New Hornby 14xx

[Coryton]

  This is one of those cases where dedication to the train set market is still hampering production methods.  Imagine the criticism if Hornby were to release this model as 'not suitable for curves below no.3 radius!

 

Given that this is in the Railroad range, I think such criticism would be well justified.

[railroadbill]

What a 14xx needs to be able to pull.

 

I've just looked up 2 published pics of 14xx locos in BR service. 

 

a) 1462 in February 1962 working Hemyock to Tiverton Junction. It is bunker first, pulling 5 (rather grubby) 6 wheeled milk tanks with a non-corridor brake coach at the end.  (Coach looks something like half a B set perhaps).

 

b)  Another mixed train (Culm Valley branch heading for Tiverton Junction).  An unidentified 14xx, chimney first, heads a single coach, said to be ex LNER (perhaps Thompson non-corridor?)  Then there are 3 open wagons, 2 are 5-plank with tarpaulins, then a 16 ton mineral wagon. No brake van, but a red tail lamp hangs from the 3 link coupling on the 16 tonner. 

 

Caption says that mixed trains ran on the Culm Valley branch until  1963.

 

I'm glad I was reminded by this thread of these pics, which are in "Modelling the GWR"  published Ian Allen in 1983 (when I was given it as a present!)

 

They are 2 unusual workings, which it would be great to replicate on the layout. 

 

I can actually do this  easily using  stock I've got and my Airfix 14xx.

 

Unfortunately It wouldn't be possible to run these trains with the current railroad 14xx, as supplied.  One of the 2   I had would only pull 2 wagons and the other would hardly pull itself before sticking in pointwork, (despite apparently having been checked by Hornby before being sold).  While it's possible to fix this, (more vertical movement for trailing axle, back to backs adjusted, and I suspect better pickups on upper rather than bottom parts of flanges as they used to be arranged)  it was actually easier to return them...

[PanzerJohn]

Got my Warley special today and yes it has " the problem".It will pull 3 staniers but takes only the lightest touch from the hand of god to stop it dead, and it wheelspins really easily on abrupt power application. Shame as it's a really nice model for the money. Solutions are, from Hornby slightly thicker traction tyres or myself is to file a couple of thou off the rear axle slot. I wil ltry and get hold of some Airfix or Dapol traction to see if they are any thicker than the current Hornby ones.

Edited December 3, 2017 by PanzerJohn

[Coryton]

Got my Warley special today and yes it has " the problem".It will pull 3 staniers but takes only the lightest touch from the hand of god to stop it dead, and it wheelspins really easily on abrupt power application. Shame as it's a really nice model for the money. Solutions are, from Hornby slightly thicker traction tyres or myself is to file a couple of thou off the rear axle slot. I wil ltry and get hold of some Airfix or Dapol traction to see if they are any thicker than the current Hornby ones.

 

Mine will pull one auto-coach. Two...sort of...but sometimes grinds to a halt on curves. 

 

I'd be happy if it could cope with two properly but not much more, but just one is a bit limiting.

 

I think I'm going to see if I can get my money back.

 

I discovered this thread (by accident) just after buying it...

[Ian Hargrave]

All of this underlines the difficulties of modelling 4 coupled tank locomotives....and we've had several over the last few years.Each has had its own problems...chiefly of adhesion and thus haulage capability which it seems is why this latest Hornby offering has traction tyres.So unless you are prepared to modify/adapt yours in some way you won't achieve a prototypical performance.For example,the M7 can be dramatically enhanced by adding extra weight.Maybe a good idea to pick up an earlier second hand one on eBay instead ?

 

As a footnote to an earlier posting,I have tested the more expensive competition once more to check its capabilities..yes that too has had its fair share of stick (drivers barely in contact with rails etc?) It handles quietly and smoothly a "sandwich" typical autocoach formation ...loco pulling one and pushing the other in each direction,forward and reverse.Both autocoaches are modified Airfix thus heavier than standard.

[Coryton]

All of this underlines the difficulties of modelling 4 coupled tank locomotives....and we've had several over the last few years.Each has had its own problems...chiefly of adhesion and thus haulage capability which it seems is why this latest Hornby offering has traction tyres.So unless you are prepared to modify/adapt yours in some way you won't achieve a prototypical performance.For example,the M7 can be dramatically enhanced by adding extra weight.Maybe a good idea to pick up an earlier second hand one on eBay instead ?

