Hattons announce 14xx / 48xx / 58xx

[JSpencer]

I removed them for a soak in cellulose thinners. If you have less than young & agile fingers and thumb (it took me ages to put the coupling rods back), it would probably be as easy to scrape off the silver paint.

 

What about using a fibreglass pen? I must admit bare metal really sets them off better.

[NickC]

Can anybody suggest what the best CV motor settings might be for a Lenz silver+ decoder to get the smoothest running at low speed. With the default settings mine runs smoothly at medium speed or faster but is jerky at low speed especially when climbing a short 2 degree incline. It's been lubricated as specified and run-in forwards and backwards at medium speed for over 3 hours in each direction.

[No Decorum]

The screws in the DJM 14XX coupling rods are definitely metal. I filed the blackening off of them so that the bare metal to match the coupling rods after they had been stripped of silver paint.

I must congratulate you. The improvement in appearance is amazing. Those black things were among the worst features of the Adams O2 as well as this model. Are they really screws? Hexagonal heads?

[melmerby]

Can anybody suggest what the best CV motor settings might be for a Lenz silver+ decoder to get the smoothest running at low speed. With the default settings mine runs smoothly at medium speed or faster but is jerky at low speed especially when climbing a short 2 degree incline. It's been lubricated as specified and run-in forwards and backwards at medium speed for over 3 hours in each direction.

Must be loco related as I have exactly the same decoder and it runs smoothly from a crawl.

I haven't changed the decoder settings apart from checking that HF setting is used (CV50=0), which a coreless motor needs.

 

IMHO I cannot see why it needs a coreless motor anyway. Bachmann make smooth running locos with 3 pole cans!

 

Keith

Edited February 22, 2017 by melmerby

[tender]

IMHO I cannot see why it needs a coreless motor anyway. Bachmann make smooth running locos with 3 pole cans!

 

Keith

It probably doesn't, they are just cheap. Edited February 23, 2017 by tender

[Ventnor]

So....I don't often reply to posts and topics on the forums but I've been fervently reading any posts that review these models. My one question is; do the coupling rods stay parallel when the loco is moving or do they adopt a drunken angle even for a few seconds or get out of sync? I ask as I have two 14xx's on pre-order and considering a 58xx. I had problems with all four of the DJM O2's that I purchashed and sent one back as it was so bad. Sharing experiences with the 48xx/14xx and 58xx's would be most appreciated.

Since posting the above there has certainly been a frantic amount of activity around these models. It seems that the vast majority of feedback and "reviews" have been quite negative. What does surprise me is that they have been compared to the Hornby (ex-Airfix) offering and the Bachmann 64xx. I have to say that these DJM offerings do capture the look of the prototype much more so than the Hornby model and body detailing apart, it seems to be more of an issue with the motor and drivetrain.

 

I guess it's all down to personal preference putting the looks of this model over the tried and tested performance of the Hornby offering or just not bothering and settling for a Bachmann 64xx. It has to be remembered, the 64xx is far from perfect; oversize slashers, wrong front vacuum pipe (DJM 14xx is correct), no smokebox lamp iron, no bunker top lamp iron, moulded lamp irons on the bunker, no hand rail/grab rail above the front steps under the tanks, no smokebox steam cock and undersize tank vents. However; they run extremely well, I have one so the shortcomings still didn't put me off!! As for the Hornby offering? I would never go back, I've had a few over the years and always sold them on. I do still remember though the awe of getting an Airfix version and Auto Trailer back in the late 70's/or very early 80's for Christmas as a young kid..........the detail!!! The Titfield Thunderbolt created another 48xx/14xx fan and I'm not even a GW modeller (I'm a green badge man).

 

As mentioned in my previous post, I have two on pre-order and despite the negativity, warnings and disappointment I think I'm just going to take a chance...........there's always eBay in a couple of years and inflated resale prices!!

 

I really have enjoyed following this thread..........keep the advice and experience coming. Hopefully some more positive reviews will follow to justify my stubbornness to still get a couple of these models!! However; the spectre of the Kernow O2s and Beattie Well Tanks still haunts me.........

[JSpencer]

The problem with the DJM is I can't understand the choices they've made. Why include etch plates if your just going to fit them wonky into gouges in the body sides. 

Finally why spend all that time developing a running mechanism to solve a problem that didn't exist, but not bother to fit the correct size wheels.

I might also note the BR totem wasn't straight either on my example....

