Hattons announce 14xx / 48xx / 58xx

[coachmann]

PMP said :-  If reducing speed the locomotive will 'hunt/cog' due to the backlash in the gear train, this is accentuated with a load behind it. https://www.youtube....h?v=d73UU1bh6MY when you remove the load and the loco runs freely, apply a following load and it immediately recurs.

 

Blimey, no model loco produced this side of the millennium should run as badly as that, nor should it slip while propelling a single lightweight plastic RTR coach. I think I'll play safe and order a 64XX.

[Butler Henderson]

Me thinks therein lies the reason why such drive systems are rare on coupled locos. Can only imagine how the King will turn out. Is it slightly odd that the manufacturer is somewhat quite in this thread.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Butler Henderson

[Intercity125]

Blimey, no model loco produced this side of the millennium should run as badly as that, nor should it slip while propelling a single lightweight plastic RTR coach. I think I'll play safe and order a 64XX.

I was thinking along similar lines.  I already have a Bachmann 64XX which runs beautifully and may well put my planned purchase of the Hattons 14Xx on permanent hold.

[melmerby]

Me thinks therein lies the reason why such drive systems are rare on coupled locos.

If you remove the coupling rods it would be no different than all those Bo-Bo diesels around.

If the coupling rods are as sloppy as they seem they should have no effect on the running.

 

I will have to try mine again but with two autocoaches (one front & one rear) I didn't notice the problems on a gradient seen in the video.

 

Keith

Edited March 9, 2017 by melmerby

[tender]

If you remove the coupling rods it would be no different than all those Bo-Bo diesels around.

 

Keith

Except for another driven bogie and a big heavy weight in between.

[Roy Langridge]

Except for another driven bogie and a big heavy weight in between.

Plenty of 00 diesels had only one driven bogie in the past and still managed to haul long trains.

 

Roy

[Pannier Tank]

I've had and still got similar reservations to yourself Tim. I've got an H1410 and have written about it here, hattons-djm-14xx-review-h1410/  including the dismantling of the chassis/body assembly.

 

It doesn't look as though this model is a good candidate for a High Level Kits Chassis?

[BWsTrains]

Me thinks therein lies the reason why such drive systems are rare on coupled locos. Can only imagine how the King will turn out. Is it slightly odd that the manufacturer is somewhat quite in this thread.

To paraphrase MP "The OO King is no more, it's ceased to be, it's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late King. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace".

 

see http://djmodels.co.uk/?p=640 for the potential N Gauge reincarnation.

[NHY 581]

It doesn't look as though this model is a good candidate for a High Level Kits Chassis?

This loco looks great and I may well have made an impulse buy despite not really needing one, but........

 

Wrong size wheels is a fundamental error.......along with..

 

Poor running, concerns over the gear train......mmmm, I didn't buy the O2 for exactly the same reason. So, now we are contemplating replacing the chassis with an after market alternative....WHAT!

 

Doing so to convert to P4 or EM okay I get it but to replace the chassis simply for it to run on OO. Now I am doing the same thing to rectfy issues with the Bachmann Jinty but this is an older model.

 

The 14xx is bang up to date 'State of the art' and should have no issues, surely.

 

Dare I say it, the chassis is simply over engineered for a loco such as this.

 

PMP's solution removing one half of the gear train and replacing with weight will probably sort it but why should we the customer have to further develop a new product.

 

 

There will be many who would have bought this model but would not be able to resolve these issues.

 

I just don't want to take the risk.

[Clearwater]

Me thinks therein lies the reason why such drive systems are rare on coupled locos. Can only imagine how the King will turn out. Is it slightly odd that the manufacturer is somewhat quite in this thread.

Dave has previously commented that as he's commissioned by Hattons, all comms have to be from them. Hence he's quiet on this thread in comparison to other models. You don't see him on the Kernow commission threads where he's involved either. Hattons Dave does comment from time to time though

[JSpencer]

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.

 

WEB 14XX Hattons 2.jpg

 

 

Blimey, no model loco produced this side of the millennium should run as badly as that, nor should it slip while propelling a single lightweight plastic RTR coach. I think I'll play safe and order a 64XX.

I thought you already had one  (see quote above this). ;-)

[Ian Hargrave]

Me thinks therein lies the reason why such drive systems are rare on coupled locos. Can only imagine how the King will turn out. Is it slightly odd that the manufacturer is somewhat quite in this thread.