 

As a footnote to an earlier posting,I have tested the more expensive competition once more to check its capabilities..yes that too has had its fair share of stick (drivers barely in contact with rails etc?) It handles quietly and smoothly a "sandwich" typical autocoach formation ...loco pulling one and pushing the other in each direction,forward and reverse.Both autocoaches are modified Airfix thus heavier than standard.

 

Fair enough maybe we shouldn't expect it to behave the same as the prototype.

 

But I feel that anything that has less hauling capacity than a Railroad 0-4-0 is somewhat suspect, particularly when previous iterations of the same design did so much better.

 

You say above 4-coupled tank engines. It seems that there's something harder about an 0-4-2 than an 0-4-0. The latest Railroad 0-4-0s with modified motors run rather nicely and while their haulage power is limited, I suspect it's no worse than the real thing could have managed.

[Ian Hargrave]

Fair enough maybe we shouldn't expect it to behave the same as the prototype.

 

But I feel that anything that has less hauling capacity than a Railroad 0-4-0 is somewhat suspect, particularly when previous iterations of the same design did so much better.

 

You say above 4-coupled tank engines. It seems that there's something harder about an 0-4-2 than an 0-4-0. The latest Railroad 0-4-0s with modified motors run rather nicely and while their haulage power is limited, I suspect it's no worse than the real thing could have managed.

A question of balance with the trailing bogie .But the Hattons DJM can and does behave prototypically.

[sjrixon]

I had a Dapol one, I did some nice upgrades to it. Then removed the centre wheels and replaced them with solid ones without the traction tyres. It runs rubbish! I must put them back and just sell it!

 

I was hoping this new Hornby one would give me a replacement chassis. But I think I'll just put the Hattons one on my Christmas list!

[The Johnster]

As I said earlier, 0-4-2T chassis are not easy to get right, nor are 0-4-4T ones.  It is difficult to distribute the loco's weight to assist adhesion to the best advantage and the modern necessity for DCC to take up limited space in the body means less adhesion weight anyway.  This might be a case for an RTR compensated chassis, but how this could be designed for mass production and marketed at any sort of competitive price is beyond me, and it would only start a trend...

[Silver Sidelines]

What goes round comes round!  The Post about the 14xx on my Blog in 2011 is a bit on the short side but the comments from other modellers echo what is being said here.  There is also a link to a YouTube video I made of a Hornby/Dapol model with smooth wheels (no traction tyres).  The video makes it look better than it really was.  I think I came to the conclusion that the trailing wheel really needed to be 'locked up' to stop the engine bouncing about.

 

Ray

[railroadbill]

Been reading up on GW branchlines...   found a good layout plan of the Hemyock branch with its dairy,  would make a nice minimalist layout.

 

I felt "compelled" to get up into the loft and give the Airfix 14xx a go. These trains are the same sort of make up as published photos on the branch.

 

 

This needs a rear lamp hanging on the coupling chain of the rear wagon, as per the full size.

 

 

 

 

So 2 mixed trains for a 14xx. I suppose they would only have run like that on the Hemyock branch.  

 

 

[railroadbill]

What goes round comes round!  The Post about the 14xx on my Blog in 2011 is a bit on the short side but the comments from other modellers echo what is being said here.  There is also a link to a YouTube video I made of a Hornby/Dapol model with smooth wheels (no traction tyres).  The video makes it look better than it really was.  I think I came to the conclusion that the trailing wheel really needed to be 'locked up' to stop the engine bouncing about.

 

Ray

Runs well on your youtube video, Ray,  impressive.  Back in the day well quite a lot of days, actually, I had 2 Airfix 14xx locos, the second was part of a set. I tried fitting the non tyred driving wheels from one loco to the other so I  had one loco without traction tyres. It really didn't want to pull very much at all so I put them back as before. The set went to a friend's son as a Christmas present in the end.

However, the original Airfix loco is tail heavy in that the centre of gravity is behind the centre drivers.  I believe that later Hornby ones with what may be a lighter motor driving the centre wheels rather than the big Airfix motor  driving the front wheels,  has a centre of gravity between the driving wheels, hence better traction if no traction tyres.  The latest one, before I returned it, also seemed to balance just ahead of the centre drivers.

 

So the version before latest Hornby one with non-tyred wheels fitted could be the best way to get the best running loco.  Worth a try...

[The Johnster]

Been reading up on GW branchlines...   found a good layout plan of the Hemyock branch with its dairy,  would make a nice minimalist layout.

