Jump to content
 

Hattons announce 14xx / 48xx / 58xx


Andy Y
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just read John's (You-Choos) account of sound fitting the 14xx.http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/120317-djm-14xx-with-zimo-sound-quick-install-guide/?p=2631098

Seems odd making the model supposedly easy for sound fitting but then not leaving enough room for the decoder without having to remove the six pin decoder socket and hardwiring the decoder. Must admit this wasn't a problem with the DJM/Kernow O2 but looking at the pictures it looks like half the boiler space is taken up with additional weight on the14xx.

It was mentioned a while ago in this read that the first EPs were found to be too light and not with the running characteristics desired.

So weight has been added clearly where there was still space to do so.

 

I will admit that in my opinion DJM tank locos are relatively light, though still capable of pulling loads we would generally expect. Take the Austerity (J94), it is lighter than the USA tank which in turn is lighter than the Dapol/Hornby J94. Though there is space for additional weight in these locos, especially if you have no use for DCC sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Maybe the weight problem on small locos could be tungsten as part of the chassis block?

It's 1.7x more dense than lead and considerably more than Mazak

It might cost a few pounds more but could really transform the running of these rather light locos.

 

Keith

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the weight problem on small locos could be tungsten as part of the chassis block?

It's 1.7x more dense than lead and considerably more than Mazak

It might cost a few pounds more but could really transform the running of these rather light locos.

 

Keith

Tungsten is about 5 times the price in material price alone, it cannot be cast so would need to be machined. Easy for darts but not RTR chassis blocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

True, it is inconvenient not being able to inspect a model in person. Having said that surely the greater inconvenience is having such models not produced at all?

 

The two established manufacturers have done sterling job in recent years. For the GWR modeller, all the four-cylinder express classes are available to a high standard (excepting "The Great Bear") and with the arrival of the 47xx this year there will be almost complete coverage of the eight coupled freight engines which ran on the GWR. Beyond that there are very significant gaps in what is available despite the frequent protestations of those who follow the 'other' Railways.

 

Personally I'm pleased that the likes of Kernow, Hattons, Heljan and Oxford Rail are developing models to fill those gaps because there is no evidence that either Hornby or Bachmann are planning to do so (Bachmann 94xx excepted).

 

Yes, the Hattons models are available solely through Hattons. But then they have taken the (probably quite considerable) investment risk on this project and if they need to control the  retail side of the project in order to maximise their return then surely that is their prerogative? That was also the "business model" of Hornby until very recently I believe.

 

From what has been written about it, the full size version of The Great Bear wasn't available to a particularly high standard either...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Tungsten is about 5 times the price in material price alone, it cannot be cast so would need to be machined. Easy for darts but not RTR chassis blocks.  

 

But entirely suitable as an 'owner retrofit' replacement for lead if you are prepared to source your own and shape it to fit, a job impractical on cost grounds for the manufacturer.  All the locos on my tiny blt can easily haul the largest trains the layout can handle without adding weight, so it's not an issue that I have to deal with, but for those who need more T.E. and are able to machine or shape it, tungsten is probably a reasonable way to go, at least until unobtainium is obtainium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I would have thought that any locomotive would be able to haul a scale load. Therefore, I would only expect a 14xx to haul 1-2 cars, with perhaps a siphon. That's about it. In real life, they'd put on a pannier above that. If you're expecting a 15 coach service, then get a bigger locomotive, methinks....

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought that any locomotive would be able to haul a scale load. Therefore, I would only expect a 14xx to haul 1-2 cars, with perhaps a siphon. That's about it. In real life, they'd put on a pannier above that. If you're expecting a 15 coach service, then get a bigger locomotive, methinks....

 

Ian

I'd have thought a bit more than that!

They could handle 4 coaches at least.....2 front 2 back. Then there was the good trains they hauled , although small.

They were a surprisingly versatile loco!

 

Khris

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'd have thought a bit more than that!

