Hornby ex LSWR/SR Adams 0415 Radial

[Ian Hargrave]

Agree about CJL's reviews.

 

My 488 model will pull 8 coaches!  [Perhaps because it's in LSWR Adams green :-) ]

 

I think Hornby Dublo locos used to have a "tested" tag tied to a buffer.  Mine lost their tags long ago...

 

When I've bought locos from my local model railway shop they've  insisted on running locos them in front of me first.

 

Could be better that magazine reviewers get locos to test that have been bought at random, rather than "specially prepared" of course, rather like Which magazine does with product tests.

And of course Chris has had to purchase this himself.,as Hornby have ceased to provide samples to the press.Yes,testing is fine but there are occasions when faults only appear after getting the model home on one's layout.The faults on my first sample occurred only after a run over half my layout. It was not immediately apparent.Which is why its replacement was subject to a rigorous test before it was sent out to me.

By my reckoning,this is the fourth "incident"with the Hornby 0415 posted on this forum.Strange.

[railroadbill]

Yup. Well, the worse locos I've bought, and the only 2 I've ever had to return out of loads bought, had faults that would still have allowed them to run up and down a length of track without the problems appearing. , One, a centre motor diesel that should have driven all wheels but only drove one bogie,  would in fact have run ok on any test track however complicated, and the faults wouldn't have been apparent.  The other, a small tank that derailed on 3' rad curves and with jerky wheels would have only just passed the "up and down the track and through a point" test it was supposed to have had.  Both got returned and replaced and  I now have good examples of both those products, even though it was a fiddle to have to  return them.

Neither of them were Hornby.

 

Just saying that testing a product by a supplier with one set of circumstances doesn't mean it will function ok with other untested conditions, ie what radius curves, type of controllers, dc or dcc, what chips etc etc.

 

Which doesn't mean to say that locos etc shouldn't work perfectly in conditions reasonably expected, because they are expensive and they should. 

Edited August 3, 2016 by railroadbill

[JSpencer]

Yup. Well, the worse locos I've bought, and the only 2 I've ever had to return out of loads bought, had faults that would still have allowed them to run up and down a length of track without the problems appearing. , One, a centre motor diesel that should have driven all wheels but only drove one bogie,  would in fact have run ok on any test track however complicated, and the faults wouldn't have been apparent.  The other, a small tank that derailed on 3' rad curves and with jerky wheels would have only just passed the "up and down the track and through a point" test it was supposed to have had.  Both got returned and replaced and  I now have good examples of both those products, even though it was a fiddle to have to  return them.

Neither of them were Hornby.

 

Just saying that testing a product by a supplier with one set of circumstances doesn't mean it will function ok with other untested conditions, ie what radius curves, type of controllers, dc or dcc, what chips etc etc.

 

Which doesn't mean to say that locos etc shouldn't work perfectly in conditions reasonably expected, because they are expensive and they should. 

 

Although I agree a simple test track won't show all, for the first case, if propulsion is not supplied to the diesel loco bogie, the wheels are effectively locked up. I've had two diesels whereby the cadran shafts had popped out one end and it was instantly obvious something was wrong as powered bogie struggled to pull the locked bogie along. The only way a centre motor diesel can have free running wheels is if they forget to fit a worm drive or you are missing most of the gears in the tower, here the problem won't be apparent until you get to  a decent load. The state of trackwork in that case will change nothing.

[mikesndbs]

I look forward to seeing the review in Model Rail. I have been reading CJL's reviews for nearly 50 years and have found them very informative. Mike Wild's review in the Hornby Magazine does mention that the chassis of the Adams Radial is quite rigid which could cause the locomotive to stall on undulating track. He goes on to say that all three of their samples ran faultlessly and each model could comfortably handle a five coach train.

 

I wonder if Hornby tests their engines before sending them out. When I began operating model railways Hornby-Dublo used to test every locomotive at the factory. Each engine had to pull six coaches or 12 goods wagons round their test track. When I bought my Hornby-Dublo Barnstaple locomotive the manager of Hobbytime of West Wickham tested it on his track before selling it to me.

 

When Hornby used to send locomotives to magazines for review at least they had an opportunity to make sure that those locomotives worked before submitting them.

 

Is this a good test? 