 The Hattons/DJM King in OO was cancelled in January.Thus it's not going to turn out unless in N gauge at some time. (Edit ) sorry just seen post 1587

Edited March 10, 2017 by Ian Hargrave

[JSpencer]

I've followed Larry's example and removed the paint from the rods and I've noticed a little bit of an improvements afterwards with the slow running. I've noticed a particular problem with this type of drive train which is magnified by descending gradients. If reducing speed the locomotive will 'hunt/cog' due to the backlash in the gear train, this is accentuated with a load behind it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73UU1bh6MY when you remove the load and the loco runs freely, apply a following load and it immediately recurs. Its more pronounced on the DJM j94 https://www.youtube. and is also evident to a far lesser degree on the Heljan Class 14. The gradient here is the Woodland Scenics 3% gradient. This for me is a real disappointment and one of the mods I'm going to try is a coupling rod replacement to see if some of the backlash can be removed. If not I may remove one of the drive train gears to adapt it to a 'conventional' drive and put a bit more weight into it for traction. The quartering on my example is spot on, the chassis runs freely by itself, so hopefully this will fine tune it to the performance I want.

 

I don't think that would be the gear train per-se, since any load pushing the loco down the slope would be turning all wheels at once and therefore the entire gear train.

 

I believe what we are seeing is the top of gear train wedging against the motor worm and the motor being briefly overwhelmed by the load that it locks. The motor on these models is smaller or more compact compared with makers of other similar sized locos.

 

The litmus test would probably be to do same test with a Dapol Well tank vs a DJM one. Same gear train, different motor and see if there is a difference.

Or you just remove the motor and do the same test. In theory it should roll down the hill without stalling.

If true, more oil or grease on the worm?

Edited March 10, 2017 by JSpencer

[Hilux5972]

The Hattons/DJM King in OO was cancelled in January.Thus it's not going to turn out unless in N gauge at some time. (Edit ) sorry just seen post 1587

It wasnt cancelled, it was given back to DJM as Hattons did not want to proceed with it. Dave has said it is still in his list but is looking at the possibility of an N Gauge one first.

[Ian Hargrave]

It wasnt cancelled, it was given back to DJM as Hattons did not want to proceed with it. Dave has said it is still in his list but is looking at the possibility of an N Gauge one first.

Well ,if you want to split hairs that's up to you.Let's just say that whereas it might appear in your lifetime,it certainly won't appear in mine.

 

Leaving you with the time-honoured phrase..."Don't hold your breath "

[coachmann]

I thought you already had one  (see quote above this). ;-)

I have. It was a gift for me to display seeing as I was modelling in 0 gauge and will probably remain as such now even though I am back modelling in 4mm/00 DCC. I aim to look at Hornby's forthcoming 14XX as well.

Edited March 10, 2017 by coachmann

[melmerby]

It doesn't look as though this model is a good candidate for a High Level Kits Chassis?

If you are considering a new chassis why pay £100 for the Hattons variety when there are plenty of Airfix ones around at £20 which leaves £80 for detailing/customising of the body.

 

Keith

[Limpley Stoker]

If you are considering a new chassis why pay £100 for the Hattons variety when there are plenty of Airfix ones around at £20 which leaves £80 for detailing/customising of the body.

 

Keith

Testing my Airfix version with its original chassis (but MGW driving wheels) I find it happily moves four coaches, but to my surprise I found my unmodified Hornby L&Y Pug happily shifts six Hawksworth coaches!

 

Perhaps if the Hattons 14xx would perform better if the rear wheels were included in the gear chain drive as they bear a significant proportion of the body weight but contribute no traction.

[PMP]

I don't think that would be the gear train per-se, since any load pushing the loco down the slope would be turning all wheels at once and therefore the entire gear train.

 

I believe what we are seeing is the top of gear train wedging against the motor worm and the motor being briefly overwhelmed by the load that it locks.

I've had an opportunity to have a better look and I think you are pretty much correct. Taking the rods off, running under power (DC gaugemaster W) no change. Close observation indicates four binds per revolution. De-couple the chassis (inc gear train from motor) and rolling under gravity, the chassis rolls unhindered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4m73Ykr_JQ

 

So with the J94 having similar running properties downhill under load, I wonder if the 13xx will show similar characteristics, the EP's already share the oval crank pin hole judging by the one I looked at recently.

[JSpencer]

If you are considering a new chassis why pay £100 for the Hattons variety when there are plenty of Airfix ones around at £20 which leaves £80 for detailing/customising of the body.

 

Keith

 

Or a Bachmann 14XX :  http://shop.bachmanntrains.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=5905

 

Not sure if it's to scale though.

[melmerby]

Testing my Airfix version with its original chassis (but MGW driving wheels) I find it happily moves four coaches, but to my surprise I found my unmodified Hornby L&Y Pug happily shifts six Hawksworth coaches!

 

Perhaps if the Hattons 14xx would perform better if the rear wheels were included in the gear chain drive as they bear a significant proportion of the body weight but contribute no traction.

My Hattons 48XX will happily move 4 coaches, it will also start pushing two Airfix coaches uphill with minimal slip and does not "hunt" coming back down, unlike the example in the video.

