Mazak 'rot' ... arrghhh!

[JSpencer]

Heljans 02 can.. and some.

 

It out pulls all my freight locos, bar the double motored 9f.

(haven't tried it against the garratt)

 

However put a Roco S160 in the mix and it's game over for anything British, steam or diesel.

 

That I can believe, but I don't have either of those, maybe the 47XX when it comes out

[Dudley]

And you think you've got problems with mazak rot...

[ColinK]

One of my friends has Mazak rot in his class 31, spotted before it damaged the body. So he has scratchbuilt a new chassis from plasticard, using the Hornby bogies, motor and drivetrain. Very impressive.

[sb67]

Really shocked by what I've seen on here, makes me wonder about what locos I buy in the future. Has the problem been corrected or are we just playing Russian roulette when we but stuff?

Apologies if this has been asked already.

Steve. 

[Brit70053]

I asked a question on these lines just over one year ago (Post #18) when, although being aware of the potential problem and its existence since the material was first used in model manufacture, I had, up until yesterday, never had personal experience of it, despite owning several models said to be prone to deterioration.

I was asked to look at a friend's Hornby R2248 weathered 9F and, before referring back to this thread, had regretfully concluded that the loco chassis block was showing early symptoms of Mazak rot / zinc pest.

That this is the same model version as offered (in a much worse condition) by Hattons and as mentioned by Trailrage in post #110, confirms for me that a batch of this material used in the manufacture of this particular model was contaminated.

The real difficulty is that it appears to have taken more than ten years (more like 13 years?) for the problem to show itself and neither manufacturer, nor customer can foresee if it is present before deterioration becomes obvious.

 

As regards a potential solution for my friend, can anyone confirm if this Chinese produced chassis block, part S4275, is dimensionally the same as the older Hornby/ Tri-Ang Hornby model ? I'd hope an inexpensive sample could be sourced second hand to enable restoration of this model to running order.

 

Regards,

 

John

 

Edit for syntax

Edited April 27, 2017 by Brit70053

[Ravenser]

One of my friends has Mazak rot in his class 31, spotted before it damaged the body. So he has scratchbuilt a new chassis from plasticard, using the Hornby bogies, motor and drivetrain. Very impressive.

 

I - and I suspect a few other people - would be very interested in seeing the details of this. I own a first release 31 270 , where I loosened the body as a precaution before the problem manifested itself. A way of rebuilding the chassis re-using the drive train components - which produce excellent smooth running - would be very welcome

[TheSignalEngineer]

I asked a question on these lines just over one year ago (Post #18) when, although being aware of the potential problem and its existence since the material was first used in model manufacture, I had, up until yesterday, never had personal experience of it, despite owning several models said to be prone to deterioration.

I was asked to look at a friend's Hornby R2248 weathered 9F and, before referring back to this thread, had regretfully concluded that the loco chassis block was showing early symptoms of Mazak rot / zinc pest.

That this is the same model version as offered (in a much worse condition) by Hattons and as mentioned by Trailrage in post #110, confirms for me that a batch of this material used in the manufacture of this particular model was contaminated.

I had one of those locos but got rid of it a long time ago. It regularly derailed at the same point on my layout, the only loco ever  to do so. I am beginning to wonder if the chassis was twisted.

[juke]

I asked a question on these lines just over one year ago (Post #18) when, although being aware of the potential problem and its existence since the material was first used in model manufacture, I had, up until yesterday, never had personal experience of it, despite owning several models said to be prone to deterioration.

I was asked to look at a friend's Hornby R2248 weathered 9F and, before referring back to this thread, had regretfully concluded that the loco chassis block was showing early symptoms of Mazak rot / zinc pest.

That this is the same model version as offered (in a much worse condition) by Hattons and as mentioned by Trailrage in post #110, confirms for me that a batch of this material used in the manufacture of this particular model was contaminated.

The real difficulty is that it appears to have taken more than ten years (more like 13 years?) for the problem to show itself and neither manufacturer, nor customer can foresee if it is present before deterioration becomes obvious.

 

As regards a potential solution for my friend, can anyone confirm if this Chinese produced chassis block, part S4275, is dimensionally the same as the older Hornby/ Tri-Ang Hornby model ? I'd hope an inexpensive sample could be sourced second hand to enable restoration of this model to running order.