[mikesndbs]

Aaargh - you had my hopes up for a minute that someone had converted one to DCC sound LOL.

 

Those sound recordings are very good, are they actually from 488?

 

Hi, no sadly 30582

[lochlongside]

Hi all

 

I've just started to run in my Hornby 0415 and encountered a problem.

 

When running backwards the loco occasionally hesitates with a "brrr" sound, like the gears are slipping.

 

I opened it up and found the gear box cover wasn't all the way down, though I can't see where it is held up.

 

Would this be the source of the problem ?

 

I'm inclined to return it, but the postage is a bit of a pain from here in NZ if there is a simple fix instead.

 

 

Roger

Given you are in NZ It is a fine balance for you as to whether you send it back – I had similar sound symptoms with a T9 which I had previously only test run (satisfactorily). When I finally had a continuous run for it after about an hour of running-in it developed a chrrrrring noise then subsequently a running stutter and despite oiling all round the noise got worse as did the stutter. On opening up I found the gear wheel driven by the worm was so badly chewed up I had to replace it - cost for motor and gear was £26. I have also had an intermittent slipping gear wheel on another loco leading to running stutter- however this did not have the chrrrring noise - so it would appear that gear meshing is possibly more likely.

If I were you I would email your supplier now so it is on record, and in parallel run the loco with a heavy load into the deck over the next week and if it gets much worse then email your supplier a follow up video clip of the problem and agree with them that you can open it up. If you do decide to open it up, photograph any issues as you go and make sure that the various mounting plates for the motor and gear box mate properly. Unless the screws themselves are loose that gap indicates that the two surfaces are not mating smoothly. Check also the rear mounting plate - I note that according to service sheet that also held in place by 2 screws. Hope that is of some help.

[mikesndbs]

It runs faultlessly at home on my code 83 Peco track (one reverse curve, facing and trailing points but no curved points). Had six coaches behind it including three Hornby Pullmans and it's as good as any Hornby loco I've had (and they are generally pretty good). However, it's well below par on the office test track, which is designed to sort the 'men from the boys'. Particularly puzzling as the test track is laid with mainly Hornby track. Investigation is ongoing but at present I'm not happy with the 'clunky' pivoting of the rear truck and the performance (or lack of it) over one curved turnout. I plan to take it to T4U at lunchtime, to see how it runs on their shop test track. 

Even when they manufactured at Margate, Hornby never checked anything before it came out for review. They were taken straight off the production line and mailed. On one occasion I received a 75ton breakdown crane (16 axles) without a single wheelset in it! I had to pillage a cupboard-full of wagons to find enough axles for it!  (CJL)

 

When you fitted the brake rigging, did you cut a little bit off the peg that goes up to the radial truck? I did and all has been well, no clunks at all, just an idea

[Modelrail]

Is this a good test? 

 

Excellent. Having now diagnosed the problem with mine, I've had it successfully hauling ten bogie coaches. In real life that load would have had Radials double-headed. Briefly, the model runs fine on my home layout (Peco code 83, facing and trailing points, one reverse curve, no curved points). had it hauling 6 bogies no problem. On the MR test track it doesn't like the curved turnout. Somehow, the rear truck play allows the square boss to slip out of the slot in the bunker floor and it then rubs against the bunker floor, lifting the rear driving wheels just enough to lose adhesion. The rear truck movement is not smooth and the clearance seems tight in places. I won't be taking it to bits to cure the problem as it runs fine on my home layout which is where its going to live. Goes to show that our test track does its job, though, and finds the faults. Anyone who has a similar problem will need to either tweak their track or take a file to the rear truck to make it operate smoothly. (CJL)

[Dunsignalling]

Excellent. Having now diagnosed the problem with mine, I've had it successfully hauling ten bogie coaches. In real life that load would have had Radials double-headed. Briefly, the model runs fine on my home layout (Peco code 83, facing and trailing points, one reverse curve, no curved points). had it hauling 6 bogies no problem. On the MR test track it doesn't like the curved turnout. Somehow, the rear truck play allows the square boss to slip out of the slot in the bunker floor and it then rubs against the bunker floor, lifting the rear driving wheels just enough to lose adhesion. The rear truck movement is not smooth and the clearance seems tight in places. I won't be taking it to bits to cure the problem as it runs fine on my home layout which is where its going to live. Goes to show that our test track does its job, though, and finds the faults. Anyone who has a similar problem will need to either tweak their track or take a file to the rear truck to make it operate smoothly. (CJL)

I think the official maximum load for two of these locos over the Lyme Regis branch was seven bogie coaches and that's as many as I've ever found photos of them handling.

