Hattons announce 14xx / 48xx / 58xx

[Captain Kernow]

Hi,

I seem to remember there was a lot of adverse comment about the Hejan / Hattons Beyer Garrat in the not too distant past??.

Yes, I'd forgotten about that one, but thinking about it, that's a 2-6-6-2, with four lots of gesticulating valve gear and the 14XX is essentially an 0-4-0 with an extra set of trailing wheels. You can't get a much simpler chassis than that.

 

Being a bit controversial now, given that slow, smooth running is so important for me and others, I for one would be prepared to pay a proper premium price for a model that ran with those qualities straight out of the box.

[MickD]

Yes, I'd forgotten about that one, but thinking about it, that's a 2-6-6-2, with four lots of gesticulating valve gear and the 14XX is essentially an 0-4-0 with an extra set of trailing wheels. You can't get a much simpler chassis than that.

 

Being a bit controversial now, given that slow, smooth running is so important for me and others, I for one would be prepared to pay a proper premium price for a model that ran with those qualities straight out of the box.

 

I am in full agreement with you on this, but I think we will be in the minority after the howls of anguish over recent price rises, which will only get worse as the effects of brexit and the exchange rate come into effect.

MickD.

[lofty1966]

I think I had best get a test track set up to see if my two are ok !

[JSpencer]

Yes, I'd forgotten about that one, but thinking about it, that's a 2-6-6-2, with four lots of gesticulating valve gear and the 14XX is essentially an 0-4-0 with an extra set of trailing wheels. You can't get a much simpler chassis than that.

 

Being a bit controversial now, given that slow, smooth running is so important for me and others, I for one would be prepared to pay a proper premium price for a model that ran with those qualities straight out of the box.

 

There seem to be 2 distinct opinions coming forwards on this model and I think both are correct.  I would say that this model is like custard.  Either it is fine and runs perfectly from day 1 or it is lumpy with no amount of running in to cure it.

 

I have experienced both with the austerity. One model perfect from the box, another refusing to get better after several hours and then something went pop. A third, which was between the two, did get better and ran smoothly after 4 hours.

My opinion on the austerity is that the motor is maybe too small (under powered) and stalls very easily if there is a tight spot in the gear train. This seems to born out in the descending test performed by one person several pages back whereby, when the decline is sharp and the loco is loaded, the load is sufficient to look the gear against the worm and stall the motor.

When the layout is flat and the track is perfectly laid and the model runs fine from the box, then there are no issues. Those with sharp inclines OR less than perfect track OR a model which has a tight spot, find the model less than satisfactory. The motors used on similar sized Bachmann or Hornby models are roughly 4 times bigger, but these models are not DCC sound friendly. It is said that a top footballer best performances come from a perfect pitch, on a poorer pitch, their performance is mundane.

 

The point raised about the zimo chip being loose in the 6 pin plug seems fair. I found fitting a Loksound chip into the same plug on an austerity and it feels loose to me. Not enough to cause an electrical issue, but I packed it out a bit to ensure a good contact.

Electrical issues - IMHO - might be more due to bearing pickups getting coated in oil or grease. I have not really suffered this on a DJM model, nor even the Sentinel, or Well tank by the same designer. I have not suffered this on my Bachmann 40 either which is renowned for it, but they have become a pain on both of my Dapol class 73s.

The ideal lubricant - if it exists (there is some debate over Electrolube) - is one that cleans, conducts electricity and lubricates (don't use WD40, that will kill all electrical contact for good - this fluid was designed to lubricate the dies of die casting machines).  Again, if your pickups are fine, you will have a smooth model, if not then it will be intermittent.

 

I will repeat again, these models are capable of very fine and smooth running, providing several conditions are met, it one link in the chain is broken, smooth performance disappears instantly. My recommendation for  future designs would be a bigger motor. I would also fancy a sprung axle when a 6 wheel design is set (I know, few manufacturers bother with this now, but I do feel this really helps) and pickups which avoid oiled areas.

