OO Gauge class 71 Electric Locomotive

[Oldddudders]

Blimey, just had a very unhappy bunny comment on my review video.

Some people are so negative.

I get people have opinions but it looks like a rubbishing attempt to me, if you don't like it don't buy it, tis very simple you know.

 

Check it out here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFYKMAO_2A8

 

I am still more than happy with the DJ model, looks like and therefore is a 71.

 

By the way this bloke commenting as A. J. Reed and Al Kaput is certainly out to rubbish the DJ model, my finger is hovering over the block option

 

Link edited.

 

Every RMweb thread on a forthcoming product has its naysayers. They rubbish the pre-production prototypes, pour scorn on this or that detail. In this case there seems to be a lot of negativity about the pan, which, as I posted earlier, on the pre-pro sample handed to me by Dave Jones, appeared ideal - finely detailed but sufficiently substantial for the very gentle use that both 1 : 1 and 1 : 76 versions might reasonably expect. The bogie detail appeared top notch, too. The model I examined was highly desirable. These sad keyboard warriors flex their muscles because they can. Wow. 

 

In this thread we have had a collector whose model was damaged on delivery, which is regrettable, of course. He felt the pan was beyond repair, and that the whole model was somehow not fit for purpose, choosing to seek a refund, not a replacement, with intent to go to the other manufacturer. Curious for one who only admires his models, but does not make them work for a living! Now we are told that the Hornby pan is no masterpiece either. I hope the chap who is switching brands is pleased. 

 

Ignore the loony on the video comments. I very often see such tripe posted on all sorts of vids - because they can. 

[mikesndbs]

But some of us paid for the model nearly three years ago.

As did I, but what's wrong with it?

 

We have a stunning model and took part in a historic event within our hobby, I just don't see many downsides?

[Oldddudders]

But some of us paid for the model nearly three years ago.

 

And if that money had remained in your bank, how much interest would have accrued? Not a lot at present rates, I suggest. Instead, you were in an elite company of people who had set up a model's production, and are now receiving their reward, while those of us who didn't stump up may struggle to get the version we want. 

[DJM Dave]

I must admit i found the review quite confusing.

 

nothing noted on the bogie detail really, the chequer plate / kick board printing, the steps being etched with an anti slip pattern on them, the valance, correct air vents, plus loads more i could mention.

 

Was probably short of space though, as it's an article.

[metropolitan cammell]

For me the shape is such a difficult one to judge, at some angles Hornby looks better, at others the DJ offering. Infavpur the DJ one as, for me, detail counts.

 

Roy

Without there being two I would of been happy with either, I like other people I expect have bought both, and am happy with both.

[jjb1970]

Having just read this report I just despair for the hobby. Where is the objectivity here??The last paragraph made me want to weep. This is positively my last contribution to these columns I for one do not wish to be associated with drivel like this. From now on I plough my own furrow.

 

Why? People may not agree with the SEMG review (everybody has opinions) but it was balanced and fair and I saw no evidence of an axe being sharpened. Personally I tend to agree with the SEMG reviewer. The big advantage of the DJM model appears to be ease of fitting sound but that is nugatory if you have no interest in sound and if you're not into sound the fact that the alternative model can be found for £90 is a big plus. In other respects I think it is a fair comment to say that both models have positives and negatives and which you prefer will be down to your own sensibilities to these pros and cons.

[New Haven Neil]

Every RMweb thread on a forthcoming product has its naysayers. They rubbish the pre-production prototypes, pour scorn on this or that detail. In this case there seems to be a lot of negativity about the pan, which, as I posted earlier, on the pre-pro sample handed to me by Dave Jones, appeared ideal - finely detailed but sufficiently substantial for the very gentle use that both 1 : 1 and 1 : 76 versions might reasonably expect. The bogie detail appeared top notch, too. The model I examined was highly desirable. These sad keyboard warriors flex their muscles because they can. Wow. 

 

In this thread we have had a collector whose model was damaged on delivery, which is regrettable, of course. He felt the pan was beyond repair, and that the whole model was somehow not fit for purpose, choosing to seek a refund, not a replacement, with intent to go to the other manufacturer. Curious for one who only admires his models, but does not make them work for a living! Now we are told that the Hornby pan is no masterpiece either. I hope the chap who is switching brands is pleased. 

 

Ignore the loony on the video comments. I very often see such tripe posted on all sorts of vids - because they can. 