 

On the first point, this is the only DJM model to have etched plates in holes. The Kernow 1361 (the only other DJM Great Western out these in physical form right now), does not do this. This might be a Hattons choice to aide fitting etched plates and avoid mis-alignment and glue mark issues (you only have to look at the Dapol class 68 thread right now to see what I mean). In that context, nice idea but I suspect will not be repeated in 4mm again.

 

The second point is - in my view - not an attempt to fix a problem which does not exist but more an evolution of the DJM design process. This technically started at Dapol with the Model Rail Sentinel tank where an all gear drive is needed because the prototype does not have conrods. The Well tank followed where conrods are really thin. DJM evolved the Dapol Well tank further by swapping out the open frame motor and fitting a coreless one. The O2 then followed which has more chunky conrods and probably does not need gearing, none-the-less, it is an evolution of the Well tank approach. The Well tank and O2 models won award for Model of the year, the O2 facing tough competition too - I personally voted the S15 that year. (I am not sure if the Sentinal won one too).

Winning awards can be interpreted by a manufacturer that the approach is the right one. Then there was then the austerity (J94), first 6 coupled engine using this approach, and now the 14XX to be followed soon by 1631...

Basically with 5+ years of evolution, plus 2 model of the year awards and only the odd reject/return... it is easy to understand why DJM have kept this approach throughout and did not change to a classic design like Hornby, Bachmann etc...

 

The third point was an issue on the Dapol Well tanks, seemed to have completely disappeared with the O2s. Hopefully just a one off on the 14XX but completely understand your frustration.

[No Decorum]

One reason for the coreless motor is that it is much smaller. That enables small locomotives to be DCC sound ready. For my own part, I’m not a particular fan of coreless but I do wish that all small locomotives made installation of a speaker as easy as DJ does.

[Izzy]

Absolutely unbelievable and rather alarming!

 

Could this be because of the amount of detail that is added after the basic body and chassis are put together? On the Kernow 02 thread somewhere when taking them apart was discussed it was revealed that some pipes glued into place would need cutting through to do this for the same reason, that they weren't meant to be taken apart.

 

Can anybody suggest what the best CV motor settings might be for a Lenz silver+ decoder to get the smoothest running at low speed. With the default settings mine runs smoothly at medium speed or faster but is jerky at low speed especially when climbing a short 2 degree incline. It's been lubricated as specified and run-in forwards and backwards at medium speed for over 3 hours in each direction.

 

Although I use the same size/type motors in 2mm and have encountered the same issue I use CT decoders. Here I have found the need reduce the BEMF motor parameters, the P& I mainly, but as I use a Sprog + JMRI/decoder pro I can't say what CV's  these are as you don't need to know.  As Farish also use these size/type motors in their new N gauge steam locos and this issue also arises with them perhaps asking on the NGF forum might raise more information from someone using Lenz decoders.

 

Izzy

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

Could someone please tell me the the name of the tool needed to remove the crank pins on these locos?

 

Thanks.

[tender]

Could someone please tell me the the name of the tool needed to remove the crank pins on these locos?

 

Thanks.

A spanner at a pinch, but a nut runner/spinner would be better.

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I have the requisite hexagonal nut spinner for removing crank pins from Hornby/Bachmann locos. The crank pins on the the DJM model appear to be a different profile. To my eyes they appear to be round with a flat on either flank. Is there a specific tool for this job or are folks using "locking" grips of some sort? Happy to stand corrected if my eyes are deceiving me..... ;-)

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

[brushman47544]

On the first point, this is the only DJM model to have etched plates in holes. The Kernow 1361 (the only other DJM Great Western out these in physical form right now), does not do this. This might be a Hattons choice to aide fitting etched plates and avoid mis-alignment and glue mark issues (you only have to look at the Dapol class 68 thread right now to see what I mean). In that context, nice idea but I suspect will not be repeated in 4mm again.

 

Early shots of the Kernow 1361 did include the recesses for the etched plates and I seem to recall reading somewhere on here that it was DJM's idea to help nameplate positioning by the factory. I understood the 1361 was to be changed to remove them. Hopefully both DJM and Dapol re the 68s will listen to the feedback and stick to printed nameplates in future, so we can stick etched ones on top if we so choose.

Edited February 23, 2017 by brushman47544

[tender]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I have the requisite hexagonal nut spinner for removing crank pins from Hornby/Bachmann locos. The crank pins on the the DJM model appear to be a different profile. To my eyes they appear to be round with a flat on either flank. Is there a specific tool for this job or are folks using "locking" grips of some sort? Happy to stand corrected if my eyes are deceiving me..... ;-)

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

The crank pins on the BWT and O2 are hex heads and appear smaller than the Hornby ones, I'd be surprised if the 14xx were different, still waiting for mine to arrive so can't be sure.