 

I felt "compelled" to get up into the loft and give the Airfix 14xx a go. These trains are the same sort of make up as published photos on the branch.

 

14xx 2.jpg

 

This needs a rear lamp hanging on the coupling chain of the rear wagon, as per the full size.

 

 

14xx 3.jpg

 

 

So 2 mixed trains for a 14xx. I suppose they would only have run like that on the Hemyock branch.  

 

 

*Pedant Alert* The milk train is strictly speaking not a mixed as the milk tanks are 'XP' passenger rated stock.  

[petrox]

Runs well on your youtube video, Ray,  impressive.  Back in the day well quite a lot of days, actually, I had 2 Airfix 14xx locos, the second was part of a set. I tried fitting the non tyred driving wheels from one loco to the other so I  had one loco without traction tyres. It really didn't want to pull very much at all so I put them back as before. The set went to a friend's son as a Christmas present in the end.

However, the original Airfix loco is tail heavy in that the centre of gravity is behind the centre drivers.  I believe that later Hornby ones with what may be a lighter motor driving the centre wheels rather than the big Airfix motor  driving the front wheels,  has a centre of gravity between the driving wheels, hence better traction if no traction tyres.  The latest one, before I returned it, also seemed to balance just ahead of the centre drivers.

 

So the version before latest Hornby one with non-tyred wheels fitted could be the best way to get the best running loco.  Worth a try...

My older Hornby / Dapol 14xx runs quite happily with 2 autocoaches without traction tyres and still retaining the grooved driving wheels - it does tend to bounce a bit when pushing though. Anyway I won't be rushing to replace it with either the latest Hornby or DJM versions.

[Miss Prism]

14xx 2.jpg

This needs a rear lamp hanging on the coupling chain of the rear wagon, as per the full size.

 

What is needed on the rear is a brake van.

[melmerby]

A question of balance with the trailing bogie .But the Hattons DJM can and does behave prototypically.

No it doesn't, it still isn't balanced so the weight is sufficiently forwards.

It is better than the Airfix one but still far from perfect

Ideally in a model 0-4-2 the trailing wheels should do virtually nothing to support the loco. The Hattons/DJM has a more or less empty boiler/smokebox which if loaded could have shifted the weight forward and made a better balanced loco.

However they decided to sacrifice this for sound capability by putting the decoder there.

 

I tested the weight distributions:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/92852-hattons-announce-14xx-48xx-58xx/page-64&do=findComment&comment=2646467

 

Of course a speaker in the rear end will make it worse.

Keith

Edited December 4, 2017 by melmerby

[Ian Hargrave]

No it doesn't, it still isn't balanced so the weight is sufficiently forwards.

It is better than the Airfix one but still far from perfect

Ideally in a model 0-4-2 the trailing wheels should do virtually nothing to support the loco. The Hattons/DJM has a more or less empty boiler/smokebox which if loaded could have shifted the weight forward and made a better balanced loco.

However they decided to sacrifice this for sound capability by putting the decoder there.

 

I tested the weight distributions:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/92852-hattons-announce-14xx-48xx-58xx/page-64&do=findComment&comment=2646467

 

Of course a speaker in the rear end will make it worse.

Keith

 

Well Keith it may not work for you but all three of mine are perfectly balanced for haulage with different types of load ,pushing or pulling in both directions.I also have a Comet rechassied Airfix  which runs like a coffee grinder.Thus in my personal experience there is no comparison both with looks and capability.Your theory may be fine but in practice I find little to fault with my Hattons/DJM .Better than Airfix ?  By a country mile I'd say.

[tomparryharry]

On an analogue set up you can use the smokebox to transfer the weight such that the leading drivers stay down. With my old K's kits, I tried adding a semi-permanent drawbar, to help keep the leading drivers down. I understand that the people at Pendon are  well versed with the solution.

 

If the loss of space in the smoke box, try putting the speaker in the luggage area in the autocoach.

 

Just a thought....

 

Ian.

[melmerby]

Well Keith it may not work for you but all three of mine are perfectly balanced for haulage with different types of load ,pushing or pulling in both directions.I also have a Comet rechassied Airfix  which runs like a coffee grinder.Thus in my personal experience there is no comparison both with looks and capability.Your theory may be fine but in practice I find little to fault with my Hattons/DJM .Better than Airfix ?  By a country mile I'd say.