 

Given the tight curves and steep gradients, even that was pretty good going for locos of their age and size IMHO.

 

John

[railroadbill]

Although I agree a simple test track won't show all, for the first case, if propulsion is not supplied to the diesel loco bogie, the wheels are effectively locked up. I've had two diesels whereby the cadran shafts had popped out one end and it was instantly obvious something was wrong as powered bogie struggled to pull the locked bogie along. The only way a centre motor diesel can have free running wheels is if they forget to fit a worm drive or you are missing most of the gears in the tower, here the problem won't be apparent until you get to  a decent load. The state of trackwork in that case will change nothing.

Exactly. It was the gearing in one bogie that was faulty (missing? broken teeth? not engaging?) Not a carden shaft. Anyway, the wheels just turned freely on one bogie so back it went. I didn't strip it down to look since it was a new model.

[railroadbill]

 

Think this was a good series, this edition was written by Chris Leigh!

 

On page 20, there are some pictures of Adams tank 424, which was hired to the Woolmer Instructional Railway, forerunner of the Longmoor Military Railway, in 1914. It was bought by them in 1916. In 1920 it was in need of repair. Eastleigh then didn't have the capacity so it was sent to Swindon instead. There it got a GWR safety valve cover, and was painted GWR green. (!)   Scrapped in 1924.

 

So a further variant of the Radial tank.  Perhaps that's one  too far...  ;-)

 

 

[lochlongside]

Excellent. Having now diagnosed the problem with mine, I've had it successfully hauling ten bogie coaches. In real life that load would have had Radials double-headed. Briefly, the model runs fine on my home layout (Peco code 83, facing and trailing points, one reverse curve, no curved points). had it hauling 6 bogies no problem. On the MR test track it doesn't like the curved turnout. Somehow, the rear truck play allows the square boss to slip out of the slot in the bunker floor and it then rubs against the bunker floor, lifting the rear driving wheels just enough to lose adhesion. The rear truck movement is not smooth and the clearance seems tight in places. I won't be taking it to bits to cure the problem as it runs fine on my home layout which is where its going to live. Goes to show that our test track does its job, though, and finds the faults. Anyone who has a similar problem will need to either tweak their track or take a file to the rear truck to make it operate smoothly. (CJL)

Same problem as you - as part of running in I found that it was possible to place the loco on the track with the rear buffer beam resting on the rear truck – first time I did not notice and performance was pitiful. The play in the rear bogie (double?) pivot allows the block of the pony truck to rest under the buffer beam by around 0.5mm on easy curves/straights – once spotted easily avoided from then on- and all a permanent solution will probably require is a few passes with a file possibly getting rear truck off to do it will be worst part. Looking at Service Sheet it would appear there are two pins through oval holes side by side holding rear truck in position presumably to improve appearance on sharp curves. It is the play in the holes that allows the pony truck to extend under the buffer beam.

I then tried a test run – 30582 did slip a small amount on starting (but not to Bulleid standards !! ) with 15 Hornby coaches (6xsteel-wheeled R/R Mk1s+4xLSWR maroon+5xCollets) but quickly was able to work the load up to  a very respectable scale 65mph on a continuous nominal 4foot curve that included the inner curves of 3x Streamline curved points. – My test track has a slight, inadvertent, unmeasured but noticeable gradient in one area (around the points !) which does slow it up a bit but I would guess it still out-performs the prototype! It drew the line on pushing 15 coaches up hill through the Streamline curved points though! Testing with more coaches will have to wait on ferreting in wardrobe for suitable stock

[JSpencer]

So here we are, the Hornby Adams radial 30582 with it's a Oxford chum 30853, a pair of the new ex LSWR Maunsell rebuilds and towards the end, sharing a moment with another Atlantic tank, a former LBSCR I3. (Edit: no idea why one appears upside down!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2016 by JSpencer

[21C123]

Given you are in NZ It is a fine balance for you as to whether you send it back – I had similar sound symptoms with a T9 which I had previously only test run (satisfactorily). When I finally had a continuous run for it after about an hour of running-in it developed a chrrrrring noise then subsequently a running stutter and despite oiling all round the noise got worse as did the stutter. On opening up I found the gear wheel driven by the worm was so badly chewed up I had to replace it - cost for motor and gear was £26. I have also had an intermittent slipping gear wheel on another loco leading to running stutter- however this did not have the chrrrring noise - so it would appear that gear meshing is possibly more likely.