 

It's the same guy, Ian.  Currently on probation!

[New Haven Neil]

I think there is something to be said for the turn-in of the bodyside or the valance at the front on the Hornby model is slightly more accurate, the angles are very hard to see though as the direction the light falls seems to make a difference.  The cab windows too, are slightly better.  But the rest, DJ knocks it into a cocked hat for body & bogie detail and sophistication of the mechanism.  As for the panto......'oh yes it is'.....

[Oldddudders]

Why? People may not agree with the SEMG review (everybody has opinions) but it was balanced and fair and I saw no evidence of an axe being sharpened. Personally I tend to agree with the SEMG reviewer. The big advantage of the DJM model appears to be ease of fitting sound but that is nugatory if you have no interest in sound and if you're not into sound the fact that the alternative model can be found for £90 is a big plus. In other respects I think it is a fair comment to say that both models have positives and negatives and which you prefer will be down to your own sensibilities to these pros and cons.

 

SEG rather than SEMG, although I think Colin Duff was also a member at SEMG last time I was. 

[Meld9003]

I think there is something to be said for the turn-in of the bodyside or the valance at the front on the Hornby model is slightly more accurate, the angles are very hard to see though as the direction the light falls seems to make a difference.  The cab windows too, are slightly better.  But the rest, DJ knocks it into a cocked hat for body & bogie detail and sophistication of the mechanism.  As for the panto......'oh yes it is'.....

Really? To my eye the Hornby one has a much better 'face' and finer moulding. The DJM bogie detail looks superb and the seperate fittings are nice though. Other than that it's pretty much a wash unless you are into DCC sound.

[Roy Langridge]

Really? To my eye the Hornby one has a much better 'face' and finer moulding. The DJM bogie detail looks superb and the seperate fittings are nice though. Other than that it's pretty much a wash unless you are into DCC sound.

And therein lies the issue with reviews. I prefer the DJ face and consider the moulding finer! Neither of us is wrong as they are our opinions and what we see when we look at our models.

 

Roy

[jsp3970]

Yea! Mine arrived today. Very nice model and after getting past the 'please stop' part gave it a quick one over to see that it survived the trip across the pond.

 

10 out of 10 Dave, I am very impressed and was well worth the wait. Makes up for the fact that I had to pay duty on it and that it snowed today

[skin_2]

Well, I took the plunge and got it sorted.

 

A few minutes with the meter sussed out what was occurring with the headcode lights on the DJM circuit board - it is indeed wired for logic level output on this one.

 

This pic shows the transistor that is used to covert the logic level output from aux 3 (or FO3 in Zimo terminology) to drive the LED.  As the Zimo FO3 output is a standard function output, we don't want it going through the transistor.

 

 

The thing is that I haven't been able to get the headcode lights to work using either the ESU sound decoder or the TCS EU621 both of which have logic level outputs on AUX 3. As the circuit board is wired for logic output from the decoder with the transistor to provide the 'amplified' output for the LED, I'm puzzled as to why this doesn't work. I don't have a decoder that has a standard function output on AUX 3 so I can't just try that. I'll have another look at the circuit board and see if for some reason there are different versions of it that require different types of decoder. I'd prefer to get the headcode lights working with the ESU sound decoder, so if anyone has achieved this it would be good to hear what they did! Cheers Keith

Edited May 24, 2017 by skin_2

[Colin parks]

A few days ago I posted a comment on the comparative head-on view of both the Hornby and the DJM models as seen in the video clip of post #1795 at 2 mins. 55 secs.  Both models looked pretty good to me, though I thought that the cab front windows of the Hornby model looked better.  However, I quickly pulled the post off this topic.  It seemed likely that making the observation that the Hornby cab front looked better in terms of the windows, would cause ire and anguish here.  

 

One person here has admittedly embarrassed himself on the minor issue of a broken part, which could have easily been replaced, but the general tenor of some posts seems to be that nobody should dare make any adverse comment about the DJM model.  Conversely, there have been no adverse comments on the post which featured the colourful opinion that the Hornby model was 'crap', with some parts designed by 'Mr Bean'.  A case of double standards in operation perhaps?

 

As for the disappointing comment that there are those who 'rubbish' pre-production prototypes, here is an example of what some of we 'sad keyboard warriors' are capable of:   I was amongst a small group who critiqued (rather than criticised) the Kernow 4 TC cab front on the pre-production sample, contacting Kernow directly.  As a result, and I claim no particular credit here, the errant gangway was altered, directly due to the pouring of scorn by those with accurate information on the prototype. 

