Hattons announce 14xx / 48xx / 58xx

[NickC]

As this picture shows the COG is behind the rear drivers and in fact is significantly so. I don't believe even a brass chimney would add enough weight to tip it forward. There is no weight at all on the front drivers and on level track they float a fraction of a mm above track level meaning that there is no electrical conduction from them either. The trailing wheels also have electrical pickup so from a contact perspective it behaves as an 0-4-0 and will stall on insu-frog points when running at its lowest speed.

 

[tomparryharry]

2017-03-13 10.16.57.jpg

As this picture shows the COG is behind the rear drivers and in fact is significantly so. I don't believe even a brass chimney would add enough weight to tip it forward. There is no weight at all on the front drivers and on level track they float a fraction of a mm above track level meaning that there is no electrical conduction from them either. The trailing wheels also have electrical pickup so from a contact perspective it behaves as an 0-4-0 and will stall on insu-frog points when running at its lowest speed.

Thunderbirds are go!

 

I would be very interested to see (or know) how much weight is required to bring the locomotive back onto it's nose. On that basis, perhaps a small spring is required to keep the rear wheelset in contact with the rail. However, I'm still awaiting my version of the model, so I can't really comment until I've got mine here. I would note that the much earlier Airfix models didn't cater for sound, which would leave a lot of room for the extra weight. I can see that any autocoach I run with my locomotive will be wired for pickup.

 

Ian

[Clearwater]

2017-03-13 10.16.57.jpg

As this picture shows the COG is behind the rear drivers and in fact is significantly so. I don't believe even a brass chimney would add enough weight to tip it forward. There is no weight at all on the front drivers and on level track they float a fraction of a mm above track level meaning that there is no electrical conduction from them either. The trailing wheels also have electrical pickup so from a contact perspective it behaves as an 0-4-0 and will stall on insu-frog points when running at its lowest speed.

Apologies as I can't remember who made the comment further up, but a key problem with non-compensated chassises (what's the plural?) is that when you start to go up an incline the middle wheel loses contact with the rail. Does this tail heavy design mitigate? I assume the opposite of transitioning from slope to flat or flat to downhill is less of an issue.

 

Fascinating engineering/physics discussion btw and highlights the challenges in model design over and above the omission of other surface details

 

David

[NickC]

If you balance a one pound coin on the top of the funnel it still stays tail down. If you balance two x one pound coins on the funnel it tips nose down, thus indicating it is pretty tail heavy.

[coachmann]

Quite a few more one pound coins tipped the balance in favour of a 64XX....

[Hilux5972]

Does the chimney have a screw in it to remove the body? If not, this would be a good place to fill with Liquid Lead. Might help to bring the nose down.

[NickC]

Does the chimney have a screw in it to remove the body? If not, this would be a good place to fill with Liquid Lead. Might help to bring the nose down.

No it doesn't but I don't think you'd get enough liquid metal in there to make any real difference

[melmerby]

Poor balance notwithstanding I have just been having a running session with my 4825.

It has now had a few hours running around various parts of the layout with 2 coaches (Airfix B set pair) quite happily, including up and down 1:50/60 gradients.

 

I decided to try with two more B set coaches and it didn't seem to slow it down any noticeable amount, still charging up the gradient at full tilt.

There isn't even any noticeable slip when starting 4 coaches on the level however my DCC set up is arranged to take around 12 or so feet for the loco to reach maximum speed. (Inertia setting in TrainController)

 

Slow running is as good as most of my recent loco purchases and although not the absolute best is pretty good.

It has improved as time goes on so an initially poor runner might become acceptable after some serious running.

 

Cheers

 

Keith

[melmerby]

 

As this picture shows the COG is behind the rear drivers and in fact is significantly so. I don't believe even a brass chimney would add enough weight to tip it forward. There is no weight at all on the front drivers and on level track they float a fraction of a mm above track level meaning that there is no electrical conduction from them either. The trailing wheels also have electrical pickup so from a contact perspective it behaves as an 0-4-0 and will stall on insu-frog points when running at its lowest speed.

That is just showing what the scales told me and has already been established, some posts back, that there is no weight on the front drivers on the level.

 

Keith

[melmerby]

 

 

 I would note that the much earlier Airfix models didn't cater for sound, which would leave a lot of room for the extra weight. I can see that any autocoach I run with my locomotive will be wired for pickup.

 

Ian

The front end of the Airfix model is already full of metal, which is where the extra weight is required, so that's a non-starter!

It is back heavy (even more than the new one) because of that huge 5 pole motor, whose magnet is hanging over the rear wheels.

 

The new Hatton's one has some fresh air at the front where the socket for DCC is located, as I suggested earlier if the socket was in the rear bunker (under removable coal?) the front end could have a nice heavy plug of metal in the smokebox.

 

Keith

Edited March 13, 2017 by melmerby

[phil_sutters]

You could add a smokebox numberplate made out of a thick slice of lead http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78411-prototype-for-everything-corner/?p=2649615

Edited March 13, 2017 by phil_sutters

[JSpencer]

If the new 14XX is like the austerity, there will be a weight in the bunker, maybe this can be removed and placed in the smokebox.