If I were you I would email your supplier now so it is on record, and in parallel run the loco with a heavy load into the deck over the next week and if it gets much worse then email your supplier a follow up video clip of the problem and agree with them that you can open it up. If you do decide to open it up, photograph any issues as you go and make sure that the various mounting plates for the motor and gear box mate properly. Unless the screws themselves are loose that gap indicates that the two surfaces are not mating smoothly. Check also the rear mounting plate - I note that according to service sheet that also held in place by 2 screws. Hope that is of some help.

Thanks for the advice, I've been in touch with the shop and will send it back for replacement, hopefully they will refund the postage.

 

Rogrr

[Dunsignalling]

Excellent. Having now diagnosed the problem with mine, I've had it successfully hauling ten bogie coaches. In real life that load would have had Radials double-headed. Briefly, the model runs fine on my home layout (Peco code 83, facing and trailing points, one reverse curve, no curved points). had it hauling 6 bogies no problem. On the MR test track it doesn't like the curved turnout. Somehow, the rear truck play allows the square boss to slip out of the slot in the bunker floor and it then rubs against the bunker floor, lifting the rear driving wheels just enough to lose adhesion. The rear truck movement is not smooth and the clearance seems tight in places. I won't be taking it to bits to cure the problem as it runs fine on my home layout which is where its going to live. Goes to show that our test track does its job, though, and finds the faults. Anyone who has a similar problem will need to either tweak their track or take a file to the rear truck to make it operate smoothly. (CJL)

The truck has to drop over 2mm in order for the spigot to come out of the slot - is that a test-track you have there or a moto-cross circuit?

 

I've created the situation manually on my 30584 and the loco assumes a pose worthy of a drag race car.

 

I've long known that 2nd radius curved points were something best avoided but that's pretty excessive. 

 

John

Edited August 3, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Gwiwer]

Very happy with mine.  She runs well, pulls at least six (haven't yet tried any more) and takes two up the very steep branch.  Having passed acceptance trials she's now been fitted with crew and lump coal and has been weathered.  The only things I notice are the couplers sit a little low (easily fixed) and when placing on the track she feels "on" sometimes but the drivers just spin.  A slight wiggle will reveal she's not actually quite on and is resting on the trailing wheels; that wiggle drops the loco onto the drivers and away she goes.

 

 

 

 

 

[JSpencer]

It runs faultlessly at home on my code 83 Peco track (one reverse curve, facing and trailing points but no curved points). Had six coaches behind it including three Hornby Pullmans and it's as good as any Hornby loco I've had (and they are generally pretty good). However, it's well below par on the office test track, which is designed to sort the 'men from the boys'. Particularly puzzling as the test track is laid with mainly Hornby track. Investigation is ongoing but at present I'm not happy with the 'clunky' pivoting of the rear truck and the performance (or lack of it) over one curved turnout. I plan to take it to T4U at lunchtime, to see how it runs on their shop test track. 

Even when they manufactured at Margate, Hornby never checked anything before it came out for review. They were taken straight off the production line and mailed. On one occasion I received a 75ton breakdown crane (16 axles) without a single wheelset in it! I had to pillage a cupboard-full of wagons to find enough axles for it!  (CJL)

 

I had Hornby curved points on my first layout  in the 1990s. It was a typical Hornby layout, based on their track plan using mostly set track and even Hornby inclines.

 

In simple terms, Hornby (which were back then with course wheels, tender drives and traction tyres compared to now) and Lima (also course wheel too) had no problems. However the much finer Bachmann stuff could not cope with those curved points nor the inclines.

I belonged to the Chatham model railway club at the time and the fine scale layout was the opposite. Lima ran on it just about, but forget Hornby. Bachmann locos/rolling stock were a dream on this.

 

So basically, at home I ran Hornby and Lima. At the club I ran Bachmann, Airfix, Dapol and kits I made (like a W1 or Q1).