[JSpencer]

Could this be because of the amount of detail that is added after the basic body and chassis are put together? On the Kernow 02 thread somewhere when taking them apart was discussed it was revealed that some pipes glued into place would need cutting through to do this for the same reason, that they weren't meant to be taken apart.

 

 

Although I use the same size/type motors in 2mm and have encountered the same issue I use CT decoders. Here I have found the need reduce the BEMF motor parameters, the P& I mainly, but as I use a Sprog + JMRI/decoder pro I can't say what CV's  these are as you don't need to know.  As Farish also use these size/type motors in their new N gauge steam locos and this issue also arises with them perhaps asking on the NGF forum might raise more information from someone using Lenz decoders.

 

Izzy

 

In general, the DJMs allow you to remove upper body parts for oiling, fitting sound and even fitting of crew in some cases. There are also oiling holes for the gears underneath the chassis.

 

However stripping the chassis out from the running plate, or the metal split block away from the rest - in general requires snipping glued parts. On the well tank you have to cut the rear of the brake rodding for example.

 

The motor itself can be popped out easily once the upper body is removed. But changing wheels and or gears can only be done by snipping some piping rodding etc. I have not tried - nor have no intention - of running one of these destruction but suspect chassis life to be no different to any other make providing it was assembled correctly of course. Motor life in theory should be more (on the grounds that it is coreless alone) assuming all other qualities of the motor are same - which in practice probably are not.

 

Currently all DJM models we have so far are small locos which generally do just small start/stop operations, so to be honest, I have not exactly pushed these to their limits unlike the big express classes which I can and do leave going round for hours on end while I'm modelling. 

[rembrow]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I have the requisite hexagonal nut spinner for removing crank pins from Hornby/Bachmann locos. The crank pins on the the DJM model appear to be a different profile. To my eyes they appear to be round with a flat on either flank. Is there a specific tool for this job or are folks using "locking" grips of some sort? Happy to stand corrected if my eyes are deceiving me..... ;-)

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

Have checked with my high magnification headset and they are definitely hexagonal.

[NickC]

Can anybody suggest what the best CV motor settings might be for a Lenz silver+ decoder to get the smoothest running at low speed. With the default settings mine runs smoothly at medium speed or faster but is jerky at low speed especially when climbing a short 2 degree incline. It's been lubricated as specified and run-in forwards and backwards at medium speed for over 3 hours in each direction.

 

 

Must be loco related as I have exactly the same decoder and it runs smoothly from a crawl.

I haven't changed the decoder settings apart from checking that HF setting is used (CV50=0), which a coreless motor needs.

 

IMHO I cannot see why it needs a coreless motor anyway. Bachmann make smooth running locos with 3 pole cans!

 

Keiths

Apart from Acceleration, Deceleration and Loco address all the settings in the Lenz silver+ are default values. Above speed step 30ish it runs reasonably smoothly, below this it gets progressively more 'jerky' the lower the speed step. At speed step 8 it is very noticeable, especially on curves (R4 equivalent). I wonder if the back-to-back is too wide and could this be causing the jerkiness? Having just tested it with a DCC Concepts gauge tool I find it slips easily between the wheels whilst on other locos it is a pretty tight fit.

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

Have checked with my high magnification headset and they are definitely hexagonal.

 

On closer inspection (magnifier) the crankpins appear to be hexagonal and flanged (unlike Hornby/Bachmann). I guess the purpose of the flange is to prevent the coupling rods coming off?

 

Also, the across-the-flats size appears to be slightly less than 2mm so the standard 2.5mm nut spinner used for Hornby/Bachmann doesn't work. (AF measured with digital callipers).

 

Hope this helps,

 

Andy.

[The Johnster]

This thread has definitely put me off a Hatton's/DJM 14xx, a class which is more a 'would like' than a 'got to have' for me anyway (Tondu never had them but Llantrisant did).  The number plate thing is a pointless way of ensuring correct factory location of separately fitted plates when a pair of locating holes for pins on the plates would do; these would of course be covered if you fitted your own etched plates.  The drive train seems from descriptions to be overdesigned and pointless, second time I've used that word, when coupling rods transmit drive on models as effectively as they do on real locomomtives, and if I understand what I am reading in the thread correctly, the metal coupling rods have been painted to look like bright metal, which is the colour they are under the paint anyway; pointless number 3.