Edited April 10, 2017 by JSpencer

[kandc_au]

Don't quite agree with the 2 options you point out. I see 3.

1) Doesn't run well

2) Does run well

3) Those using DCC

With what everyone has written here they are the 3 options I have read about.

I am not DCC literate, but from what I have read, a lot are still not sure either what decoders to use or settings. From what I understand of DCC users should be setting up on a test track and once happy then using on the layout.

Issues 1 and 2 appear to be horses for courses, gooduns and baduns.

given that this thread is dedicated to this model I am not surprised that area few mentioned going back.....but does that really mean they are actually all problematic?

From everything I had read here I cancelled my order.

On reflection I have reordered plus a Gaugemaster controller so that I can use it on my layout as my controllers are all feedback.

With luck it will be winging it's way downunder in the next couple of days.

[PMP]

There seem to be 2 distinct opinions coming forwards on this model and I think both are correct.  I would say that this model is like custard.  Either it is fine and runs perfectly from day 1 or it is lumpy with no amount of running in to cure it.

 

I have experienced both with the austerity. One model perfect from the box, another refusing to get better after several hours and then something went pop. A third, which was between the two, did get better and ran smoothly after 4 hours.

My opinion on the austerity is that the motor is maybe too small (under powered) and stalls very easily if there is a tight spot in the gear train. This seems to born out in the descending test performed by one person several pages back whereby, when the decline is sharp and the loco is loaded, the load is sufficient to look the gear against the worm and stall the motor.

When the layout is flat and the track is perfectly laid and the model runs fine from the box, then there are no issues. Those with sharp inclines OR less than perfect track OR a model which has a tight spot, find the model less than satisfactory.

 

 

Regrettably I don't feel its that simple. Both the 14xx variants and the J94 run tolerably well on a flat surface. The problem with the chassis cogging is not on sharp declines, the example I used was a not unreasonable 3% from the Woodland scenics range. The chassis climbs unhindered, but with a single coach binds whilst descending.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73UU1bh6MY&index=3&list=UUPS3Dd1KWPe8KUnbrbzoiYQ

The addition of a solitary coach either end of the model makes the gears bind at least twice per revolution with the locomotive facing either direction. To see if there were issues with the free running chassis I decoupled the body and let gravity do its part with no problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4m73Ykr_JQ&list=UUPS3Dd1KWPe8KUnbrbzoiYQ&index=1

 

I have tried various fixes including changing the coupling rods for Alan Gibson etched rods. ( https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/14xx-frustration/ ) These bind due to the gears interfering with each other. Going back to basics I then removed one of the drive gears from the chassis to make it a conventional drive, i.e. motor to one axle and coupling rods driving the front axle. This gives an improved appearance and better running on the flat. Returning it to the incline the chassis still binds with the addition of a single coach loading either end.

 

I then tried my J94, which shows the same binding when descending on an incline with a single coach load with the locomotive facing either direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipy7Zn4N5kY&index=2&list=UUPS3Dd1KWPe8KUnbrbzoiYQ

As you can see this shows the same traits. Whilst not on the youtube channel I have tried (and filmed) a further five from the latest releases and they all exhibit the same problem. The shop (surprised), double checked my findings by simply propping one end of a layout up to introduce a gradient and confirmed the findings. So the problem appears to be the chassis design and how it interfaces with the motor worm when under load downhill.

 

I'd be very interested to see anyone elses video of these models running smoothly downhill with a similar gradient. Its not hard to jig up a batten and a couple of straights and a centimetre or so of incline. Lets see the results, I find it hard with the other reports of variable running quality to believe that I managed to find seven different models of two types from different batches all made on the same Friday.At the moment I've no faith in this particular design being efficient on any layout where descending inclines are required there will surely be an effect on the longevity of these mechanisms and serviceability if they can't run downhill.