 

I deeply suspect that many of today's fine scale Hornby would equally perform badly on this old layout which I disposed of some 10 years back.

 

I will admit that of the two radials, I find Oxfords easier to put on the track (especially the curved track used in the photos above). Both makes have issues with the running plate for me when you look closely. Oxford's being slightly bowed across the entire length, Hornby's having a small warp after the cylinders.

[dibber25]

The truck has to drop over 2mm in order for the spigot to come out of the slot - is that a test-track you have there or a moto-cross circuit?

 

I've created the situation manually on my 30584 and the loco assumes a pose worthy of a drag race car.

 

I've long known that 2nd radius curved points were something best avoided but that's pretty excessive. 

 

John

 

The truck has to drop over 2mm in order for the spigot to come out of the slot - is that a test-track you have there or a moto-cross circuit?

 

I've created the situation manually on my 30584 and the loco assumes a pose worthy of a drag race car.

 

I've long known that 2nd radius curved points were something best avoided but that's pretty excessive. 

 

John

No, it doesn't have to drop anything like that amount because it already runs with the bulk of the spigot out of the socket to provide vertical 'play'. The sideways movement of the truck is 'rough' for reasons which I can't identify, but when moved by hand it doesn't move smoothly. I suspect there's flash or roughness somewhere hidden within the pivot. The spigot comes out of the slot within the length of a curved point, so it is the interaction between the loco and the curved point that is the problem, not anything to do with the test track. The curved point is included precisely because they are known to sort the wheat from the chaff, running-wise. Once the spigot is dislocated, it scarcely affects the look of the locomotive - certainly not a drag race pose, in fact I only identified the problem because of the clunk that occurred when I touched the model and the slot dropped back over the spigot. (CJL)

[lochlongside]

No, it doesn't have to drop anything like that amount because it already runs with the bulk of the spigot out of the socket to provide vertical 'play'. The sideways movement of the truck is 'rough' for reasons which I can't identify, but when moved by hand it doesn't move smoothly. I suspect there's flash or roughness somewhere hidden within the pivot. The spigot comes out of the slot within the length of a curved point, so it is the interaction between the loco and the curved point that is the problem, not anything to do with the test track. The curved point is included precisely because they are known to sort the wheat from the chaff, running-wise. Once the spigot is dislocated, it scarcely affects the look of the locomotive - certainly not a drag race pose, in fact I only identified the problem because of the clunk that occurred when I touched the model and the slot dropped back over the spigot. (CJL)

Sorry Dibber25 but with respect I'm with CJL on this one - there are  in fact 3 positions for the rear truck - the correct one  i.e. pin in slot!! - one where rear truck slips under buffer beam and I agree it looks like a dragster - it is so obvious I didn't bother measuring it and an intermediate position where the rear pin rests on chassis behind buffer beam - and this is not so obvious to see particularly if one's track/baseboard skills are dubious (like mine!) - I have just measured my two locos (30582 and 488) and from a common datum I get a variation of +1.22mm and +1.35mm for the incorrect intermediate position when compared to the correct position - that is enough to spoil adhesion but still allow the loco to work; and over the odd baseboard joint particularly on a test track I could see it happening at lesser variation than that if there is a load hanging off the rear.

[Dunsignalling]

No, it doesn't have to drop anything like that amount because it already runs with the bulk of the spigot out of the socket to provide vertical 'play'. The sideways movement of the truck is 'rough' for reasons which I can't identify, but when moved by hand it doesn't move smoothly. I suspect there's flash or roughness somewhere hidden within the pivot. The spigot comes out of the slot within the length of a curved point, so it is the interaction between the loco and the curved point that is the problem, not anything to do with the test track. The curved point is included precisely because they are known to sort the wheat from the chaff, running-wise. Once the spigot is dislocated, it scarcely affects the look of the locomotive - certainly not a drag race pose, in fact I only identified the problem because of the clunk that occurred when I touched the model and the slot dropped back over the spigot. (CJL)

So, would a taller spigot stop it happening?

 

John

[NHY 581]

With regard to 30582 as released by Hornby, it appears to be a bit of a mixture. Somwthing was bugging me and I got the photo albums out. It has the late crest and though I am not sure of the exact date of the repaint, it is fair to say that as of August 1960 it was running with late crest. September 1959 sees it running with the early crest clearly in need of a splash of paint.