 

Anyway here is an Airfix 14XX re-fitted with a Dapol chassis:

 

[melmerby]

If the new 14XX is like the austerity, there will be a weight in the bunker, maybe this can be removed and placed in the smokebox.

 

Anyway here is an Airfix 14XX re-fitted with a Dapol chassis:

 

image.jpg

Does that use the same chassis as the Hornby one?

 

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/downloads/view/download/item/397

 

That is the old Airfix one re-jigged for a smaller motor and drive on the trailing coupled wheels, rather than the fron pair.

 

Keith

[BWsTrains]

If you balance a one pound coin on the top of the funnel it still stays tail down. If you balance two x one pound coins on the funnel it tips nose down, thus indicating it is pretty tail heavy.

So required weight to tip the balance is somewhat less than 19g; =<1.68cc of Lead by Volume, hardly a large piece. This is not surprising as the tail heavy weight, as reported by melmerby is 18g and the additional trial weights were added fully forward.

 

Isn't there somewhere in / around the front end to park that much? 

[tomparryharry]

The front end of the Airfix model is already full of metal, which is where the extra weight is required, so that's a non-starter!

It is back heavy (even more than the new one) because of that huge 5 pole motor, whose magnet is hanging over the rear wheels.

 

The new Hatton's one has some fresh air at the front where the socket for DCC is located, as I suggested earlier if the socket was in the rear bunker (under removable coal?) the front end could have a nice heavy plug of metal in the smokebox.

 

Keith

Ah Keith!

 

Methinks we are talking from the same sheet. My point was that the Airfix chassis contains metal, where the DJ example would accommodate the chips. As I've said before, I don't 'do' DCC, so filling the smokebox with extra weight is my way forward.

 

Sorry if you've misunderstood my post.

 

Ian

[JSpencer]

Does that use the same chassis as the Hornby one?

 

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/downloads/view/download/item/397

 

That is the old Airfix one re-jigged for a smaller motor and drive on the trailing coupled wheels, rather than the fron pair.

 

Keith

I,ve never really compared the Dapol and Hornby ones, though I have a Hornby laying around somewhere, I will look tomorrow.

 

The Dapol chassis was practically entirely new tooling and uses the same small 3 pole motor that Hornby was already using in their SSPP 0-6-0 chassis of the time. It uses wiper pickups, the Airfix was plunger pick ups.

This chassis and the later Hornby one (some people say they are different) leave space in the cab which has always been left un detailed, the only real big flaw of the model IMHO.

It seems easy to reverse the Hattons balance, just be removing the 18 grams out of the bunker and placing it in the cab. Easy meaning if you can get to it of course.

 

The chassis will remain rigid, but then so is a Bachmann 64XX, the current Hornby Terriers, the USA tank, the Heljan GW tanks and so on....

[nickwood]

It seems easy to reverse the Hattons balance, just be removing the 18 grams out of the bunker and placing it in the cab. Easy meaning if you can get to it of course.

 

 

 

What weight in the bunker? Under the coal load is a void ready to take a speaker. See link

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/58847-much-murkle/page-19

See posts 471 & 472

Edited March 13, 2017 by nickwood

[phil-b259]

The front end of the Airfix model is already full of metal, which is where the extra weight is required, so that's a non-starter!

It is back heavy (even more than the new one) because of that huge 5 pole motor, whose magnet is hanging over the rear wheels.

 

The new Hatton's one has some fresh air at the front where the socket for DCC is located, as I suggested earlier if the socket was in the rear bunker (under removable coal?) the front end could have a nice heavy plug of metal in the smokebox.

 

Keith

 

That space in the bunker is for those who wish to fit it for sound - something an increasing number of modellers are keen on fitting these days.

 

Modellers need to remember they cannot have it all. If we collectively demand models come with the easy ability to fit DCC chips and sound, the manufacturer has to leave space for them. If modellers complain bitterly about extensive dismantling to fit said items (and the chances of breaking fine detail) is it any wonder manufacturers will put said 'mod cons' in places which might have been occupied by ballast weights in previous decades.

 

RTR manufacturers are not in the business of small bespoke batches to cater for different sections of the market - yes they may include a DCC chip or a loudspeaker inside certain versions, but that is only possible because the design of the tooling has considered it and provided suitable locations in the first place.

 

In other words they are not going to make 3 sets of tools to cater for straight DC, DCC, and DCC with sound or mess about changing which bit goes where on each version.

 

If you don't like the manufacturers solution then the answer is change it yourself.

 

For the record I have several of these purchased or on order and my experience is that they quite satisfactorily handle my ropey track laying and a steep incline provided I keep the loads to sensible (and prototypical) sizes.

[Pannier Tank]

Does the chimney have a screw in it to remove the body? If not, this would be a good place to fill with Liquid Lead. Might help to bring the nose down.

Just don't use PVA Glue to hold the Liquid Lead in place!