They could handle 4 coaches at least.....2 front 2 back. Then there was the good trains they hauled , although small.

They were a surprisingly versatile loco!

 

Khris

It obviously depends on the terrain that the service has to cover. Trying to haul un-prototypical loads will no doubt detract from the ability of the locomotive, either in real life, or the toy. I don't think you'd see a 14 on a 4 car service in the valleys!

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have thought a bit more than that!

They could handle 4 coaches at least.....2 front 2 back. Then there was the good trains they hauled , although small.

They were a surprisingly versatile loco!

Khris

They may well have been able to cope with 4 autocoaches, (and I'm sure it probably happened sometime, somewhere), but there doesn't seem to be much photographic evidence to support that (and I don't mean just on the 'net). I've only come across a very few photos with 3, but not 4. Maybe someone can come up with something? Panniers seemed to be the norm where 4 autocoaches were used. Edited by Coppercap
Link to post
Share on other sites

But entirely suitable as an 'owner retrofit' replacement for lead if you are prepared to source your own and shape it to fit, a job impractical on cost grounds for the manufacturer.

Go on then, where does one obtain tungsten from, and what do you cut it with ? Will my junior hacksaw do ?

 

For anyone who fancies a go, here's a guy taking more than two minutes and using half a grinding disk to get through a bit of 6mm tungsten rod. Compare with the 10 seconds it takes to get through 8mm iron afterwards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDlRqIZH7Js

 

...it's not an issue that I have to deal with

Evidently. Edited by Wheatley
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'd have thought a bit more than that!

They could handle 4 coaches at least.....2 front 2 back. Then there was the good trains they hauled , although small.

They were a surprisingly versatile loco!

 

Khris

According to GWR instructions (1936) up to two cars could lead and others attached behind the engine, depending on gradient, to a max total load for a 0-4-2 T (or 2-4-0 T) of:

1 in 40, 72 tons

1 in 50, 96 tons

1 in 60, 120 tons

1 in 80, 144 tons

1 in 100 168 tons

 

The trailing vehicles do not have to be auto cars!

 

Keith

 

EDIT a typical trailer is around 30 tons

Edited by melmerby
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

They may well have been able to cope with 4 autocoaches, (and I'm sure it probably happened sometime, somewhere), but there doesn't seem to be much photographic evidence to support that (and I don't mean just on the 'net). I've only come across a very few photos with 3, but not 4. Maybe someone can come up with something? Panniers seemed to be the norm where 4 autocoaches were used.

 

The Pannier would punch well above its size.Its bigger sisters handled full express loads when on empty stock work and when called upon (as was once the case with the overstrained Hymeks on Paddington -Swansea turns) act as a "thunderbird" and haul the train to a point where a mainline loco could haul it.

 

It obviously depends on the terrain that the service has to cover. Trying to haul un-prototypical loads will no doubt detract from the ability of the locomotive, either in real life, or the toy. I don't think you'd see a 14 on a 4 car service in the valleys!

 

Ian

 Agree wholeheartedly.Four coupled tanks struggle if overloaded in 4mm model form in any case---witness the respective performances of the Hornby M7 and the Kernow O2.Trials to see how much the14/58 Hattons DJM will pull are a bit pointless and might lead to an expensive and unnecessary burnt out motor.In which case because apparently these are not designed for ease of body removal,you may as well throw £99 worth in the bin

If eventually the version I am awaiting is delivered,I will be content with a B set and maybe a milk tank. Were I to consider one equipped for auto train work,just one autocoach would suit me well.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Agree wholeheartedly.Four coupled tanks struggle if overloaded in 4mm model form in any case---witness the respective performances of the Hornby M7 and the Kernow O2.Trials to see how much the14/58 Hattons DJM will pull are a bit pointless and might lead to an expensive and unnecessary burnt out motor.In which case because apparently these are not designed for ease of body removal,you may as well throw £99 worth in the bin

If eventually the version I am awaiting is delivered,I will be content with a B set and maybe a milk tank. Were I to consider one equipped for auto train work,just one autocoach would suit me well.