 

Now here's the thing. It looks like the lamp irons were moved from the smoke box door to the edges of the smoke box at the same time as the repaint.

 

Therefore Hornbys release of 30582 is not strictly correct as regards the position of the lampirons.

 

I can see their problem. They wanted to release early and late crest examples. 30582 and 30584 shared the twin slide bar arrangement. 30584 always carried the early crest. 30582 carried the late crest, albeit late in service.

 

Lovely model and not the end of the world but it perhaps illustrates the minefield that manufacturers have to navigate.

 

Will it stop me buying 39582.......absolutely not !!

 

 

I of course stand to be corrected.

 

Rob.

Edited August 4, 2016 by nhy581

[dibber25]

So, would a taller spigot stop it happening?

 

John

Yes, I think so. Or no spigot. Or a wider slot. I don't really see why the spigot and slot is needed at all, although I suspect (having built a K's kit, years ago) that it's to introduce some friction to stop the loco 'wagging' from side to side. A small amount of attention with a file will probably cure it. It is exactly as 'Lochlongside' describes and after passing through the curved point, the truck ends up sitting against the bottom edge of the buffer beam and the loco only slips to a stand once it reaches straight track. I presume the friction against the inside edge of the rail is enough to keep it moving on the curve. With 10 coaches hanging on the rear truck it behaves perfectly, so we have the novelty of a loco that pulls way more than a prototypical load without any problem, but in certain circumstances, slips to standstill running light engine!! 53 years reviewing models and I'm still finding things that I wouldn't have thought possible! (CJL)

Edited August 4, 2016 by dibber25

[dibber25]

With regard to 30582 as released by Hornby, it appears to be a bit of a mixture. Somwthing was bugging me and I got the photo albums out. It has the late crest and though I am not sure of the exact date of the repaint, it is fair to say that as of August 1960 it was running with late crest. September 1959 sees it running with the early crest clearly in need of a splash of paint.

 

Now here's the thing. It looks like the lamp irons were moved from the smoke box door to the edges of the smoke box at the same time as the repaint.

 

Therefore Hornbys release of 30582 is not strictly correct as regards the position of the lampirons.

 

I can see their problem. They wanted to release early and late crest examples. 30582 and 30584 shared the twin slide bar arrangement. 30584 always carried the early crest. 30582 carried the late crest, albeit late in service.

 

Lovely model and not the end of the world but it perhaps illustrates the minefield that manufacturers have to navigate.

 

Will it stop me buying 39582.......absolutely not !!

 

 

I of course stand to be corrected.

 

Rob.

Check out the relationship between the numberplate and the top hinge, too. When the lamp irons were moved, I reckon she needed a new smokebox door (maybe the bolt holes for the lamp irons rendered the door u/s) The new door has shorter hinge straps so the numberplate is clear of the top strap. On the earlier smokebox door the plate sits uncomfortably over the end of the hinge strap and stands much further away from the door itself, altering the 'face' quite a bit. (CJL)

[devonseasider]

Apologies if this has been mentioned before but after a quick scan through posts, has anyone fitted a decoder whihc didnt require any modifications to fit it as someone at the Barnstaple show said that they had to carve a bit of the back of the cab to get one in?

 

 

If you were standing in front of Fisherton Sarum at the time, then the "someone at the Barnstaple Show" was me!

 

I've tried 2 different direct plug-in decoders and a tiny TCS chip on a short harness with an 8-pin plug.

None of them fit snugly enough to allow the body to drop back on the chassis without distortion at the rear end.  In fact, if I'm honest, even the supplied blanking plug causes distortion when the rear end of the body is pushed down properly onto the chassis.  (I think I may have got a "Friday afternoon" production - as well as the rear-end distortion, both cab-doorway front handrails were floating loose in the packaging & both cylinder drain-cocks dropped off shortly after it was unpacked.  Other than that, it's a lovely model & the chassis runs like a dream.)

 

I'm convinced that the problem lies in insufficient clearance in the void under the moulded coal in the bunker.

If you remove the coal rails, water filler & moulded coal (none of which were glued on my loco) you'll find a moulded sub-structure in the bunker space with a flat top & a sloping front - sorry, but that's the best I can do to describe it.

