New Models - How Realistic are We Going to Get?

[brianusa]

Going back a bit, on the subject of smoke, in my case US O gauge.  First, about all of them give up after a while and the amount can vary with each example but if you can find a good one, they are very, very good.  Steam obviously is the criterion as diesels emit what is no better than an exhaust.  Early steamers had barely wisps of smoke depending on the current and the fluid soon ran out.  Later models improved with the years and the most prolific smoker had realistic, visible puffs timed with the sound which tended to stream smoke as the rate increased and puff once more as the speed decreased.  One by one though, they all gave out and remain unfixed and whether or not OO suffers the same problem is unknown.  I don't miss the smoke as any more than one at a time would fill the train room to an uncomfortable level.  Anyway, a moot point nowadays as I tend to run more Hornby O,  whose only connection was when the motors got too hot!

     Brian.

[Bernard Lamb]

I know that I have said this before, but it still holds good.

Picture the scene.

A model shop in Germany. I am after xxx by Roco and xxx by Fleischman.

Female assistant produces said locomotives.

Unboxes them and puts them on the test track.

Both crawl away as good as any UK model.

The assistant is not happy that one is slightly better as a slow running than the other.

I forget which way round it was, but both where 4 coupled mixed traffic locos so very similar in design.

She calls another assistant.

X uses a thicker grease than Y was her comment.

Give it 30 minutes and it should improve.

They have both been in the cold storage area for a while so in the shop they should soon warm up and run better.

They would not sell them to me until they were happy that they both ran as they expected them to do.

I did pay full retail price and that price was around double that asked fro a UK model of a similar, on paper, specification.

Last week I had to return a locomotive to Kernow. They replaced it without hassle with a tested example that runs superbly.

I suppose it all comes down to what people want and what they are prepared to pay.

I have no objection to paying a higher price for better QC better design and specification and better service at point of sale.

Whilst I can agree with the verdict of The Captain on some models in his list I find that my Katie does run rather nicely.

Bernard

 

[autocoach]

4 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

All this new RTR stuff is fine and dandy. Lots of lovely new locos, including industrial types and other cute little tank engines, some of which are more accurate depictions than others, possibly depending on manufacturer (but not necessarily), different liveries, painted and printed so superbly that even the most experienced professional model painter would be hard put to match these days. 

 

Lots of intricate, delicate detail, which may or may not accidentally get broken due to inadvertently clumsy handling (done it myself).

 

All in all, we've never had it so good, for sheer variety, quality of appearance and finish, value for money and ease of purchase.

 

But why, WHY is it so difficult for so many of these manufacturers to produce a locomotive that will run smoothly, consistently and reliably out of the box?

 

I know it can be done, I've bought some examples that do run superbly, straight out of the box. The Dapol B4 being one of the most recent purchases I've made.

 

But look at this - here are some nice-looking locos, with levels of detail and accuracy that we could only dream about when I was younger, that just don't run smoothly in a consistent way for me (no order of preference, just as they come into my head). Obviously this applies only to the examples that I have purchased:

 

- new Hornby Terrier

- Hornby W4 Peckett 'Lilleshall'

- Hornby Huntley & Palmers Peckett

- Bachmann 4F

- Heljan Hymek

- Heljan Class 33

- Hattons/DMJ 14XX - AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGG!

- Hattons 'Katie' Andrew Barclay

- Bachmann BR Standard Class 3 2-6-2T

- Bachmann 64XX (OK, this one did improve a bit with some extensive running in)

- Hornby L&Y 'Pug'

 

I don't have large layouts. I build small layouts, on which I indulge in lots of shunting, which requires excellent slow-speed control and consistency. If you apply power, you need the confidence that the locomotive will move in a smooth and acceptable manner and not jerk or stutter around.

 

Am I just  unlucky?

 

Sorry for 'shouting' in this posting, but really, I'm still very annoyed with the loco at the top of the list. None of the locos I've listed run sufficiently badly enough to warrant returning them to the retailer and I accept that I am very fussy in this regard.