[JSpencer]

What weight in the bunker? Under the coal load is a void ready to take a speaker. See link

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/58847-much-murkle/page-19

See posts 471 & 472

 

Sorry my bad. I thought someone said there was an 18 gram weight in the bunker. The Austerity certainly has a weight there and I was thinking the same here. So that idea won't work.

[JSpencer]

That space in the bunker is for those who wish to fit it for sound - something an increasing number of modellers are keen on fitting these days.

 

Modellers need to remember they cannot have it all. If we collectively demand models come with the easy ability to fit DCC chips and sound, the manufacturer has to leave space for them. If modellers complain bitterly about extensive dismantling to fit said items (and the chances of breaking fine detail) is it any wonder manufacturers will put said 'mod cons' in places which might have been occupied by ballast weights in previous decades.

 

RTR manufacturers are not in the business of small bespoke batches to cater for different sections of the market - yes they may include a DCC chip or a loudspeaker inside certain versions, but that is only possible because the design of the tooling has considered it and provided suitable locations in the first place.

 

In other words they are not going to make 3 sets of tools to cater for straight DC, DCC, and DCC with sound or mess about changing which bit goes where on each version.

 

If you don't like the manufacturers solution then the answer is change it yourself.

 

For the record I have several of these purchased or on order and my experience is that they quite satisfactorily handle my ropey track laying and a steep incline provided I keep the loads to sensible (and prototypical) sizes.

 

DC vs DCC vs DCC sound only becomes a design issue when get down to these small tight designs. I am still amazed  how Oxfordrail designed pre-fitted sound into their Radial tank. A neat compact design still using the same 8-pin decoder socket in the bunker.

 

In general all RTR designs should have a body which can be removed from the chassis, if for no other reason than the need for occasional maintenance. Certainly they have warranty of 1 year, but it is a safe bet that many of these models will still be in regular use 20 years down the road. Even if I don't use my Hornby tender drives anymore (or rarely), all still function, even those getting on for 40 years. But this is only because I can get inside them for occasional maintenance.

 

The oldest models running now are some Bachmann split chassis designs (Nelson's), the N class, a Dapol J94, Bachmann J72 and dozen or so others. They are all just over 20 years old.

 

If the body is easy to remove then DCC chip and sound fitting should be easy. In this case the bunker is already free for the speaker, maybe - with hindsight - the chip should have sat next to the cab, pushing weight forwards right up to the nose (smokebox).

Form all the discussion, this seems to be feedback - i;e design for weight over the drivers while keeping body removal straight forwards (and perhaps include a sprung trailing axle).

 

The weight sitting aft, seems to have lead to a rigid chassis and trailing axle while retaining the standard feature of chip fitting via the loco front. That worked for the well tank and Austerity, but perhaps not the best approach in hindsight for a loco with the driving wheels forwards like the 14XX.

Opinion is split evenly between "the model is adequate for the task at hand" and "the running qualities are not as good as other makes due to imbalance".

[Hilux5972]

Just don't use PVA Glue to hold the Liquid Lead in place!

I always use superglue anyway. Does PVA react with the lead?

[NickC]

Unfortunately, and sadly, I have to say this is my second worst running model, only a Railroad GWR 4-4-0 County class is worse. 

I sent the first one back because after four hours of running-in it was still jerky at low speed. The replacement is noisier at low speed and out of the box was still jerky, but after eight hours of running and a couple of lubrications is now acceptable at low speed though there can still be a small jerk as it starts off. It is also the most finicky loco I have regarding track cleanliness and stutters on the slightest speck of dirt. At very low speeds it stalls or stutters on insu-frog points, however as I am in the process of replacing the last of my insu-frog points with electro-frog points I can live with that until they are all replaced.

FYI I am running it DCC and it has a Lenz Silver+ decoder fitted.

Edited March 14, 2017 by NickC

[melmerby]

Unfortunately, and sadly, I have to say this is my second worst running model, only a Railroad GWR 4-4-0 County class is worse. 

I sent the first one back because after four hours of running-in it was still jerky at low speed. The replacement is noisier at low speed and out of the box was still jerky, but after eight hours of running and a couple of lubrications is now acceptable at low speed though there can still be a small jerk as it starts off. It is also the most finicky loco I have regarding track cleanliness and stutters on the slightest speck of dirt. At very low speeds it stalls or stutters on insu-frog points, however as I am in the process of replacing the last of my insu-frog points with electro-frog points I can live with that until they are all replaced.

FYI I am running it DCC and it has a Lenz Silver+ decoder fitted.

This post shows that quality can vary on what is a mass produced item.

Mine runs satisfactorily after running in, but then again do both of my Railroad County locos!

All my locos (apart from the Airfix 48XXs and a Mainline Manor) have Lenz + decoders and all track is electrofrog code 75.

 

N.B. I have not made any specific adjustments to allow for a coreless motor, just to check that HF, not LF is set in the chip

 

Keith

[Persephone]

Clearly DJM / Hattons have been consulting no less authority than the Rev W Awdrey in the design of this model.