When the body's pushed down onto the chassis the decoder (or, as mentioned above, in my case even the blanking plug) pushes against the underside of this moulding & stops the body sitting down properly.  Tightening the fixing screws causes the rear end from the cab doorway to the buffer beam to lift, distorting the running plate & putting a noticeable slope into the rear cab spectacle sheet.

 

Initially I thought the problem was that the chip (or 8-pin plug) was too high to fit under the horizontal top part of the moulded bunker sub-structure.

After a bit of furtling around (please excuse excessive use of technical terms!) I now think that isn't the case, rather that the leading edge of the decoder is catching on the underside of the slope on the moulding.

 

If I'm right, then cutting away a slot in that slope should solve the problem.

I haven't had time, or plucked up the courage, to try it yet, but watch this space - it won't happen over the weekend, but maybe early next week  .  .  .  .

[lochlongside]

Yes, I think so. Or no spigot. Or a wider slot. I don't really see why the spigot and slot is needed at all, although I suspect (having built a K's kit, years ago) that it's to introduce some friction to stop the loco 'wagging' from side to side. A small amount of attention with a file will probably cure it. It is exactly as 'Lochlongside' describes and after passing through the curved point, the truck ends up sitting against the bottom edge of the buffer beam and the loco only slips to a stand once it reaches straight track. I presume the friction against the inside edge of the rail is enough to keep it moving on the curve. With 10 coaches hanging on the rear truck it behaves perfectly, so we have the novelty of a loco that pulls way more than a prototypical load without any problem, but in certain circumstances, slips to standstill running light engine!! 53 years reviewing models and I'm still finding things that I wouldn't have thought possible! (CJL)

Going to be a trifle two faced ( balanced !?)  about this – having supported CJL in saying the track sensitivity of the 0415 is less than to BMX standard, I must add I am delighted with both my 0415s. They run beautifully over 20+ year old Code 100 badly worn streamline curved electro-frog  points and through both their radii; (interestingly old code 100 streamline appears to be to a coarser standard than modern code 75 ?) and over the 8 baseboard joints of my rather dubious test track. CJL’s testing is probably a lot more rigorous (and rightly so as he has a wider audience to satisfy) but I do not think I would see it as a major issue more a comment/reflection on the demands of the test track. (Tin hat retire to spend time with family !!)

Incidentally I did some further measurements and if both the rear drivers are around 0.62-0.7mm approx higher than the front drivers then the rear pony pin could drop below the slot if the pony truck is pulled backwards (e.g. under load). The coupled wheelbase is 35mm approx, the pin is a further 40mm further back so it can be seen there is a magnifying (x2 approx) effect.

WRT the longer pin – in theory yes it would resolve the issue. The pony itself will stop the pin’s upward movement so there is a built in upper stop, but on looking carefully into the slot there are some lovely shiny solder connections just waiting for a metal bogie pivot to short them out so that is a pin length constraint.  I guess someone with really ropy track may have the incentive to pull their loco apart to determine the max length of this pin - but not me!

Adding to CJL’s latest comment and from looking only at the service sheet -I would be careful about removing the pin. The rear pony appears to be pivoted by two side by side screws in elongated holes so you get an off-centre twist at the virtual pivot point – hence the slot is straight rather than curved to allow the pony to pivot non-radially with the pin in the slot taking the drawbar pull throughout. Mechanically this would appear to pull the outside back of the loco into the curve particularly on sharper curves which would improve the appearance and under load is possibly more stable than a single pivot on the pony alone – however on straight track when the loco is going forwards the rear pony can then slide back by the length of the oval screw slots but is limited from going too far by the pin+slot and the pin continues to take the drawbar load. If you take the loco off the track you can actually feel this back and forth oval-hole slop, and if you pivot the pony off the track you can see the effective distance from pivot to buffer beam changing. (Incidentally from memory didn’t Hornby do something similarly peculiar with the L1 front pony – I vaguely remember some comments at the time ??.) Again as per CJL - the slots feel slightly rough possibly because they are painted but they do not interfere with the performance on my locos.

The key finding from my own perspective however is that whilst mildly disconcerting first time round,  I can more than live with it for the pleasure of owning them and it certainly will not stop me buying a 3^rd one when the monthly pay cheque comes through.