So you are disagreeing with the facts?

The Hattons/DJM 48XX is still too tail heavy whatever you think.

It is miles better than the Airfix model but IMHO DJM missed a trick. If the front of the loco had been loaded more it could have balanced forward of the trailing drivers, which would move it's haulage capabilities from moderate to good.

The Airfix one in comparson is poor. (both mine have plain drivers.)

Even my grossly tail heavy K's one is better, mainly due to the extra total weight of the whitemetal body. (it's running quality however............... )

 

Keith

[railroadbill]

What is needed on the rear is a brake van.

 

Well, here's the prototype pic.....

 

 

with tail lamp hanging off the coupling chain.

[Miss Prism]

Thanks!  I guess all the wagons are fitted.

[railroadbill]

*Pedant Alert* The milk train is strictly speaking not a mixed as the milk tanks are 'XP' passenger rated stock.  

H'mm.  Definitions of mixed trains I've found say it is a train with both passenger and freight stock (which the second Hemyock branch example would be.). Mixed trains very popular in US once upon a time apparently,  mainly on branch lines.

 

I'm sure there's going top be more to this, but headcode for a steam era mixed train should be one lamp at top of smokebox, same for passenger, mixed,   branch passenger train railmotors/railcars and breakdown train not going to clear the line.

 

 

 

In my 1950 BR rulebook, Rule 16 give a list of terms which include other definitions, (for instance a driver includes motorman).

 

It states:

 

"(the term) passenger train (includes) Mixed train, i.e. train conveying passengers and goods"

 

So that is the BR definition.

 

 

I wonder if there were any mixed train services still running anywhere in the post steam era or did it all go after Beeching? (Think some DMUs could pull vans?)

[railroadbill]

Thanks!  I guess all the wagons are fitted.

Expect so, very difficult to see livery of wagons on these pics. If not, would the brake coach make it semi fitted and would that be ok?  Looked for other Hemyock branch pics in my books but none like this.  Very unusual.

[Miss Prism]

(Think some DMUs could pull vans?)

 

Yes, but on the BR(W), and I suspect other regions, I believe everything pullable by a DMU had to be 'passenger rated'.

 

 

Expect so, very difficult to see livery of wagons on these pics. If not, would the brake coach make it semi fitted and would that be ok?  Looked for other Hemyock branch pics in my books but none like this.  Very unusual.

 

I think that if there were any unfitted wagons behind the coach, then a brake van would be required. (Hence my initial comment.)

[The Johnster]

No, they are unfitted mineral wagons.  You are right about the brake van in normal circumstances  This sort of working was not usually permitted, but the Hemyock branch and a few others were covered by local instruction in the relevant Sectional Appendix.  Local freight workings without brake vans were more common, authorised in the same way, and included propelling and wrong line movements.  

 

The BR standard tail lamp handle is shaped to allow the lamp to be 'fixed' in position by it's profile by placing it over the drawhook, which steadied it and prevented it swinging about, to accommodate this sort of working.  Incidentally, the lamp is on the hook, not the 'chain' by which I assume you mean the instanter coupling.

 

'Mixed' trains, where they were permitted (which was also under Sectional Appendix instruction) which conveyed unfitted vehicles would normally have a brake van at the rear, carrying the 3 lamps of an unfitted or part fitted train.  The train had to be marshalled with the vacuum fitted fitted stock coupled to the loco and the brake pipes connected, so unfitted wagons would be at the rear of the train, and of course during steam heating periods the heating pipe had to be connected to the passenger accommodation, so the passenger carrying vehicles were usually next to the loco.  On the Hemyock branch speeds were so low and the distance so short that the coach dynamo could not charge batteries for lighting, so gas lit stock was used up until closure, hence the slightly unusual coaches often featured in photos.

 

'XP' passenger rated freight stock (as opposed to non passenger carrying coaching stock) was vacuum braked and the buffers suitable for use in a passenger train.  Screw couplings were mostly used on such vehicles.

 

A dmu, AFAIK on whatever region, might convey tail traffic of passenger stock, but not normally carrying passengers, or 'XP' freight stock.  I have never heard of one hauling unfitted stock with a brake van, but am happy to be corrected if anyone knows of an instance.  There is no 'rule related' reason that I am aware of that a dmu cannot be treated as a locomotive for this purpose.

 

Stationmaster to the thread, please.  Paging Stationmaster...

Edited December 4, 2017 by The Johnster