 

Regards,

 

John

 

Edit for syntax

I bought one of these 9Fs back about that same time and sent it off to have a loco drive conversion carried out. Checked it upon return then put it in a display cabinet until my railway, 50 years at the desiring stage!, was ready to take locos. Track finally laid last year, 9F wouldn't run more than about an inch. Dismantled to find the chassis was arched in the middle and fell into pieces. So if anyone is interested in a 9F conversion set......

[John M Upton]

Have any of the Rebuilt West Country Class been reported with Makzak problems?

 

I had a T9 with a self destructed motor retaining bracket a while ago which I was able to repair with an after market part from Peters Spares.

 

Last night I started to fire up my Bulleid loco collection in preparation for introduction to a new layout and worryingly one is spinning it's motor and not moving just like the T9 did.

 

I have not got the body off yet to have a look but I fear the worst.

[Roy Langridge]

Have any of the Rebuilt West Country Class been reported with Makzak problems?

 

I had a T9 with a self destructed motor retaining bracket a while ago which I was able to repair with an after market part from Peters Spares.

 

Last night I started to fire up my Bulleid loco collection in preparation for introduction to a new layout and worryingly one is spinning it's motor and not moving just like the T9 did.

 

I have not got the body off yet to have a look but I fear the worst.

Don't know if mazak related or not, but PhilH of this parish was only recounting to me last night how many of his Bulleids won't run after being stored. Something like 6 out of 9 are dead.

 

Roy

Edited June 17, 2017 by Roy Langridge

[John M Upton]

Yikes! I have another half dozen that I haven't checked yet...

[Roy Langridge]

Yikes! I have another half dozen that I haven't checked yet...

Yep. I have 3 (maybe 4) that I need to dig out and check.

 

Roy

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...The real difficulty is that it appears to have taken more than ten years (more like 13 years?) for the problem to show itself and neither manufacturer, nor customer can foresee if it is present before deterioration becomes obvious...

 Oh but it is fully detectable. A simple non-destructive test for the 'poisoning' elements that induce this failure mode is available, and it is not hugely expensive now, a hand held XRD analyser will do it. (When I were a lad, the first very costly commercial instruments were two tons and a three phase power supply + expert analyst to prepare the samples operate it, and interpret the results...)

 

Having said all that, this is for the known and relatively rapid 'zinc pest / mazak rot' usually caused by lead contamination. But mazak is a relatively new alloy formulation, and it may have more than one such failure mode, and the next one we haven't had the alloy around long enough to experience it. Alloys are like that! Then again, the original owner will more than likely be safely dead...

 

 

Have any of the Rebuilt West Country Class been reported with Mazak problems?...

 

Last night I started to fire up my Bulleid loco collection in preparation for introduction to a new layout and worryingly one is spinning it's motor and not moving just like the T9 did.

 

I have not got the body off yet to have a look but I fear the worst.

 

Don't know if mazak related or not, but PhilH of this parish was only recounting to me last night how many of his Bulleids won't run after being stored. Something like 6 out 9 of are dead.

 

 Get in there and look for crazing of the paint, and cracks. But I would suggest that there are other causes more likely to produce these symptoms.

 

First, the motor mount on the early Sanda Kan period of construction is a mechanically inept design. The sole securing point is an inch away from where the motor has to be clamped down for the worm to engage the pinion. It can slack off very readily. Adjustment and even glueing the motor in its location have worked for my on the A3/A4 mechanism which has this and the following design flaw on the 2004/5 releases I own.

 

Second the pick up arrangements on the loco are poor, in that the chassis block is used in the conduction path, via a peg cast into the bottom of the block bearing on the pick up strip, A plain face contact like that will go non-conducting if the loco stands for years. All mine altered; peg removed, soldered on wire connection, chassis block thus isolated fro the track, reliable conduction.

 

Thirdly all the other metal surfaces vital for conduction will oxidise: wheel tyre, wheelback, wiper strip contact patch, and there's no pick up as a result.

 

Hornby fixed 1 and 2 with the Britannia and since then have done much better in these respect in succeeding releases

[John M Upton]

Well I have taken what is now 34004 apart and thankfully found no sign of any rot.  Looks like a cog deep inside as gone hence why the wheels turn freely and the motor runs quickly but yet neither party seems to connect!

[RAF96]

Apparently a 'fix' for the rot is to submerge the affected part in white vinegar. No doubt the science can be explained.

 

I can see this working to neutralise surface faults but the problem is the impurities are distributed within the metal so unless you can treat it all then it is just buying time by treating the symptoms, not curing the disease.

 

Of course if you are fortunate enough to be one of the very many who have good metal then it should last forever given ongoing surface protection, indeed as some old model have in perfect condition.