Ian,

What I responded to was Ian's (Tophatharry's) comment of 2 autocoaches and a syphon as being a max load for for the real thing.

Now if I remember correctly wasn't there footage of one of the samples running about with a few autotrailers quite happily?

Whether we as modeller's would run one with 4 autotrailers is another thing, but I would be quite doubtful it would burn out the loco!

 

 

Khris

Edited by kandc_au
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Ian,

What I responded to was Ian's (Tophatharry's) comment of 2 autocoaches and a syphon as being a max load for for the real thing.

Now if I remember correctly wasn't there footage of one of the samples running about with a few autotrailers quite happily?

Whether we as modeller's would run one with 4 autotrailers is another thing, but I would be quite doubtful it would burn out the loco!

 

 

Khris

All I can say is that experience on a working 4mm track with 36 inch radius and some slope challenges the two models I have quoted as an example . Please bear in mind that the O2 design and mechanism comes from the same source as the 14XX being discussed here.I think I know where Ian (Tph) is coming from. In normal everyday use its load would have been one and the branch lines they served in any case generated sparse traffic.I suspect if you challenge this model with more than it can cope with,you will experience what I did when I attempted 3 Maunsells instead of the usual 2 behind the Kernow O2 which was wheelspin to a stall.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It obviously depends on the terrain that the service has to cover. Trying to haul un-prototypical loads will no doubt detract from the ability of the locomotive, either in real life, or the toy. I don't think you'd see a 14 on a 4 car service in the valleys!

 

Ian

 

Agree.  Maximum permitted load for a 14XX on 1 in 100 was 168 tons, for a 64XX it was 210 tons.  Over some branches the 14XX were allowed up to 224 tons and 260 tons on the Abingdon branch plus a lot more on London area milk train trips.  

 

A good comparison with the 64XX and showing the effect of gradients would be the Exeter -Tiverton line where due to intermediate lower restrictions a 14XX was in reality limited to 130 tons from Exeter to Tiverton but was allowed 180 tons from Tiverton to Exeter while the comparable loads for a 64XX were 170 tons out from Exeter and 240 tons in the opposite direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It depended very much on the route and the gradient profile, and the nature of the work.  A 48/14xx with 2 or more trailers might cope fine on an easily graded branch with a tolerant timetable, the very situation where one trailer would usually do, but they didn't just work on quiet branch lines despite the impression you'd get from attending model railway shows.  Main line work needed rapid acceleration to keep out of the way of other traffic, and this was one of the reasons for auto-fitting 0-6-0s and eventually developing them into the 54xx class.  In South Wales, where steeper gradients are common and top speed was not such an issue, this was turned into the 64xx, with smaller driving wheels.  Plymouth found these handy as well.  Even the 'superauto' 64xx was eventually thought lacking for the suburban routes where other traffic had to be considered, and some 4575s were auto fitted by BR(W) in the early '50s.  

 

A typical South Wales 4575 job was the Coryton auto, which featured a dash up a 1 in 100 bank on the busy Rhymney Main Line from Queen Street (actually, the bank starts at Crwys Road bridge) to Heath Junction.  I remember these trains as a child and have seen a few photos of them over the years, and they would be 3 trailer affairs, marshalled trailer-4575 smokebox leading-trailer-trailer in the up direction.  I never saw a four trailer sandwich on these trains and have not seen a photo either; presumably even the mighty 4575 could not cut the mustard with 4 attached. This was a busy suburban branch with plenty of passengers to fill 4 trailers in the rush hours.  The next step up was a 56xx or 5101 and 5 car valleys suburban set of Colletts, perhaps a Taff A a few years before but I don't remember them.

 

I would be perfectly happy on any layout of mine that had a 48/14xx that could reliably haul 2 trailers and a milk tank or vanfit tail load.  My old Airfix could do this even without the traction tyre, and I would be fairly confident that the new DJM/Hattons loco could as well.

