Model Locomotive Time Travel (Newer IS Better?)

[iL Dottore]

I just obtained both an active and a passive DCC Concepts Rolling Road (thanks JohnDMU!) in order to start running-in my motive power (given that I have been accumulating locomotives over the years and not yet laid any track to run them on...).

 

I pulled out several locomotives to test, ran them and found, much to my interest, a seemingly clear correlation between running properties and age of model.

 

The first loco tested was an old Mainline Railways "Dean Goods" circa 1982; and on the RR, even at low power, it lurched around from side to side like a drunken sailor - at times threatening to throw itself off when at speed (thanks to those nice blokes at Comet, I have a replacement chassis for it, thank goodness)

 

I then tried a later issue Bachmann "Dean Collett Goods", which whilst much smoother, still wobbled at speed and thus I'm wondering how old it is (pre 2000?)

 

In comparison, an elderly Canadian Railway GPsomething (a holiday souvenir, maker unknown) ran smoothly but VERY loudly. The Canadian Camelback Steam Locomotive (also a holiday souvenir) was, in comparison, very quiet and smooth.

 

The Bachmann 56XX was a smooth and quiet runner but, surprisingly, the best runner was Hornby's rather aged 14XX, smooth, quiet and responsive - even at very low speeds. However, the model was bought in 2009 and thus represents > 25 years of RTR chassis development on from the Mainline model, even if the body IS showing its age.

 

The question for the membership is whether or not my experience is representative and there was/is an improvement over the years in the quality of the average RTR chassis (not forgetting that there are outliers over the years)?

 

F

[chrisf]

An interesting experiment, Flavio. Anyone would think you were a scientist

 

I'm sure it is true that no two locos run identically from the box and that for every one that runs as smoothly as silk [not that silk runs, except when made into stockings] there is another which runs like a bag of spanners.

 

Chris

[ian]

There are a number of factors at work which make drawing any sensible conclusion difficult.

 

As Chris has pointed out, the QA for RTR models is not very advanced. As an example I have two models that are on the same chassis - one is quiet and runs like a Swiss watch, the other is more like that bag of spanners.

 

Chassis design and motor design has evolved over the years - but not always for the better. Sometimes changes are made to reduce costs rather than increase benefits. Taking the traditional Hornby tender engine as an example, the motor has changed a number of times, it has moved back and forth between loco and tender, weighting has been changed, pick-ups changed.

 

Some of the best running RTR steam locos are the Bachmann split-chassis jobs, which are now being replaced by 'conventional' chassis.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I then tried a later issue Bachmann "Dean Goods"...

You've got the only one, it's a collectors item. Doesn't matter how it runs, it's RARE...

 

Overall, I have not the slightest doubt that the trend in RTR OO chassis running qualities in premium model introductions is one of improvement. The gradual phase out of ringpiece 'coffegrinder', openframe 'foodmixer', direct metal worm drive onto axle gear 'wow-wow', and split chassis 'disintegrator', mechanisms; for efficient and more closely toleranced can motors, (some with flywheels) with multistage plastic spur gear train mechanisms is largely responsible. When it is considered that the chassis appearance has also in general leapt forward with most of the significant visible tackle represented, the progress over the best of earlier generations of offerings is very clear.

 

Thankfully it isn't coming at the cost of robustness either. The earliest of the 'new better standard' mechanisms in steam loco models that I possess are Bachmann's WD's. Now past ten years in regular trouble free service and well upweighted for traction purposes to about 450g, I would back this to exceed in running quality any pre-1999 OO steam production. It does require regular lubrication of all the rod pins, especially in consideration of the increased weight. It is even more marked with the oldest centre motor mechanisms I have, now nearing 20 years old in service, and able to see off anything ever produced in OO with a motor boggart for low speed smoothness, quietness, traction; and effectively maintenance free, it has required nothing done to it.

 

This general improvement has filtered down to the mid-fi and trainset chassis too, which are now improved over past offerings.

[iL Dottore]

You've got the only one, it's a collectors item. Doesn't matter how it runs, it's RARE...

Oops, I think I should have written "Collett Goods" for the Bachmann model. Just goes to show I should have properly noted down what I actually tested...