 

There seems to be a quality control issue here, certainly a 'consistency' issue, as I know of people who have the same locos I've listed, which run sweetly and smoothly. Loco mechanisms, like everything else, are produced 'to a price'.

 

Again, sorry to rant. But I personally would be more than happy to pay more, if I knew that I could rely on a product to run just the way I want it to. Otherwise it's just another case of dismantling the loco, fettling the chassis or, worse still, building a completely new chassis, which I have now done to two of the locos in that list, and that's just for the OO ones (obviously, if I'm going to convert any of them to P4, I completely accept that I have to sort the chassis out).

 

 

 

Wot...people actually put this stuff on model railway tracks and attempt to run them.   Well I never.....Here I thought static modeling is the absolute goal and end game.  

 

(Well, I don't really have room for an operating layout anyway and the track is HO as it has to serve my California branch line needs as well. Do two wells in a sentence need a bucket.)

 

[The Johnster]

I think you are perhaps a little unlucky, o captain my captain, or perhaps I have been lucky, but your point is quite valid.  All real locos can usually run very smoothly and controllably at very low speeds, and models should be able to as well.  

 

Of my 10 currently in service, all are capable of slow controlled operation, but need a very restrained hand on the controller to do so.  A loco not in service, an ancient Airfix large prairie, cannot be made to run to my standards, the reason it’s out of use (a predecessor could, but the mech wore out), and I had to spend a lot of time fettling a Hornby 2721. 

 

8 of my 10 are Bachmann products, all 6-coupled mechs of recent production.  One is a 64xx and this is noticeably not as good as the others, though by no means bad; mine has also improved a little over time.  A 57xx and one of my 56xxs are probably about as good as I have a right to expect from a mass produced RTR item, but I reckon better performance could be achieved with higher gear ratios. This would have a big impact on price, though. 

 

The Hornbys, the 2721 and a 42xx (not the ‘design clever’ version) run equally well but are much fussier about cleaning.  The Baccys can be left for months without attention, but the Hornby’s need more frequent attention and seem to be a bit delicate in the pickup department.  All are in use almost daily.  Back to backs are checked and all correct, but some have had to be corrected. 

 

All have extra ballast and have needed as much as can be crammed in to get the best out of them. 

 

But I would not be able to achieve such results using DC without my Gaugemaster controller, which has made a very significant difference to the way the locos respond.  They should be able to perform well with any controller.  Even this must be handled very gently to get the best out of the locos.  

 

I do not need them to run at more than a scale 40mph, and most moves take place at a maximum 15mph.  I accept that many owners need to go faster than this, but everybody needs to be able to go slowly properly. 

 

Modern can motors tend to run fast in order to produce useful power from the small sizes needed to place them in small locos with the cabs kept clear and preserving ‘daylight’ views where they are needed.  Gearing and meshing are critical, and pickups must be operating as efficiently as possible while not providing excess friction; it’s a big ask.  

 

But H0, especially European prototype, has the same issues and seems to have been able to turn in better, or certainly more consistently better, slow running for donkey’s years, so it’s not an impossible ask!

 

Diesels have even less excuse to run jerkily at low speeds, so the performance of your Heljans is particularly annoying.  I can only suggest as much ballast as you can get in, but they should run properly in the first place.  Nobody minds a bit of running in, but if the loco isn’t running properly after about an hour, it probably never will.  

 

On 26/04/2019 at 21:01, autocoach said:

Wot...people actually put this stuff on model railway tracks and attempt to run them.   Well I never.....Here I thought static modeling is the absolute goal and end game.  

 

(Well, I don't really have room for an operating layout anyway and the track is HO as it has to serve my California branch line needs as well. Do two wells in a sentence need a bucket.)

 

Only if one of them hasn’t got a pump...

[47137]

On 26/04/2019 at 16:47, Captain Kernow said:

...

 

But why, WHY is it so difficult for so many of these manufacturers to produce a locomotive that will run smoothly, consistently and reliably out of the box?

...

 

Am I just  unlucky?