 

Incidentally, on a visit to the Dean Forest Railway a few years ago, 1450 was running around quite happlily with 3 mk1s, close on 100 tons.

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the weight problem on small locos could be tungsten as part of the chassis block?

It's 1.7x more dense than lead and considerably more than Mazak

It might cost a few pounds more but could really transform the running of these rather light locos.

Tungsten is about 5 times the price in material price alone, it cannot be cast so would need to be machined. Easy for darts but not RTR chassis blocks.

 There are sintering techniques for tungsten, which would probably be the way to go to form a piece such as a chassis block or shaped ballast weight to pack in the maximum mass in a given volume. But this will be expensive in both material and process cost compared to mazak or lead.

 

The fact that we don't see an aftermarket supplier of substitute castings incorporating lead - which is by a very large margin the cheap and easily worked high density metal - for models with known traction limitations, probably indicates how small the market is for 'heavier'. Realistically, I feel that Bachmann's well established practise of making footplates and other body parts of steam models in mazak, and the progress made by current Hornby in casting loco boilers of small protoypes in mazak; are better pointers to where improved technique could get more weight into small and difficult to balance steam models affordably, by increasing the mazak content.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

There are sintering techniques for tungsten, which would probably be the way to go to form a piece such as a chassis block or shaped ballast weight to pack in the maximum mass in a given volume. But this will be expensive in both material and process cost compared to mazak or lead.

 

The fact that we don't see an aftermarket supplier of substitute castings incorporating lead - which is by a very large margin the cheap and easily worked high density metal - for models with known traction limitations, probably indicates how small the market is for 'heavier'. Realistically, I feel that Bachmann's well established practise of making footplates and other body parts of steam models in mazak, and the progress made by current Hornby in casting loco boilers of small protoypes in mazak; are better pointers to where improved technique could get more weight into small and difficult to balance steam models affordably, by increasing the mazak content.

Or the fact that lead content in saleable products is frowned upon.

 

Roy

Edited by Roy Langridge
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Agree wholeheartedly.Four coupled tanks struggle if overloaded in 4mm model form in any case---witness the respective performances of the Hornby M7 and the Kernow O2.Trials to see how much the14/58 Hattons DJM will pull are a bit pointless and might lead to an expensive and unnecessary burnt out motor.In which case because apparently these are not designed for ease of body removal,you may as well throw £99 worth in the bin

 

If you can get the upper body off a DJM - which is normally straight forwards and easy to do on a DJM - you can change motor. It is normally just clipped in, will pop out and can be de-soldered.

If you wish to change other elements (wheels, gears etc) then it becomes more complex and can involve snipping. That said, I recently had to fix a Hornby Q1 wiper pick up, and that was not particularly easy either! 

 

Agree though, we don't really want to purposely burn motors out. I personally find DJM adequate for haulage tasks we expect of the model concerned but other similar sized models from other makes do pull more. (My Terrier out pulls the Well tank, My USA tank out pulls the austerity  -- cannot really compare the O2 though as the E4, M7 and 415s are a lot bigger).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depended very much on the route and the gradient profile, and the nature of the work.  A 48/14xx with 2 or more trailers might cope fine on an easily graded branch with a tolerant timetable, the very situation where one trailer would usually do, but they didn't just work on quiet branch lines despite the impression you'd get from attending model railway shows.  Main line work needed rapid acceleration to keep out of the way of other traffic, and this was one of the reasons for auto-fitting 0-6-0s and eventually developing them into the 54xx class.  In South Wales, where steeper gradients are common and top speed was not such an issue, this was turned into the 64xx, with smaller driving wheels.  Plymouth found these handy as well.  Even the 'superauto' 64xx was eventually thought lacking for the suburban routes where other traffic had to be considered, and some 4575s were auto fitted by BR(W) in the early '50s.  