 

If it is designed to be a 'sealed unit' that you cannot get the body off of (again, this is only if I am reading the comments in the thread and understanding them correctly), then that is potentially worse than pointless.  I imagine Dave's design philosophy here is guided by the coreless motor having no brushes to replace, but there are other reasons to take a chassis off the body such as converting to EM/P4, and getting in there every so often to give it all a bit of tlc in the form of cleaning and lubing, not to mention 're-springing' the pickup wipers.  It also requires 100% effective quality control which is in reality impossible to achieve, so you have to be happy to replace models that have been returned as bad runners that you cannot get into to fettle up a bit, which doesn't sound like a good business model to me, though to be fair what I know about business is not much!

 

Maybe a Llantrisant 14xx will go back on the wishlist with the hopefully revamped Hornby.  I am happy and competent to repaint a model so do not mind the green some people find offputting; 1421 off the Cowbridge branch needs to be black, anyway.

 

Going back OT, my Mainline 8750 was in fact a 57xx that I'd attached a whitemetal cab from a K's kit to; ML never released an 8750, but I already had a 57xx and wanted variety.  I still have both bodies, after both ML chassis died recently after a long period in storage, the 57xx from mazak rot and the 8750's from axle wear. I also have Baccy 57xx and 64xx, which are both near-perfect runners.  I, too, like the axle springing on the Baccy 57xx, a clever, efficient, and effective piece of design which gives me pleasure on that basis alone.

Edited February 23, 2017 by The Johnster

[rembrow]

This thread has definitely put me off a Hatton's/DJM 14xx, a class which is more a 'would like' than a 'got to have' for me anyway (Tondu never had them but Llantrisant did).  The number plate thing is a pointless way of ensuring correct factory location of separately fitted plates when a pair of locating holes for pins on the plates would do; these would of course be covered if you fitted your own etched plates.  The drive train seems from descriptions to be overdesigned and pointless, second time I've used that word, when coupling rods transmit drive on models as effectively as they do on real locomomtives, and if I understand what I am reading in the thread correctly, the metal coupling rods have been painted to look like bright metal, which is the colour they are under the paint anyway; pointless number 3.

 

If it is designed to be a 'sealed unit' that you cannot get the body off of (again, this is only if I am reading the comments in the thread and understanding them correctly), then that is potentially worse than pointless.  I imagine Dave's design philosophy here is guided by the coreless motor having no brushes to replace, but there are other reasons to take a chassis off the body such as converting to EM/P4, and getting in there every so often to give it all a bit of tlc in the form of cleaning and lubing, not to mention 're-springing' the pickup wipers.  It also requires 100% effective quality control which is in reality impossible to achieve, so you have to be happy to replace models that have been returned as bad runners that you cannot get into to fettle up a bit, which doesn't sound like a good business model to me, though to be fair what I know about business is not much!

 

Maybe a Llantrisant 14xx will go back on the wishlist with the hopefully revamped Hornby.  I am happy and competent to repaint a model so do not mind the green some people find offputting; 1421 off the Cowbridge branch needs to be black, anyway.

 

Going back OT, my Mainline 8750 was in fact a 57xx that I'd attached a whitemetal cab from a K's kit to; ML never released an 8750, but I already had a 57xx and wanted variety.  I still have both bodies, after both ML chassis died recently after a long period in storage, the 57xx from mazak rot and the 8750's from axle wear. I also have Baccy 57xx and 64xx, which are both near-perfect runners.  I, too, like the axle springing on the Baccy 57xx, a clever, efficient, and effective piece of design which gives me pleasure on that basis alone.

 

I might be able to provide info on some of your concerns:

1. numberplates. Agree that as they are virtually fully recessed, not beneficial as they don't stand out from the body. However I have ordered a set of etched plates from Jackson-Evans (Modelmaster) for my 1409 to see if they can be fitted over the existing ones. I normally use a template of 10 thou plasticard to locate the plate and a smear of 2 part epoxy on the back of the new plate. As the existing plates are etched, I'm going to try glue n' glaze being a pva based adhesive. 

 

2. drivetrain. I believe the theory is that by using gearing to each wheel set, there is a more even distribution of power from the motor, so less uneven torque on the wheelset with the drive from the motor.

 

3. sealed unit?. The model comes with a full spare parts schematic and its clear to me that it is constructed in sections that are screwed together. So the footplate and chassis are one sub assembly and the body is another. I suspect the issue of ease in getting access will be due to some of the detail parts having to be pulled out or cut before the footplate/chassis can be removed from the body. I haven't tried it, but the schematic indicates to me it is do-able

 

4. adjusting wiper pickups. This is not an issue as there aren't any. The electrical contact is by a split chassis, so that each side of each wheelset axle is picking up or returning power. The axles will be insulated by a built in insulator. The schematic doesn't show this, but I assume the insulation is in the middle of the axle.