 

The review comparing the Hornby and DJM class 71 models, that caused one person to 'weep', seemed pretty objective to me.  The reviewer stated there was 'no runaway leader'. 

Their comment on the width of the DJM indicator panel being under-width by 'just under 1mm' could hardly be called subjective - just look at a picture of the preserved Class 71 loco, the Hornby rendition of the indicator panel width is demonstrably better. 

 

Leaving aside the histrionic posts regarding the broken pantograph on one DJM model, it concerns me that RMweb could descend to a position where critiques of models/pre-production samples or comparisons between manufacturers' offerings are unwelcome. 

 

Colin Parks 

[Southernman46]

I must admit i found the review quite confusing.

 

nothing noted on the bogie detail really, the chequer plate / kick board printing, the steps being etched with an anti slip pattern on them, the valance, correct air vents, plus loads more i could mention.

 

Was probably short of space though, as it's an article.

 

Oodles of us really, really, like this Class 71 and really appreciate the effort in getting it off the ground - I've wanted a model of one since about 1975 - wasn't your fault that Hornby chose to get in quickly and I still don't quite understand their motivation for that - please don't be put off by the few "dissatisfied ones" and please, please, continue to plan the Class 74 ..........................

Edited May 25, 2017 by Southernman46

[SRman]

The DJModels class 71 was about the last loco on my wish list for my southern/south eastern themed layout. Although I could be tempted to buy a class 74 if someone makes a good sound chip for it. Looking at the locos I have available to run on my layout including (Bachmann EMUs,Thumpers, class 47s,Lord Nelson class Heljan class 33s, Hornby BoBs,WCs,(original and modified), Merchant Navys (original and modified) Britannias and Schools class there are three that stand out in terms of quality. For me these are the DJM class 71 (with Legomanbiffo sound), the SLW class 24 (with its own sound chip) and the re-tooled un-modified Hornby BoB/WC (with Legomanbiffo sound chip).

I would put the class 24 and the class 71 right at the top and  I cant divide them. And the in third place comes the Hornby BoB a fair distance behind. The rest of my fleet are what I would call OK to down right poor in terms of quality. Taking the loco and the sound chip as separate items 5/6 'items' in my list are not from the major suppliers. They are from new entrepreneurs. Long may this continue: these are people who really go for quality and dont just talk about it.  Future improvements in  this hobby I really do feel is in their hands. Dave's  journey with the class 71 hasn't been easy, SLW had problems before the success of their class 24 and the guys at DC kits have worked hard to produce some outstanding  sound chips.

All I can say is thank you to these 'guys'. I just hope the hobby will support them and drive forward REAL QUALITY in the models on offer in the future.

 

I agree with everything you've said, although i would add in the unmodified Merchant Navy from Hornby as being slightly ahead of the WC/BoB (good as those are too).

 

Also, Paul Chetter deserves a mention for the SLW class 24 sounds. 'Bif has pushed forward the ESU LokSound improvements while Paul has done the same with the Zimo sound projects.

[SRman]

Do you think the sugar cube gives a big benefit? I assume it brings out some of the higher pitch noises?

 

Roy

 

That was the idea, and it seemed to work well in the class 73, so I thought I'd try it in the 71 as well. The whistles do sound very clear and sharp, so I assume that the high end is working as I intended, but I reckon I need just a tad more bass for the low-end roar. I might have to try a full bass reflex speaker in place of the bass enhanced one.

[railroadbill]

Just been watching mikesndbs excellent video, interesting to hear recordings of full size 71s as well, among other things. [And seeing other models from the same era running  to set the scene].

 

I've got a query, about the full size locos that were fitted with booster sets to keep them running over third rail gaps. There were 3 earlier locos then the 71s that had booster sets.  Presumably the 74s didn't have booster sets but diesel instead, also the class 73.

When 73s and 74s were running, did the diesel generator set have to be operating to perform the same function as the booster sets - or did they just coast over section gaps?

Edited May 25, 2017 by railroadbill

[Dogmatix]

Yea! Mine arrived today. Very nice model and after getting past the 'please stop' part gave it a quick one over to see that it survived the trip across the pond.