 

A typical South Wales 4575 job was the Coryton auto, which featured a dash up a 1 in 100 bank on the busy Rhymney Main Line from Queen Street (actually, the bank starts at Crwys Road bridge) to Heath Junction.  I remember these trains as a child and have seen a few photos of them over the years, and they would be 3 trailer affairs, marshalled trailer-4575 smokebox leading-trailer-trailer in the up direction.  I never saw a four trailer sandwich on these trains and have not seen a photo either; presumably even the mighty 4575 could not cut the mustard with 4 attached. This was a busy suburban branch with plenty of passengers to fill 4 trailers in the rush hours.  The next step up was a 56xx or 5101 and 5 car valleys suburban set of Colletts, perhaps a Taff A a few years before but I don't remember them.

 

I would be perfectly happy on any layout of mine that had a 48/14xx that could reliably haul 2 trailers and a milk tank or vanfit tail load.  My old Airfix could do this even without the traction tyre, and I would be fairly confident that the new DJM/Hattons loco could as well.

 

Incidentally, on a visit to the Dean Forest Railway a few years ago, 1450 was running around quite happlily with 3 mk1s, close on 100 tons.

There is a picture somewhere of on hauling two 28xx and a 47xx off to scrap. This was on the flat Sharpness line and the wee 14xx was also hauling the tenders and a couple of BR vans. Don't try this at home folks.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a picture somewhere of on hauling two 28xx and a 47xx off to scrap. This was on the flat Sharpness line and the wee 14xx was also hauling the tenders and a couple of BR vans. Don't try this at home folks.

Yes, 1445, hauling 4701, 2842 and 2852 (the vans were BR brake vans), 20th July 1964.Taken by well-known local photographer Ben Ashworth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, 1445, hauling 4701, 2842 and 2852 (the vans were BR brake vans), 20th July 1964.Taken by well-known local photographer Ben Ashworth.

 

I have seen this photo in a book (title of which I can't remember), the caption I think said that the loco "struggled" with this load (or words to that effect)!! Must have been quite a noise!!

 

For those interested there was a semi-professional film made on the last day of the Wallingford branch passenger services. It features 1444 (as per the Hattons model) pulling a train of six vehicles; 2 x auto trailers and 4 x mainline gangwayed vehicles. I think that two return trips were made along the branch with this load. This is obviously not a typical working and I believe that apart from a couple of very short, steep grades the Wallingford branch was (is) relatively easy going. It does show however that these relatively small locomotives could pull a fair load.

 

This film is included in Vol 3 "Western Region Steam in the 1960s" by Geoff Holyoake. Available from DUKE productions (Google it).  This film is also quite interesting from a social history perspective (the dress fashions/styles etc). The rest of the DVD is quite interesting also!!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I have seen this photo in a book (title of which I can't remember), the caption I think said that the loco "struggled" with this load (or words to that effect)!! Must have been quite a noise!!

 

For those interested there was a semi-professional film made on the last day of the Wallingford branch passenger services. It features 1444 (as per the Hattons model) pulling a train of six vehicles; 2 x auto trailers and 4 x mainline gangwayed vehicles. I think that two return trips were made along the branch with this load. This is obviously not a typical working and I believe that apart from a couple of very short, steep grades the Wallingford branch was (is) relatively easy going. It does show however that these relatively small locomotives could pull a fair load.

 

This film is included in Vol 3 "Western Region Steam in the 1960s" by Geoff Holyoake. Available from DUKE productions (Google it).  This film is also quite interesting from a social history perspective (the dress fashions/styles etc). The rest of the DVD is quite interesting also!!

 

 

 

I haven't got a 14XX load for the Wallingford branch  (or a 517 load come to that) but the load for a Metro tank was 224 tons in both directions and in most London Division branch line examples I've looked at the 48/14XX was allowed the same load as a Metro soI doubt Wallingford was any different.  Thus 2 trailers and 4x8-wheelers should have been well within its capabilties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...