[Trainshed Terry]

I only have two. A merchant navy and BoB

 

I shall check them later

 

Terry

[leopardml2341]

To help others, when people are doing their checking, would it be a good idea to post the results and catalogue numbers in a separate thread?

 

I have completed a search of the forum using the search function "mazak rot" and it doesn't show such a thread so I've created one here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/123769-mazak-rot-the-affected-models-list/

 

If this does indeed prove to be a duplicate will one of the Mod's please merge as they see fit to preserve the 'easy lookup' list that I'm advocating?

 

Thanks.

Edited June 18, 2017 by leopardml2341

[dogbox321]

As someone with a number of potential models that may be affected - I haven'd dared to check!  I feel as though as modellers we are being severely let down by manufacturers, who have been complacent with dealing with the matter, by pretty much 'ducking their head in the water' and just carrying on selling other models regardless. How many more markets would accept this situation?

 

What is noteworthy about this topic, is the amount of modellers who have experienced issues with chassis, and yet no manufacturer has actually publicly came out, and addressed the issue.  Yes, I can understand they are probably worried about the cost of claims, but ultimately its a significant defect which has catastrophic consequences for the models affected.  Models, are not bought as 'disposable' items, but as an item that should with a little TLC, offer many years of satisfaction to the customer/modeller. 

 

In my reckoning, there are two things that a manufacturer that produces products that could/are experiencing this failure should be doing.....

 

1). Admit that there is a problem and offer a solution to those with models already affected.  I.E Product recall, repair or replacement.

 

2).  Develop quality assurance processes that deal with the matter so modellers can have confidence in future products, and not have to take a gamble.  That could be undertaken, by stricter monitoring/chemical analysis of raw materials, requesting random samples of chassis for analysis, and random sampling of finished product chassis.

 

I'm sure the manufacturers would not be impressed if we started paying with Mazanc money!

 

Regards,

 

C.

[steve1]

Has anyone had this problem with Horny Class 60?

 

steve

[rue_d_etropal]

Just pleased I don't model OO these days, apart from a few items I don't want to get rid of.

I seem to remember there was a Mazak problem with the gear wheel on the old Hornby tender grive. There was a brass replacement gear, and when I was running shop, I replaced quite a few.

Anyone actually running their moodels, would not be surprised when some sort of problem occured years after buying the model. Simple wear and tear, but would not expect anything they had just stored in good conditions, to have the type of problem which is occuring. A friend had that same problem with one of his stored T9's, and asked Peters Spares about it. At that time the only way was to replace chassis, but it seems they may have come up with a better fix now. Maybe Hornby should adopt it as well.

It does seem that Hornby have more problems than Bachmann, but maybe that is now less of a problem.

Maybe the answer is to stop using Mazak in any models . There will be a cost implecation, but that might tilt the balance back to manufacture nearer to home.

 

There used to be abig problem with plastic and the effect of UV. The answer was to add an UV inhibiting chemical, which is what I think Peco do with their track.

We have all seen the banana shaped models from 50 years ago, and even if it is not obvious , have found it brittle when we try to cut it. I have found that some old Playcraft models made by Jouef in France from that period do not have this problem, suggesting some manufacturers either were aware of the problem, or by chance used a type of plastic not affected by UV.

 

Interestingly this is something that has been mentioned concerning some plastics used in 3D printing. Some seem to be happoy that there has been no problem, yet, but I wonder if they would be as happy in the future if there is a problem. I prefer to act to prevent potential problems in the future, even it it might not look quite as good. I can fix that now, ad know there won't be a problem in the future.

Edited June 18, 2017 by rue_d_etropal

[The Johnster]

As someone with a number of potential models that may be affected - I haven'd dared to check!  I feel as though as modellers we are being severely let down by manufacturers, who have been complacent with dealing with the matter, by pretty much 'ducking their head in the water' and just carrying on selling other models regardless. How many more markets would accept this situation?

 

What is noteworthy about this topic, is the amount of modellers who have experienced issues with chassis, and yet no manufacturer has actually publicly came out, and addressed the issue.  Yes, I can understand they are probably worried about the cost of claims, but ultimately its a significant defect which has catastrophic consequences for the models affected.  Models, are not bought as 'disposable' items, but as an item that should with a little TLC, offer many years of satisfaction to the customer/modeller. 

 

In my reckoning, there are two things that a manufacturer that produces products that could/are experiencing this failure should be doing.....

 

1). Admit that there is a problem and offer a solution to those with models already affected.  I.E Product recall, repair or replacement.

