ndg910 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Am looking to use a loco drive 8f to convert into a SR Z class using the Golden Arrow resin kit but can't seem to work out when the models changed from a tender drive to a loco drive. All help gratefully received as the Hornby Guide doesnt say where the motor is located. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold toboldlygo Posted March 8, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 8, 2016 Am looking to use a loco drive 8f to convert into a SR Z class using the Golden Arrow resin kit but can't seem to work out when the models changed from a tender drive to a loco drive. All help gratefully received as the Hornby Guide doesnt say where the motor is located. I pretty sure it is from the R22** numbers onwards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted March 8, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 8, 2016 Models produced from 2003 onwards. Easily distinguishable by much finer wheels and motion if looking on ebay etc. Only real drawback is they lack haulage power though with a Z you could add weight inside the tanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndg910 Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 Thanks guys very helpful and means I can narrow down my search. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted March 9, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2016 To confirm: The first example in my records is the R2227 LNER "06" variant 7675 released in 2002 - any service sheet 261 variant will do the job for you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I cannot remember which of Hornby's GWR cylinder block assemblies 'fits like a glove' to replace the 8F cylinders, for better appearance. (May well be from the 28xx - it's the 2 cylinder style that is required.) This requires some minor mods to the locations for the slide bars of the 8F gear but makes a more accurate model for relatively little effort. ... Only real drawback is they lack haulage power... That's all part of the fun. The LMR 8F struggles into Ferme Park with a transfer freight, and even the smallest ER goods - the 2F J15 - takes it away effortlessly. The 8F mechanism is perfectly well up to the job if enough weight can be installed, the difficulty is doing so inside the tapered boiler and around the rather bulky mechanism layout that Hornby provide. As Mike Parkin observes, plenty of space for the necessary weight inside the Z body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Models produced from 2003 onwards. Easily distinguishable by much finer wheels and motion if looking on ebay etc. Only real drawback is they lack haulage power though with a Z you could add weight inside the tanks.Really?? well mine, all 8 unaltered, seem to manage 50 unloaded 16 tonners with ease. edit, tell a lie, 7 not 8, one runs on a Bachmann WD chassis as 48169. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combe Martin Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Only real drawback is they lack haulage power though with a Z you could add weight inside the tanks. It's a bit odd isn't it ?. Mine won't pull the skin off a rice pudding either. I wonder if Hornby modified the chassis at some point ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Mine are mostly the earlier loco drive examples, only 'modification' being the tender pick-ups are permanently wired to the motors, as with all my Hornby tender locos :-) . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combe Martin Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Mine are mostly the earlier loco drive examples, only 'modification' being the tender pick-ups are permanently wired to the motors, as with all my Hornby tender locos :-) . You don't mean the old Hornby Dublo type do you surely.. Mine's a loco drive one that I've had just over 4 years and even then it was 2nd hand off Ebay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Trouble with secondhand is you don't know how they've been run-in, or not - probably some kid given it for a present, thrashed the hell out of it, then decided he didn't want it, and dad sells it on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combe Martin Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Mmmmmmmmmm yes, point taken. It's in good condition though. No ingrained dust or bits knocked off, everything there, and runs well. Just doesn't pull much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 If it were me, and the loco isn't performing well enough, I'd get a replacement motor for it, and make sure it's run in properly. http://www.petersspares.com/Hornby-x9108-king-britannia-black-5-railroad-clan-castle-grange-8f-patriot-skew-wound-5-pole-motor.ir edit;- above for R2227 on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted March 17, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 17, 2016 If it were me, and the loco isn't performing well enough, I'd get a replacement motor for it, and make sure it's run in properly. http://www.petersspares.com/Hornby-x9108-king-britannia-black-5-railroad-clan-castle-grange-8f-patriot-skew-wound-5-pole-motor.ir edit;- above for R2227 on. Mmmmmmmmmm yes, point taken. It's in good condition though. No ingrained dust or bits knocked off, everything there, and runs well. Just doesn't pull much. My reference to lack of haulage is evidence by spinning wheels rather than any weakness in the motor. I've got two, an early one numbered 48119 and a much later one, 48706. The latter is a smoother runner but still slips too readily for an 8F. I believe early ones may also have an issue with crankpin holes in the coupling rods not being aligned exactly to the crankpin. 