 

Grrrr.... still waiting for mine, shipped 13 days ago, and only has to cross the ditch, let alone the pond. Actually, thinking about it and looking at a map, drawing a straight line between Cornwall and here, it's the puddle it has to cross, not the ditch.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Dogmatix

[Southernman46]

Just been watching mikesndbs excellent video, interesting to hear recordings of full size 71s as well, among other things. [And seeing other models from the same era running  to set the scene].

 

I've got a query, about the full size locos that were fitted with booster sets to keep them running over third rail gaps. There were 3 earlier locos then the 71s that had booster sets.  Presumably the 74s didn't have booster sets but diesel instead, also the class 73.

When 73s and 74s were running, did the diesel generator set have to be operating to perform the same function as the booster sets - or did they just coast over section gaps?

No , they just lost traction power in the gaps and rely on forward momentum to bridge any gap. The diesel engine is precisely that - a diesel. although the diesel can run whilst the loco is on the juice with the shoes down too just to aid gapping

 

The 73's are legendary for drawing HUGE arcs at conductor rail gaps and when they initially operated the Gatwick Express service a number of fairly spectacular conflagrations occurred which resulted in the fitting of insulating material on the bogies and fitting of shields between conductor & running rail at ramp ends ..................

Edited May 25, 2017 by Southernman46

[Roy Langridge]

A few days ago I posted a comment on the comparative head-on view of both the Hornby and the DJM models as seen in the video clip of post #1795 at 2 mins. 55 secs.  Both models looked pretty good to me, though I thought that the cab front windows of the Hornby model looked better.  However, I quickly pulled the post off this topic.  It seemed likely that making the observation that the Hornby cab front looked better in terms of the windows, would cause ire and anguish here.  

 

<snip>

 

Leaving aside the histrionic posts regarding the broken pantograph on one DJM model, it concerns me that RMweb could descend to a position where critiques of models/pre-production samples or comparisons between manufacturers' offerings are unwelcome. 

 

Colin Parks 

 

I hope that is not the case. As I have said in a previous post, there is good and bad in both and which you prefer is going to depend upon a number of factors, not least personal preference. Mine is for detail, therefore the DJ model wins. For others it will be speed / hauling capacity, which may favour the Hornby version.

 

This thread is about DJ so I guess it may be inevitable that there will be a DJ bias here. No doubt if the discussion was in the Hornby 71 thread there would be a similar Hornby bias.

 

Perhaps, and this is only a suggestion, comparison discussions should actually be had in a separate thread, not under one of the manufacturers headings?

​Roy

[railroadbill]

No , they just lost traction power in the gaps and rely on forward momentum to bridge any gap. The diesel engine is precisely that - a diesel. although the diesel can run whilst the loco is on the juice with the shoes down too just to aid gapping

 

The 73's are legendary for drawing HUGE arcs at conductor rail gaps and when they initially operated the Gatwick Express service a number of fairly spectacular conflagrations occurred which resulted in the fitting of insulating material on the bogies and fitting of shields between conductor & running rail at ramp ends ..................

Thanks for that, just intrigued. Thought they probably did just coast over gaps, think that's  what happens on AC lines too. 

[Dave Scott]

Thanks for that, just intrigued. Thought they probably did just coast over gaps, think that's  what happens on AC lines too. 

The difference between AC OHL and DC third rail is that on AC the neutral sections are specific defined points. On third rail the gaps are more random. For example the gaps will be different for different platforms at a big station like Waterloo or Victoria. The collector shoes are quite happy to hang in clear air between the gaps in the third rail being guided back into contact by the end ramp on each third rail rail. A driver will not know where the shoes are in relation to the gaps hence the potential for large arcs. OHL of course needs to be continuous hence the structures found at neutral sections.

[mikesndbs]

Just been watching mikesndbs excellent video, interesting to hear recordings of full size 71s as well, among other things. [And seeing other models from the same era running  to set the scene].

 

I've got a query, about the full size locos that were fitted with booster sets to keep them running over third rail gaps. There were 3 earlier locos then the 71s that had booster sets.  Presumably the 74s didn't have booster sets but diesel instead, also the class 73.

When 73s and 74s were running, did the diesel generator set have to be operating to perform the same function as the booster sets - or did they just coast over section gaps?

 

Many thanks with the 73s we used to power up the diesel engine when we were approaching an area of known gaps (such as Waterloo) and then drive in on diesel.

The change from third rail to diesel was more or less seamless as you would just use the other controller, the diesel one being under the third rail one.

[John M Upton]

I was told once that a 71 tried to take power from the third rail and the overhead at the same time, it didn't go well....