 

 

Additional edit: These problems occur with both DC and DCC operation, the filming is using a Gaugemaster W controller in DC. The DCC control was a Gaugemaster chip and NCE Powercab. So the issue is nothing to do with electrical response, its mechanical.

Edited April 10, 2017 by PMP

[JSpencer]

When I say sharp, I mean an incline that will get you to an entire track level high (about 3 inches) within a short confine. The Bachmann Scenics inclines are sharp compared with real life.

 

Steady 1/100 and less should be less problematic.

 

I used DCC sound pre-programmed by the supplier, so no idea or not if they pre-set the CVs for a coreless motor or maybe Loksound are by default more compatible with Coreless motors.

 

I have tested a series of small locos through a pair of points that cause trouble only for the DJM Austerity (both of them), again it is just one set of points out of the 20+ sets. This pair are set track but one of 5 set track points in the goods and harbour sidings. In simple terms, the 87xx, 64xx, Dapol J94, Bachmann USA, Terriers, Well tanks, O2s, Sentinel tank, in fact every small loco I care to throw at them cope. That said the Austerity seems to have very fine flanges compared with others though. The points have a minor distortion due to be being close to the end of baseboard which had minor flood damage.  

 

In strict fairness, I am not aware of any make testing their models for inclines. We have seem Hornby's test track and Rapido's test track and these are flat. This is not to say that they do not design for incline's of course, just such info is scant.

Edited April 10, 2017 by JSpencer

[PMP]

Hi JS,

Regarding inclines compared to the real thing our 'train set' gradients will always be far steeper. I used the WS set because it's shallower than the Hornby set and specifically designed for model railway use, as well as research for a layout project of mine. They do the same on the 2% gradient pack as well.

I imagine (hope) Hornby checks gradient application, as they have them in their own range, and I'm aware of at least one Rapido product that has been gradient checked. With 'overseas' modellers more prone to using gradients on their layouts than UK modellers, I think it's likely that non UK outline RTR products are more likely to be checked for incline suitability.

[tomparryharry]

I haven't received my order yet, so my views will reflect that.

 

I've got 3 of DJ's austerities, and they work just fine.

 

I'm intrigued by the 'notchiness' of the 14xx videos I've seen. For gears to bind, either they're out of line, or they're the wrong size. If the gears are in parallel, then either the shafts are out, or the gears are out. If the shaft is out, then most probably all of the batch(es) would be wrong. If the gears are plastic, and, if there's a 'draw' on the mould, then the gear 'might' want to bind, as it goes through its revolution. Sometimes, taking a gear out, and checking it for size, will sort it out. I can well remember a small gearbox I had to look at, where binding took place. It turned out that a 'gate pip' (where the plastic goes in) had not been cleaned up correctly, and bound up with it's neighbour. 20 seconds with a needle file, and it worked as intended.

 

Likewise, if gears are made in multiple,(lets say 10)on a sprue, then you only need 1 gear to have a minor defect on any of it's major dimensions, and you'll get a 10% failure rate. 9 people will be happy with the product. 1 will not. There are about 7 major dimensions on a gear wheel, so it's easy to go wrong!

 

Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that this is the problem with DJ's models, and as I haven't seen or run my ordered 14xx, I'll await to see the finished article.

 

Ian

[JSpencer]

Hi JS,

Regarding inclines compared to the real thing our 'train set' gradients will always be far steeper. I used the WS set because it's shallower than the Hornby set and specifically designed for model railway use, as well as research for a layout project of mine. They do the same on the 2% gradient pack as well.

I imagine (hope) Hornby checks gradient application, as they have them in their own range, and I'm aware of at least one Rapido product that has been gradient checked. With 'overseas' modellers more prone to using gradients on their layouts than UK modellers, I think it's likely that non UK outline RTR products are more likely to be checked for incline suitability.

 

I had such inclines (4 of them) on a layout 20 or so years back. I found Hornby tender drives (as they practically all were back then) coped with a good length (6 or 7 coaches) train while the Bachmann split loco drives would struggle with just 3 or 4.