 

2).  Develop quality assurance processes that deal with the matter so modellers can have confidence in future products, and not have to take a gamble.  That could be undertaken, by stricter monitoring/chemical analysis of raw materials, requesting random samples of chassis for analysis, and random sampling of finished product chassis.

 

I'm sure the manufacturers would not be impressed if we started paying with Mazanc money!

 

Regards,

 

C.

 

I agree absolutely; the manufacturers are getting away with this because the problem does not surface until some time after the warranty has expired.  Many sufferers on this thread report finding their locos destroyed after being put into 'safe' storage in brand new condition, never run!  And one may be certain that those who post here are just the tip of an iceberg.  The only long term solution from the manufacturer's point of view is to use something else for chassis blocks as Mazak doesn't work reliably enough, despite the cost implication which of course has to be passed on to us.  But they have not even admitted that the problem exists, and if they ever do, it will no doubt be a grudging admission that some models are affected after a period of time, inferring that the model has been heavily used, which would be difficult to disprove.  I would like to see cast steel used for this, as if is heavy and improves traction, but of course there is a rust implication...

 

Point 2 is problematic for them as well; the Chinese model of production to which they are all (I mean both) pretty heavily committed depends on a central supplier who sub-contracts the work out to a plethora of small workshops and factories, often in towns scattered widely across this huge country that were built in the communist era on that model to provide employment in local communities; some of these towns have hundreds of semi-independent workshops, almost cottage industries, building or producing the same product to specifications imposed from on high; the people actually casting our chassis blocks probably have no idea of, or interest in, what they are and what they are for.  Imposing any effective quality control over such a system, which would be the job of the central supplier and not Hornby or Bachmann, is never really going to be effectively achievable.  All the central supplier knows is that he has a warehouse full of apparently identical mazak blocks from far and wide in new condition; some probably disintegrate at this stage and never make it onto the model's assembly line, but nobody in the UK ever gets to hear about it, even the manufacturers.  The same applies at the assembly stage, though; packs of parts are sent out far and wide to lord knows how many little workshops, and finished models boxed and sent back, again a difficult process to apply stringent quality control to.

 

Chinese manufactured models are usually very good, highly detailed and well finished, but there is this fundamental drawback with the way they do things.

 

It is not a problem restricted to Chinese production either; I have had 3 of my ancient Mainline locos, again stored for a long period, killed by the dreaded rot in the last year!

[Andy W]

It is not a problem restricted to Chinese production either; I have had 3 of my ancient Mainline locos, again stored for a long period, killed by the dreaded rot in the last year!

But Mainline locos were manufactured for Palitoy by Kader Industries in, wait for it, China (or Hong Kong, which by that time was China). They even owned the tooling and early Bachmann production used the same tooling as Mainline had. Next Kader developed the revised chassis with the giant brass worm on the end of the motor. I've never seen Mazak rot on one of those, but instead the plastic axle muffs break up. Finally we have the Blue Riband and later Bachmann chassis, and again these seem rot-free apart from the N class 2-6-0s. Maybe they make more of their parts in-house and so do exercise quality control.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... no manufacturer has actually publicly came out, and addressed the issue...

Fact check time. Although I have not been directly affected by any of the mazak rot problems, there's been plenty of on line traffic which leads me to believe the following:

Bachmann's N class: replacement cast footplates made available to owners with failed models

Heljan class 47: replacement drives  made available to owners with failed models

Hornby class 30/31: replacement drives made available to owners with failed models.

 

If the above is true then manufacturers have addressed consequences. What they are up to in their manufacturing processes is a closed book!

 

 

...Maybe the answer is to stop using Mazak in any models . There will be a cost implication, but that might tilt the balance back to manufacture nearer to home...

 Mazak is not in use for this purpose casually. It offers all the properties required at an affordable price, but with a process requirement that lead be rigorously excluded from the melt and diecasting stage. The alternatives carry very sigificant cost implications, sorry to say. And it should be kept in mind that all alloys have their failure mechanisms, many here will have seen what happens to steel and duralamin - to name two very common alloys -  if not treated right...

[Mark Saunders]

One of the biggest mixed matches was steel rebar and high alumina cement!

 

Concrete cancer has killed may of the BR diesel depots and high rise buildings!

 

Mark Saunders

[bigherb]

. Finally we have the Blue Riband and later Bachmann chassis, and again these seem rot-free apart from the N class 2-6-0s.

And the 42 Warship and one of the Panniers.