 

5. conversion to EM/P4. that will need some thought due to the split chassis/split axle electrical system. If these can't be replaced, may depend on how far the wheels can be pulled out on the axles.

 

6. access to cab to instal crew. This is possible and the instructions cover it. The cab roof is designed to be removable

Edited February 23, 2017 by rembrow

[The Johnster]

I might be able to provide info on some of your concerns:

1. numberplates. Agree that as they are virtually fully recessed, not beneficial as they don't stand out from the body. However I have ordered a set of etched plates from Jackson-Evans (Modelmaster) for my 1409 to see if they can be fitted over the existing ones. I normally use a template of 10 thou plasticard to locate the plate and a smear of 2 part epoxy on the back of the new plate. As the existing plates are etched, I'm going to try glue n' glaze being a pva based adhesive. 

 

2. drivetrain. I believe the theory is that by using gearing to each wheel set, there is a more even distribution of power from the motor, so less uneven torque on the wheelset with the drive from the motor.

 

3. sealed unit?. The model comes with a full spare parts schematic and its clear to me that it is constructed in sections that are screwed together. So the footplate and chassis are one sub assembly and the body is another. I suspect the issue of ease in getting access will be due to some of the detail parts having to be pulled out or cut before the footplate/chassis can be removed from the body. I haven't tried it, but the schematic indicates to me it is do-able

 

4. adjusting wiper pickups. This is not an issue as there aren't any. The electrical contact is by a split chassis, so that each side of each wheelset axle is picking up or returning power. The axles will be insulated by a built in insulator. The schematic doesn't show this, but I assume the insulation is in the middle of the axle.

 

5. conversion to EM/P4. that will need some thought due to the split chassis/split axle electrical system. If these can't be replaced, may depend on how far the wheels can be pulled out on the axles.

 

6. access to cab to instal crew. This is possible and the instructions cover it. The cab roof is designed to be removable

 

Thank you Rembrow, that has indeed addressed some of my worries about this model, particularly regarding access to it's interior.  I can see that integrating the chassis with the footplate is not a bad idea, so long as you can actually get at everything.  The even torque to each driven axle is a desirable quality, but I'm not convinced that the extra intertia of the drive train is worth it; that said, it has been the system on non-steam models for years and they seem to run ok.  And of course I had a senior moment and forgot that this is a split chassis model with no pickups!  Thank you for such a prompt reply.

 

My main concern now is that the recess for the number plates will still be visible behind retrofitted etched replacement plates.  I would have to order these anyway for my proposed 1421, but if the DJM plates are recessed into a locating hole, that means that the hole is slightly bigger than the plates, and will show even when a new plate is attached over the top.  If the existing plates are so far recessed as to be flush with the body sides, then I can see why people are making a fuss over it and it might have been better to print them (some GW locos repaired at Caerphilly in the 50s had painted on 'plates', in yellow paint using the traditional GW 'font' and including the edge, can't remember if this applied to 14xx but I have seen photos of 57xx and 56xx with it), but has the probably unintended advantage that retrofit etched plates will sit at the right 'proudness' from the body side just glued on top of the DJM ones.

 

Some filling or a very thin backing plate would then be needed to cover the gap.

 

 Loco is back on the 'backburner wishlist' until we get a squiz at whatever Hornby come up with!  There will be no work for it until I get around to scratchbuilding an A7 trailer for it, with plated toplights in blood and custard (Cowbridge Branch again), and I need to be working on my scenic break area first!

[JSpencer]

The Hornby version in Railroad format will be simple paint job but basically the same model. The traction tyres tend to disappear too when a loco gets railroaded.

[Ian Hargrave]

The Hornby version in Railroad format will be simple paint job but basically the same model. The traction tyres tend to disappear too when a loco gets railroaded.

 

Forgive me but do we actually know this to be the case ? The question of the dreaded traction tyre is confused.The Midland /SDJR 2P still had them with the latest ( I think mainstream ) release.More info.required on this ?

[toboldlygo]

Forgive me but do we actually know this to be the case ? The question of the dreaded traction tyre is confused.The Midland /SDJR 2P still had them with the latest ( I think mainstream ) release.More info.required on this ?

 

The Railroad 2P still has traction tyres, just checked the service sheet.

[Captain Kernow]

Has anyone actually tried to remove the factory-fitted number plates yet, please?