Perhaps an Airfix one would also perform better with driven trailing wheels as it is even more tail heavy than the Hattons version?

I have two original Airfix ones both with traction tyre-less driving wheels, one with Alan Gibson wheels, one with two plain Airfix wheels. Neither performs any better than the Hattons version.

 

Keith

 

EDIT

I have just weighed the different locos.

The Airfix one with 6pin DCC decoder is 188grams with 40 grams on the trailing wheels, so 148 grams for traction 79% of the total weight.

The Hattons one with 6pin DCC decoder is 180 grams with 19 grams on the trailing wheels, so 161 grams for traction = 8% more and 89% of the total weight.

Edited March 10, 2017 by melmerby

[The Johnster]

Testing my Airfix version with its original chassis (but MGW driving wheels) I find it happily moves four coaches, but to my surprise I found my unmodified Hornby L&Y Pug happily shifts six Hawksworth coaches!

 

Perhaps if the Hattons 14xx would perform better if the rear wheels were included in the gear chain drive as they bear a significant proportion of the body weight but contribute no traction.

 

 

 

In defence of both Airfix/Dapol/Hornby and Hatton's 48/58/14xx, I would imagine a full size pug could outpull a GW 0-4-2 tank as well.  You are overlooking the 'gearing' effect on tractive effort of the smaller driving wheels of the pug; a conventional 'Stephensonian' steam loco is effectively geared by the size of it's driven wheels, which is why you find large diameter ones on express types which need to run fast, smaller ones on mixed traffic types, smaller again on heavy freight hauler, and 3 feet or less on a pug, which are capable of pulling the planet off it's orbit...

 

I know you already knew that!

 

Powering the radial truck might be possible, effectively turning the loco into a sort of 0-6-0, or perhaps more correctly an 0-4-2-0/B-A, but would have to be highly precisely done to enable the speed to match despite the different wheel diameters and rates of revolution, and need a cv joint in the drive train in order to allow the radial to swing on curves; a lot of extra complication and chances for things to go wrong.  Traction problems with 4-coupled chassis on locos with trailing or leading bogies, pony, or radial trucks are well known, as it is difficult to replicate in model form the action of the non-coupled wheels in bearing the weight of the loco or of 'guiding' it into curves.

[Limpley Stoker]

In defence of both Airfix/Dapol/Hornby and Hatton's 48/58/14xx, I would imagine a full size pug could outpull a GW 0-4-2 tank as well.  You are overlooking the 'gearing' effect on tractive effort of the smaller driving wheels of the pug; a conventional 'Stephensonian' steam loco is effectively geared by the size of it's driven wheels, which is why you find large diameter ones on express types which need to run fast, smaller ones on mixed traffic types, smaller again on heavy freight hauler, and 3 feet or less on a pug, which are capable of pulling the planet off it's orbit...

 

I know you already knew that!

 

Powering the radial truck might be possible, effectively turning the loco into a sort of 0-6-0, or perhaps more correctly an 0-4-2-0/B-A, but would have to be highly precisely done to enable the speed to match despite the different wheel diameters and rates of revolution, and need a cv joint in the drive train in order to allow the radial to swing on curves; a lot of extra complication and chances for things to go wrong.  Traction problems with 4-coupled chassis on locos with trailing or leading bogies, pony, or radial trucks are well known, as it is difficult to replicate in model form the action of the non-coupled wheels in bearing the weight of the loco or of 'guiding' it into curves.

I take your point about gearing and wheelsize favouring the Pug, but there is not much weight in the Pug yet there is minimal

wheelslip ! In theory the smaller diameter wheels have a smaller contact area with the rail.

 

Surely the 0-4-2 configuration could be constructed as a rigid chassis and the rear axle geared up to compensate for the smaller diameter wheel. Something coupling rods couldn't do!

[melmerby]

Something I was hoping with the Hattons/DJM loco was that all the weight would be on the driving wheels with the trailing wheels just in there for the ride.

Unfortunately it is still slightly tail heavy (see my post about comparative weights)

It is also lighter than I expected, with modern technology and motors I assumed it would have more room for ballast and be heavier, not lighter, than the 40 year old Airfix version.

Therein lies the problem. It is too light, although it will still haul a couple of coaches around reasonably well.

Maybe more metal in the superstructure?

 

Anybody know where I can get a replacement tungsten chimney & dome?

 

Keith

[melmerby]

I take your point about gearing and wheelsize favouring the Pug, but there is not much weight in the Pug yet there is minimal

wheelslip ! In theory the smaller diameter wheels have a smaller contact area with the rail.

 

Surely the 0-4-2 configuration could be constructed as a rigid chassis and the rear axle geared up to compensate for the smaller diameter wheel. Something coupling rods couldn't do!

As the loco is tail heavy actually only the trailing pair of driving wheels is really in contact with the track!

 

Keith