 

 

I suggest, the root of the problem on steam locos is an accumulation of rather generous manufacturing tolerances on parts. Especially, a lot of side-play on wheels and relying on sloppy side rods to transfer the drive.

 

Supposing the chassis of a steam loco had a gear train to transfer the power from the axle driven by the motor to each of the other driven axles, the side rods could become a cosmetic thing, needing to merely follow the wheels as they go round but not having to deliver the power. I have a Continental N gauge loco like this.

 

Thinking about models I own and have owned, I think you are having about average luck. Some of mine responded to twisting the wheels on the axles to get the quartering a bit better.

 

- Richard.

[The Johnster]

IIRC the Hatton’s 14xx, which has attracted a lot of negative comment about it’s running, has just this sort of ‘cosmetic’ coupling rods.  

 

RTR running quality will always be hampered by the sharpness of curvature the loco is specified to cope with, which is the reason for the generous tolerances, which in heir turn, as you rightly say, mount up.  There is sadly no easy way that an owner with easier curves (not that sort, you bad people) can tighten things up.  Most current RTR is pretty good considering, but that sort of statement is already something of an admission of failure...

[47137]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

IIRC the Hatton’s 14xx, which has attracted a lot of negative comment about it’s running, has just this sort of ‘cosmetic’ coupling rods.  

 

RTR running quality will always be hampered by the sharpness of curvature the loco is specified to cope with, which is the reason for the generous tolerances, which in heir turn, as you rightly say, mount up.  There is sadly no easy way that an owner with easier curves (not that sort, you bad people) can tighten things up.  Most current RTR is pretty good considering, but that sort of statement is already something of an admission of failure...

 

Well ... I don't know about the Hattons model you quote, but my Minitrix model runs well.

 

The likes of Roco, Trix and REE seem to know what to do. Their models run round 18" curves perfectly, and they run well from new. The 00 manufacturers could buy some of these models and strip them down, see how to do it. The way Ford buy a Mazda to take it to bits.

 

I expect someone will tell me the car analogy is wrong because Ford and Mazda are competing for the same customers, while the 00 and H0 manufacturers have very different markets. But I suspect the conclusion will be the same - build 00 models to a standard not to a price.

 

- Richard.

Edited April 29, 2019 by 47137

[PMP]

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

IIRC the Hatton’s 14xx, which has attracted a lot of negative comment about it’s running, has just this sort of ‘cosmetic’ coupling rods.  

 

RTR running quality will always be hampered by the sharpness of curvature the loco is specified to cope with, which is the reason for the generous tolerances, which in heir turn, as you rightly say, mount up.  There is sadly no easy way that an owner with easier curves (not that sort, you bad people) can tighten things up.  Most current RTR is pretty good considering, but that sort of statement is already something of an admission of failure...

 

The Hattons 14xx and the DJM J94 both have cosmetic coupling rods, but this isn’t the problem with them. The problem is the poor specification of the internal drive train gears the designer chose to use. Other models using this system in N and HO with better quality drive trains work satisfactorily.

 

There is a really easy and simple way of improving running qualities of RTR locomotives with excessive lateral movement, by the use of shims behind the driving, and pony/bogie wheelsets. These modifications will within reason, work to improve running on set track type curves too.

 

https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/vitamin-c-for-hornbys-42xx/

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, 47137 said:

...The likes of Roco, Trix and REE seem to know what to do. Their models run round 18" curves perfectly, and they run well from new. The 00 manufacturers could buy some of these models and strip them down, see how to do it. The way Ford buy a Mazda to take it to bits.

 

I expect someone will tell me the car analogy is wrong because Ford and Mazda are competing for the same customers, while the 00 and H0 manufacturers have very different markets.

The analogy is correct, but the item to compare isn't the locos, but the track. UK OO set track is a disaster, and specifically the standard point, which is what sets the requirement for all the lateral slop in the locos. This coarse track is what better standard HO left behind in the early 1960s.