 

I belonged to the Chatham railway club at the time, the club layout could not take Hornby, but Bachmann (once the introduced darkened wheels) were ok so Bachmann would pull trains on the flat big club layout (a Nelson coped easily with 9 Replica and Mainline Mk 1s -- it struggles now with 8 of the modern super detailed Mk 1s) and Hornby were reserved for home use.

 

I then moved away (ditched the layout), everything became loco drive and my feeling is that even though the models from the main makers are quite heavy, I doubt any will match the old tender drives for climbing sharp inclines (especially those with diecast tender frames).

The current layout has light shallow inclines, on just under half power, Hornby's rebuilt merchant navy comes almost to a standstill with 7 modern lighted Pullmans, but will not wheel slip. The new Merchant Navy has a more powerful motor and slows down but is moving with ease. However I suspect both will slip badly going up 2 or 3% inclines with such a load.  Both of these are more powerful than a Bachmann Nelson which was the strongest of the split engines I own.

Diesels are a different story, packing nearly twice the weight with all wheel drive.

 

The statement, Horses for Courses is quite apt for model railways. I certainly don't want a return to tender drives and traction tyres. I would love to see sprung axles, weighty models with powerful motors BUT keep a space for DCC sound and I look for designs balanced around that. Others will have differing needs or will consider certain parts irrelevant...

Edited April 10, 2017 by JSpencer

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

In a similar manner to Brinkly I have posted a short video of one of my 14xxs at work. The track is code 75 flexitrack placed loosely on an old table. The track isn't particularly clean and the rail joints aren't perfect. For added interest I've added a crossover for the loco and its carriage to negotiate. Control is DCC using an NCE Powercab and the decoder is the Zimo MX622N. CVs are mainly factory presets except the CVs 9 & 56 which Zimo recommend for coreless motors (See my Post 1293 of 17th February or Page 17 of Zimo manual).

 

 

I must make an important point here. I am in no way posting this video to refute Brinkly or anyone else who has had problems with this model. Their experience is every bit as valid as mine.

 

Regards,

 

Andy.

 

PS. Yes, that is an ex-LMS non-corridor vehicle. My Hawksworth auto coach hasn't arrived yet!

[coachmann]

I thought I had two good runners, so when i saw PMP's post, I went to the shed and installed an incline using a piece of 2" X 1" a yard long. Oh dear.....   I filmed it, but I am holding back uploading for the time being.

 

I would suggest every owner tries this test.

[Brinkly]

Hi Andy,

 

That is how my Well Tank and O2 Tanks run on DC! Thanks for the video, it is reassuring to see it creep along so nicely.

 

Hopefully it will be a case of third time lucky.

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.

[DavidB]

I think that what PMP is describing is a symptom of worm drives in general, rather than any shortcoming with the design of the 0-4-2T. The same thing happens on the downhill 1:40 gradient on my garden railway with my 16mm Roundhouse Engineering Criccieth Castle, my Garden Railway Specialists motor/gearbox-powered locos and some Buhler-motored chassis fitted with Home of O Gauge and Roxey Mouldings worm gears. If anyone can identify a solution, I will be very pleased to try it out, as it's an annoying problem. Unfortunately I suspect (in my case) fitting bevel gears is the answer.

 

David

[Captain Kernow]

I apprecia

 

I think that what PMP is describing is a symptom of worm drives in general, rather than any shortcoming with the design of the 0-4-2T. The same thing happens on the downhill 1:40 gradient on my garden railway with my 16mm Roundhouse Engineering Criccieth Castle, my Garden Railway Specialists motor/gearbox-powered locos and some Buhler-motored chassis fitted with Home of O Gauge and Roxey Mouldings worm gears. If anyone can identify a solution, I will be very pleased to try it out, as it's an annoying problem. Unfortunately I suspect (in my case) fitting bevel gears is the answer.