48119 has always had a slight 'limp'. There was an article in Model Railway Journal several years ago where this was identified during a detailing project. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Lack of adhesion, is your track perfectly flat, no oil on the rail tops, is there a slight up, and down play in the driving wheels in the chassis ?? My first thought to a 'slight limp'- is there a quartering problem on one or more of the wheel sets? edit- Hang on, 48119 (R2395), I wonder why it's not listed on the service sheet (261D)for the 8F, R2395A (48062)is, but not 2395. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combe Martin Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Mine was an R2229. I can't remember what number it carried because I've renumbered it as one of the S&Ds 8Fs, I think 48660 (1964 ?). I'm away from home at the moment so can't check that, or get at the box to see the original number. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted March 18, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 18, 2016 Lack of adhesion, is your track perfectly flat, no oil on the rail tops, is there a slight up, and down play in the driving wheels in the chassis ?? My first thought to a 'slight limp'- is there a quartering problem on one or more of the wheel sets? edit- Hang on, 48119 (R2395), I wonder why it's not listed on the service sheet (261D)for the 8F, R2395A (48062)is, but not 2395. No my track isn't perfectly flat (is anyones?!) but I am comparing my 8F's to other loco's in my possession and I am saying the 8F's slip more than most. Put it this way, an 8F should be able to haul at least the same as Black 5 without slipping but they don't, in fact contrary to prototype experience a Hornby Duchess is better on 20 wagons than the same manufacturers 8F! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 In that case then I don't know, just that mine are ok on my layout hauling 40(loaded) - 50( empty) minerals, but they do slow down a little as they hit the friction resistance on the 3 foot radius curves on my roundy-roundy layout/ test-track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combe Martin Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 In that case then I don't know, just that mine are ok on my layout hauling 40(loaded) - 50( empty) minerals, but they do slow down a little as they hit the friction resistance on the 3 foot radius curves on my roundy-roundy layout/ test-track. I'm away from home at the moment, but next week I'll check mine for the number of coaches it'll haul, check for wheel spin, and I'll also weigh it to compare it with locos like the Bachmann 7F. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 It is all down to weight on the coupled wheels, (poor net traction resulting from silly causes like excessive drag from carrying and tender wheels having been dealt with one hopes). There's nothing wrong with the Hornby 8F loco drive mech, it has their good five pole black can and a sensible gear train reduction. Adapted to drive my one-time DIY Thompson O1 (cobbled together from B1 body parts before the Bach O4 or Hornby O1 models were available) it pulled like a hero thanks to the sensible quantity of ballast the elegant parallel Doncaster boiler permitted. That very same drive with an 8F body was far less effective, as less weight could be added. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallmodelspares Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Maybe Hornby could update this model with a traction tyre to the drive axle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Maybe Hornby could update this model with a traction tyre to the drive axle Good god - NOOOOOOOO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hilux5972 Posted March 21, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 21, 2016 No but I think it's definitely due an upgrade, with a bigger weight inside the boiler encasing the motor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 It could be significantly improved by a better mechanism layout. The motor Hornby now appear to be using as standard is small enough to go in the smokebox and drive on the second coupled axle. That would free a decent volume in the firebox and rear half of the boiler barrel for a solid ballast block. An extra 100 to 150g of ballast over the existing loco weight would make all the difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted March 21, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 21, 2016 I find Hornby locos of the period very variable in haulage. My 8F , one of the first Hornby loco powered ones from maybe 10 years ago pulls absolutely fine . I've had about 30 on and she trundles round with no problem at all. On the other hand I have both a Princess Royal and a West Country "Wilton" that are very light footed while others seem to have no problems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.