 

The loco mechanisms are designed using technique well proven in HO, and with small adjustments as PMP observes will work very well indeed. It's a sight easier getting a RTR OO outside valve gear steamer running sweetly, than building a kit mechanism and getting it working to the same standard!

 

I would love it if a manufacturer came out with a 'new standard' for their product's track requirement. In the UK that might be as simple as 'designed to operate on Peco streamline'. But the general opinion is that this would be commercial suicide, with an estimated 80% of layouts wholly or partly built from OO set track.

[The Johnster]

Fair enough; the Hatton’s locos’ problems are not down to the coupling rods.  The point I was trying to illustrate, not very well perhaps, is that using a drive system that relies on sloppy rods is not a guarantee of success.  

 

A similar situation arose years ago with Mainline’s split chassis.  Split chassis are in principle A Very Good Idea Indeed, popularised at the time by exquisite scratch and kit built locos from the likes of Chris Pemberton.  Split chassis, Portescap coreless motors, and very good gearboxes ensured minimum possible friction and mechanical resistance, and more or less perfect running; you had to ensure the controller was switched off to prevent the loco creeping around the layout on 0.0000001 of an amp while your back was turned!

 

Mainline spoiled all this with poor materials, pancake motors, and a lot of friction in the drive train’s spur gears; the best you could say about them was that they were better than Lima.  Then the wheels started to go out of quarter...  

 

Nobody was doing significantly better at the time, though to be fair models from Mainline, Airfix, and even Lima once you got above the footplate were more realistic and better detailed, and the ground was being laid for modern RTR.  But the better performance of modern RTR is rooted in a return to traditional worm and cog gearing driven by can motors that are cheap as chips but almost miraculously free running, and traditional pickups.  

 

They can, and some do, run very well, but the slop necessary to get them around trainset corners and the wiper pickups, which are effectively dragging  brakes, mean that perfect running Pemberton style eludes us.  If 80% of us use setrack, and we cannot use coreless motors with DCC (which is firmly entrenched), a compromise has to be made. 

 

People like Captain Kernow (and me to some extent) have been around a while, and are skilled and experienced modellers who are well able to fettle and fine tune to get the best performance.  That he is angered by the inability of some of his locos to perform to his minimum standard should be taken very seriously by the trade, which has come a long way in the last 40 years but is IMHO still wedded to ‘the trainset’, an irrelevance in today’s market. 

 

If the current market is largely ‘serious’, or at least seriously intentioned, and adult modellers, but most of them use setrack for space reasons to achieve the layouts they want, then the same thing is true of the Continental H0 market, and their locos have run better than ours for years.  We have some catching up to do. 

 

I think the the first move should be lower gear ratios. 

[Steamport Southport]

It's the ones with drive trains that are the worst offenders I'm afraid. Might work with N gauge but not a serious contender for 00 gauge. I've only got one DJM model which is an O2. Fantastic runner, but I'm afraid of what is going to happen a few years time when problems do occur. It would probably be a total replacement of the chassis. Far too complicated for what should just be a motor driving a set of driving wheels via a worm and gear.

 

I don't know what's meant by not using coreless motors with DCC? Coreless motors are brilliant with DCC. In fact DCC is recommended. It's only feedback and ancient controllers that have problems with coreless motors.

 

I should add I have had plenty of experience with drive trains when I modelled in N gauge back in the day. Especially using foreign chassis on Langley kits.

 

 

Jason

Edited April 29, 2019 by Steamport Southport

[Nova Scotian]

The best feature in a new model has already come and gone; possibly before its time. Hornby Live Steam.

[Mike Storey]

The one serious improvement I would really like to see is compensation (or other form of suspension) on 00 RTR single axle wagons (and ideally on bogie vehicles and on diesels and DMU/EMU's, but that might be pushing the envelope of price v benefit). That would radically improve the appearance of vehicles when in motion. I have watched compensated wagons running on layouts at exhibitions, and the realism compared to the stiffness and bucking of non-compensated wagons is marked.

 

The only conversion kits I have found are for EM/P4 etc, and I was once ridiculed on another part of this forum (MRJ) for daring to suggest that an 00 version might sell well.