David

I appreciate that for those with gradients, it's a problem, but neither Nick (Brinkly) or I have been running ours with gradients.

[PMP]

It's certainly not a 'general' work drive problem, only the two djm models do this. I naturally tested a good number of different RTR and kit built models on this incline without a problem. All have conventional drive worm to an axle, or through a gear tower to single axle.

 

Thank you Andy (7007) for posting that vid. Could you repeat it and film it using the same equipment, but with one end of the table propped up an inch or so, to see if you have the same issue as my tested example have, and reading between the lines, Larry (coaches) has.

[coachmann]

Here's my trial video using a Gaugemaster DC Controller...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqmumguCtsI&feature=youtu.be

Edited April 10, 2017 by coachmann

[Captain Kernow]

Here's my trial video using a Gaugemaster DC Controller...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqmumguCtsI&feature=youtu.be

The cogging is very noticeable going down hill, isn't it?

 

Yet even that quality of running is significantly better than my first example, on the flat, and after a lot of running in.

 

I was also using a Gaugemaster DC controller.

[Brinkly]

Have you run yours in yet Coach?

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

Thank you Andy (7007) for posting that vid. Could you repeat it and film it using the same equipment, but with one end of the table propped up an inch or so, to see if you have the same issue as my tested example have, and reading between the lines, Larry (coaches) has.

 

Hi PMP,

 

I'll try the gradient test in the next day or so and will report back here.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy.

[PMP]

Coach, that's way steeper than my gradients. May I make a suggestion that you re-jig it to a shallower gradient, then add a mineral wagon as a load, either 'pushing' or 'pulling the loco, and add a few coins into the wagon and see what happens.

[coachmann]

Coach, that's way steeper than my gradients. May I make a suggestion that you re-jig it to a shallower gradient, then add a mineral wagon as a load, either 'pushing' or 'pulling the loco, and add a few coins into the wagon and see what happens.

I'll do that. At the moment this loco behaves unlike any RTR locos I have ever experienced on an incline. I think I know what is happening and I should think the 14XX's behaviour will be the same when braking with a heavy train. I cannot test this theory at the moment. 

 

I have said nothing until now, but I have been wary of a particular designer train of thought since the numpty Stove R, so when I saw the introduction of another spot of unique thinking (recess for numberplates), I cancelled my order with Hattons. The fact that I have two is because I have a very good friend. On returning to 00 gauge I bought a 64XX for auto train working. A run of the mill Hornby 14XX should be a simpler proposition all round.

Edited April 10, 2017 by coachmann

[jwd]

1st one awful at slow speed and just got worse, sent back for another. 2nd one was ok on DC had slight jerkiness going backwards.

 

Put a zimo MX621N (plugin version) got some strange speeding up and down when CV set to coreless motor, changed CV's to 'N gauge or similar' motor and voila very good running.

 

Way too fast on high speed so brought down max speed and medium speed, also changed momentum settings to give it a more gentle acceleration and brake (all done via ECoS controller main pages so didn't have to delve into the zimo manual).

 

incidentally running it on DC with the DCC decoder installed and enabled for DC with above settings the 'DC' performance was far better than plain DC with no decoder.

[New Haven Neil]

The downhill jerking I have seen previously with quite a few locos on a friends large multi level layout.  I am told it is due to end float on the motor shaft.  In his case back-emf controllers sorted it, but you cant use them on coreless motors.

 

Hmm.

 

It may thus be a QC matter for motors?

[Butler Henderson]

Really comes across as being a design too clever for own good. Making the motor inaccessible is idiotic IMO and how on earth does it make QC possible short of having a skip of duff locos in the factory - how hang on lets box and ship them anyway.  My O2 died because of a faulty dcc socket pdb and I managed to get into to it hard wire a decoder having already renumbered it. It would be interesting to see if the cogging occurs with the coupling rods removed but I suspect they are equally difficult to remove.