 

However, the observations remain the same, newer IS better and *34,,,B&D" explanation supports this conclusion (it's so nice to have theory match the data

[Guest dilbert]

The first loco tested was an old Mainline Railways "Dean Goods" circa 1982; and on the RR, even at low power, it lurched around from side to side like a drunken sailor - at times threatening to throw itself off when at speed (thanks to those nice blokes at Comet, I have a replacement chassis for it, thank goodness)

 

I then tried a later issue Bachmann "Dean Goods", which whilst much smoother, still wobbled at speed and thus I'm wondering how old it is (pre 2000?)

 

 

...the best runner was Hornby's rather aged 14XX, smooth, quiet and responsive...

 

Re. 'the Deans 0-6-0'... are you sure you are comparing the same loco to Bachmann? The Airfix 'Deans 0-6-0' got passed to Mainline. It then went onto Dapol only to finally end up with Hornby.

 

Bachmann inherited the Mainline 'Collet 0-6-0' via the Replica route. There was a legal spat in the mid 80s between Dapol and Replica about ownership of tooling which Replica eventually won (essentially all Mainline original tooling was owned by Kader in China).

 

Back on subject ...

 

1 - Bachmann have two 'Collett Goods' type models - the first issued by Bachmann (circa 91/92) was from the original Mainline tooling. The second reflects modifications that were made to take this loco into the Blue Riband category - there is no doubt that the latter is a better performer.

 

2 - The Hornby 14xx is also a product of the original Airfix tooling. I'm not sure whether Dapol made any enhancement(s) to the original, but the Hornby model I have is equipped with that horror called 'traction tyres' which tells you there is a haulage capacity problem somewhere..

 

Rolling Roads are great for running-in locos and also for isolating specific issues. I think a lot depends on what you expect of your model locos - by removing the tractions tyres from the 14xx, it will cater OK for one or two autocoaches (like the prototype), but then you'll need at least a circle of track to appreciate the performance aspects of any loco... dilbert

[Allegheny1600]

Not just the quality of the chassis that's improved but the roundness of the wheels, too!

Cheers,

John E.

[newbryford]

I would concur that the average UK RTR chassis has improved over the years - certainly from a diesel modeller's point of view with just the simple addition of extra pickups fitted from new. Never mind all wheel drive, flywheels and great diecast lumps for the chassis.

 

Although one of the smoothest locos I ever had was an Airfix 31 which copied the design of motor bogie from Triang stuff from the early 60's..............

 

However, one of the roughest locos I ever had was an Airfix 31 which copied the design of motor bogie from Triang stuff from the early 60's..............

 

 

Mick

[298]

Some locos just don't store at all well, the Athearn "Blue Box" that gave so many OO modellers a taste of proper running qualities when compared to their usual pancake and rusty steel weight chassis can corrode at many of the contacts and have to have a proper overhaul or rebuild to see service again.

 

As for general chassis improvements, apart from the accepted norm changing from one of these pancakes to a centrally mounted motor with all-wheel pickup, more weight, and no traction tyres (hopefully), surely one of the driving forces is production cost in China and parts availability...? For example, the Bachmann US 44ton switcher used to have two independant motor bogies swivelling on a cast frame, now it has a single centrally mounted one and is all the better for it.

[APOLLO]

I find that all my new diesel models are superb runners (Heljan Kestrel / 47, Bachmann Peak / 47 / 25 etc) - simply superb, haulage, slow running, detail etc. All have adequate weight, twin bogie multi-wheel pick up & drive. They run rings round the "old stuff"

 

Steam locos are a different matter. Dissapointed with my £100 Bachman GC 2-8-0, won't pull the skin off a rice pudding though runs well. Some fairly new Hornby / Bachman steam locos "waggle" along slightly. My old triang locos don't waggle, though are noisy, but dependable.

 

My best runner is an old 1964 Hornby Dublo 2 rail "City of London" - lovely loco, will pull 15+ Bachman Mk1's without fuss.

 

Bachman / Hornby - Please add WEIGHT to your steam locos (The Bachy 9F & WD are OK - why aren't the rest ?).