 

I seem to recall that 00 Peco Wonderful Wagons in my youth had a form of suspension, which I thought was amazing (or have I made that up?)! I know it was a little stiff and only really worked if you weighted the wagon. Yet nothing of the sort exists now, requiring some serious expertise and patience to modify kits or RTR to get it. I wonder why it was thought a good idea then, but not since?

 

 

[47137]

8 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The analogy is correct, but the item to compare isn't the locos, but the track. UK OO set track is a disaster, and specifically the standard point, which is what sets the requirement for all the lateral slop in the locos. This coarse track is what better standard HO left behind in the early 1960s.

...

 

So ... just to clarify in my own mind:

 

(1) The Setrack point is ok in isolation as it were, with the curved part connected to straights or indeed within an 18" radius curve. This tallies with my Continental H0 being spec'ed to run on R2, and indeed doing this in my fiddle yard (one Setrack point here).

 

(2) If you connect two Setrack points to make a crossover you create a ghastly reverse curve.

 

(3) Back in the 1960s a typical 0-6-0 chassis had flangeless wheels on the middle axle to let it negotiate such a formation.

 

(4) Nowadays we expect flanges on all the wheels, so there has to be loads of sideplay to support the same formation.

 

Good (well, good in a crummy sort of way).

 

I am so glad, when I designed my own layout with a 24 to 18" reverse curve, I left a 4" straight between them, this being the wheelbase of my longest loco at the time. It seemed a sensible thing to do for 00 shunters, but more sensible than I expected really because my Roco S160 bought since then goes through it fine. The formation is good for proving close coupling mechanisms :-)

 

I can try some fibre washers on loco axles, see what happens. At the end of the day, my layout doubles as a test track and I doubt I'll build something as tortuous again.

 

- Richard.

[The Johnster]

Peco ‘Wonderful Wagons’ indeed had a form of suspension, along with sprung buffers, based on bendy plastic, but these were kits.  They were easy enough, proved by the fact that even a sausage fingered idiot like this one here could successfully build them. I doubt if the cost of assembling such a system would be practicable for volume production RTR, though, which is a shame as it would be a very worthwhile improvement in both running and appearance. 

 

Especially for locos. 

 

Another thing we we expect nowadays is detailed cabs free of motors and daylight between frames and boilers.  This means that some locos drive on the front or rear axles, which sometimes impacts on smooth slow running.  

 

There is a big difference between scratch building a fully compensated loco to run perfectly on scale track and designing one to for efficient and profitable volume production to run as well as it can in a large variety of conditions including setrack. 

[Philou]

Still have my Peco wagons - though the card sides are starting to wear a little due to being in store for so long. They were, at the time, very good, free-running, cheap and as Johnster says, easy to assemble.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Mike Storey]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Peco ‘Wonderful Wagons’ indeed had a form of suspension, along with sprung buffers, based on bendy plastic, but these were kits.  They were easy enough, proved by the fact that even a sausage fingered idiot like this one here could successfully build them. I doubt if the cost of assembling such a system would be practicable for volume production RTR, though, which is a shame as it would be a very worthwhile improvement in both running and appearance. 

 

 

 

But as kits? I still do not understand why such kits would not be commercially viable now, not necessarily the original kits, although they would I am sure be welcome, but a more modern range, in terms of prototype, for my needs anyway. Peco have brought back their N gauge Wonderful Wagons, which is interesting. I bought quite a few of those when I switched to that scale for a few years in the 1970's, and they represented far more contemporary vehicles than the 00 range of kits.

 

[The Johnster]

We can but hope, Mike.  Perhaps Peco, who have been around since god was in short trousers and presumably know what they are doing, are a bit overwhelmed by the variety and quality of RTR wagons, but with prices increasing to the £20 a wagon level, maybe it’s time for a kit resurgence.  A decent GW 5 planker, as opposed to yet another bl**dy china clay hood, would go like hot cakes with printed bodies like the original Wonderfuls.