of five Mk.1 coaches, you'll see that the BG is the same length as the others. Is this the latest Hornby Mark 1 stock? Surely the BG should be shorter than the others? If you look at the height of the body of the BG compared to the rest you'll see that it is taller than the rest. The model is the correct length, but they have digitally enlarged the image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WDP4D Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 In "Design Clever" sprung buffers would have to go. Sprung buffers on a model are almost certainly a waste of money and a complication in manufacture and assembly, in model form they are far too soft, on the "real thing" the buffers are very stiff, close to solid, I know I'm a driver! You really have to hit hard to compress the buffers more than a couple of inches when coupling up, a good driver will control the six feet of approach aiming to stop and "tickle" the buffer faces Think about it this way..... 1) If we were 4mm figures on a model layout we'd never be able to push the sprung buffers in.... ...similarly... 2) If real trains were actually toys to us and if we were giants then those real sprung buffers will be easy-peasy to push in! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semi Fast Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Are these bundles available on the website? I can't find them there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hilux5972 Posted September 4, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 4, 2015 Are these bundles available on the website? I can't find them there. http://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/shop/rolling-stock-bundles.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Those who are interested in different motor winding configurations might be interested to see that Mr. Kohler has responded to this conversation in his new blog post: "Poles apart!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted September 11, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 11, 2015 Another really interesting blog from Mr Kohler. Thoroughly enjoying these insights Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
autocoach Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 But why not a 5 pole in the 700 which could use a bit of smoothing. Could a spares J15 motor be fitted to a LSWR 700? Or will I have to get a Keep Alive and re-do the easy drop in TCS DP2XUK? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spet0114 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Conspicuous by it's absence is any mention of the P2 motor, which has done Hornby no favours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blue Streak Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Conspicuous by it's absence is any mention of the P2 motor, which has done Hornby no favours. I Agree. I usually find Simon's blog to be a great read and as such, much of this one was full of interesting and informative facts. But although the statement that the 3 pole motor with flywheel is more than suitable for the Railroad Range of models, is all well and good when you consider the "budget" nature of said models. It fails to explain the reasoning behind the fitting of such a motor to a Premium Priced Locomotive which the P2 was also available as. I've said it in the P2 thread and I'll repeat it here, If I pay a lesser price I accept I am buying a lesser product with the budget motor, but when I pay premium $$$ I would expect the premium motor. A flywheel is not a substitute for a quality motor. See the video below if your not convinced of the difference. https://youtu.be/FSmFUx9YLU0 However I will accept the fact that Hornby may have been listening and that premium products such as the J15 will be fitted with a 5 pole motor, twin flywheels and plenty of pickups. If that is the way forward then that must be a good thing for those who are prepared to pay extra for that nice slow speed running. Again it brings up the argument that Hornby need to make some sort of statement to say that this is the way the premium products will be from now on and the blurring of the 2 ranges that has been occurring has come to an end. I have to also say that the blog did make me smile when it mentioned the old Princess Class, with XO motors that barely stuttered over points at anything like slow speed. I had one just like it and I remember it with great fondness, hours of fun watching it rattle around at what was probably a scale 120 mph. Despite how great I thought it was back then I certainly wouldn't accept it now. Perhaps that's a sad thing !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenman Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 But why not a 5 pole in the 700 which could use a bit of smoothing. Could a spares J15 motor be fitted to a LSWR 700? ... Perhaps Hornby are accurately modelling the superior engineering of the Great Eastern, compared to its inferior so-called rivals? I'm curious about where they've pitched the D16. Clauds should be as smooth as possible. But I'm also intrigued by Simon's costings, which are starkly at odds with those of the armchair company directors of RMweb. Fascinating stuff. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reevesthecat Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Haven't the newer diesels had twin flywheels and all wheel pick ups for years. Didn't see that mentioned in the blog or that Bachmann did it first in this country- very steam orientated. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 interesting blog. The small cheap motor in the class 58 was also used in all 0-6-0 chassis and can still be found in use today. On the 58, it really was underpowered even with two of them. Their 5 pole as used in the A1 is really hard to beat and I doubt even off the shelf coreless will come close. Remember though, the motor part of a chain. An excellent motor will not compensate for rubbish gearing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted September 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 12, 2015 There is really only one thing that matters with regards motors - how they perform on a layout and that is as much a function of the transmission and pickup arrangement (and track power supply) as it is the motor itself. And as SK points out there are all sorts of variables in the motors. I've seen lots of models with high end motors that were terrible runners and plenty of other models that on paper were pretty basic but which ran very well indeed. I have a lot of HO US outline brass and despite most of them being fitted with high quality brand name motors the running qualities might be most politely described as variable (other Overland fans probably know the issues of their plastic ball joints to name but one issue). I'm not anti 5 pole motors, however I am not anti 3 pole motor either, unfortunately it is one of those things where an easy to latch onto marketing hook tends to completely obscure all other factors (similar to the digital camera MP figure arms race of a few years ago, bike frame weights etc) and the performance of a motor is related to an awful lot more than whether it is a 3 or 5 pole motor. I just want my models to run well, whether it is a 3 pole motor or 5 pole motor is not really the issue. I have to say, my Bachmann models have invariably been strong, smooth runners despite being fitted with 3 pole motors, those Hornby models I have with 3 pole motors have also been very sweet runners. I still think the best runners I have are Kato and Kato do use 5 pole motors but their whole drive train is beautifully engineered and the motors are good quality ones quite aside from the number of poles. A very interesting blog from SK as usual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 The 3-pole motor fitted in the Trans continetal diesel range , I think that was an exemplary motor, smooth and powerful yet would crawl with very little cogging along on a tiny amount of power, the most erratic motor the original pseido 6 wheel ( acttually 4 wheel) Brush type 2 class 37 motor. very poor slow speed runners Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted September 14, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 14, 2015 As others have pointed out, good (or poor) running of any model depends on more factors than the number of poles in the motor. Gearing, pick-ups, flywheel (or no flywheel) and build quality of the motor (as distinct from its layout) are all major influences. The problem is that If one or more of those are poor (or all are exceptionally good), it makes accurate assessment of the influence of motor design on running quality impossible. It would be necessary to optimise all those other factors in order to make meaningful comparisons. If they could be, a 3-pole motor might well be good enough. However, all the variables are just that, variable. In the real world, a 5-pole motor (especially if it has a skew-wound armature) will out-perform a simple 3-pole example of equal build quality and may help to counteract deficiencies elsewhere. Also, fairly or unfairly, many of us tend to regard the number of poles in a motor as one indication of a manufacturer's overall attitude to quality. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 the Transcontinental motor bogie, it was a simple unsophisticated design, 3 pole, the armature supported by simple bearings at each end of the shaft which limited end-play to low limits, sloppy end-play being one of the curses of the pseudo 6 -wheel Triang R357 Brush 2 causing jerkiness at crawl speeds, the Transcontinental motor that must have been a low cost unit, yet it performed so well! Hornby please reconsider such a design for the future! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.