 

Brit15

[TheSignalEngineer]

 

However, one of the roughest locos I ever had was an Airfix 31 which copied the design of motor bogie from Triang stuff from the early 60's..............

 

 

Mick

Mine made nearly as much noise as the prototype. No need for a sound chip, you could hear it 3 rooms away.

[Jenny Emily]

 

My best runner is an old 1964 Hornby Dublo 2 rail "City of London" - lovely loco, will pull 15+ Bachman Mk1's without fuss.

 

 

One of the smoothest and most reliable locomotives that I have is a Hornby Dublo N2 #69550 in BR black. It must be of mid 1960s vintage and still runs sweetly without drawing a lot of current (which is unusual for locomotives of this age). By comparison I've had disappointing performance out of several Bachmann Panniers that must be over forty years younger than the N2.

 

Most of the new locomotives I do have though I must admit are pretty good. The only lemons I have are a couple of retired Mainline 03s and some early Bachmann Panniers. I also have an 04 that leaves a lot to be desired, and two others on the same chassis that run really well.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Bachmann / Hornby - Please add WEIGHT to your steam locos (The Bachy 9F & WD are OK - why aren't the rest ?).

The premium steam models introduced over the past dozen years are better all around as a package than what went before, but far from perfect. The two big deficiencies that affect performance are insufficient weight (largely affecting larger tender locos) and I am rather disappointed in Bachmann increasingly not fitting sprung driven axles on their most recent introductions.

 

The WD was a pleasant surprise when released, two out of four axles sprung, either side of the gear driven axle. that gave me the confidence to add weight, as the springs can be beefed up so that all the added weight is on the sprung axles, no acclerated wear on the gear axle. I think the last release with a sprung driven axle was the 9F, just one axle.

 

Weight wise, of big engines the stars are Hornby's Britannia and Clan, and Bachmann's 9F already mentioned. Most pacifics, larger 4-6-0 and 2-8-0 types are seriously lacking in weight.

 

(Specific to the ROD/O4, very easy to modify the weighting. The smokebox boiler and cab unit comes off the metal footplate as a single piece after three underside screws are removed. A single screw on the boiler underside holds the ballast weight in. Remove that, and fill the resulting void with lead. Plenty of grunt for iits 7F rating.)

[D605Eagle]

You might find this a little hard to believe, but one of my very best running locos (out of more than 200) is an old Hornby tender drive A4 "Gloden Eagle" in LNER green. Its not quite bog standard though, it has D49 drive wheels which are all the same size instead of that horrid skinny centre wheel, extra pickups, a worked over ringfiled motor with romford tophat bearings reamed out to 2.4mm, the motor cover is screwed on instead of flopping around on plastic clips, and all the slop taken up on the drivetrain and on the axles. It runs smoothly, and almost silently, its only fault is its a bit coggy at very low speeds. Why didn't Hornby build them like that???

Unlike the OP post, one of my worst runners is a Hornby 14xx. Despite getting rid of the traction tyres, I've never managed to stop it limping. Its almost like the chassis is not square.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

That cost down motor dates from the Hornby and Lima death spiral competition to see which company could foist the nastiest motor on the OO buying puiblic and still get the sales results.

 

The basis of Hornby's ringfield motor drive in bogies and tenders was a Fleischmann design. These motors as first used by Hornby in the 'Silver Seal' products with all three axles driven, a metal motor body casting with screw attached brass coverplate, were to a better standard than Hornby's previous open frame motor with direct worm drives onto axle gears. A couple that I had are still in service successfully powering a class 47 on a friend's layout. Had Hornby simply maintained this standard, all would have been relatively better; but they went through repeated cycles of nibbles at build cost, and consequently the quality of the motors running capability. My private interpretation: in order to 'catch down' with Lima. Lima having proved that awful motors were no bar to strong sales to Tractor and Duff heads, Hornby must have realised they could get away with it....

[ian]

Don't forget that many model locos never turn a wheel, being confined to display cabinets (or even their boxes). Then there are the ones that are used for 'train set' style operation, highish speeds, short trains. Cheap motors are not a problem to those market segments.