Hornby P2

[micklner]

More detail added to Smokebox.
Handles, new Handrail to top of box, extra Handrail to side deflector and Lampiron. Spencer Metal Buffers and Screw Coupling added to the buffer beam.

 

What has surprised me is the Tender.

 

Did C of N have a lower Tender height than the standard Pacific version ? Compared with a decent detailed Hornby Pacific Tender to the C of N version shows a huge difference in the height of the fairing . I haven't got the RCTS book for the P2 and Yeadon doesn't have a decent side on photo of C of N and doesn't mention anything relating to its Tender. The streamlined P2's had the normal height of Tender as can be seen in other photos therein.

[Andy Hayter]

Do locomotion normally take.long to dispatch? I ordered Friday evening and payment has been taken.

I ordered on a Saturday evening and received the parcel the following Thursday in France.  If you ordered Friday evening I could well imagine that nothing would happen until Monday in terms of dispatch.

[Bon Accord]

More detail added to Smokebox.

Handles, new Handrail to top of box, extra Handrail to side deflector and Lampiron. Spencer Metal Buffers and Screw Coupling added to the buffer beam.

 

IMG_6570.jpg

What has surprised me is the Tender.

 

IMG_6577.jpg

 

Did C of N have a lower Tender height than the standard Pacific version ? Compared with a decent detailed Hornby Pacific Tender to the C of N version shows a huge difference in the height of the fairing . I haven't got the RCTS book for the P2 and Yeadon doesn't have a decent side on photo of C of N and doesn't mention anything relating to its Tender. The streamlined P2's had the normal height of Tender as can be seen in other photos therein.

 

Just had a quick look at some photos and yes, it does appear that 2001s tender is slighty shorter at the top compared to 2003.

[LocomotionatShildon]

Hi guys

If you order after 2pm orders are dispatched next day. Quite a few parcels went out today so you should have it tomorrow. Sometimes uk mail deliver really early - like 7am !

[micklner]

Just had a quick look at some photos and yes, it does appear that 2001s tender is slighty shorter at the top compared to 2003.

Thanks, but I wouldn't call this slightly shorter !!

 

 

A look at the LH Loveless O gauge version on their webpage shows a Streamlined version still pulling a lower fairing version. I will probably do a repaint and extra detail job on the Hornby version in due course.

Edited October 6, 2014 by micklner

[mikesndbs]

Hi guys

 

OK, been investigating my Cock O' and decided to take the body off and check out the motor.

Was almost hoping it would not be the 'basic' one I found.

 

Discovered the worm was dry so lubricated that with gear lube. Also put a drop of light oil on the back bearing of the motor where the flywheel is.

I'd imagine the extra pressure of the fly wheel at this bearing is something to watch out for?

Re assembled and tested and while there was a tiny improvement it still jumps into action instead of smoothly starting off.

 

I can get it to run nice but that requires my feedback controller, which to be honest I don't like to use.

 

Made a short video of my findings and will post here later.

 

How many of you are seeing this issue?

 

One thing I did find was that the motor seems to be a right bu88er to get out. 

Gave up to be honest.

Found a small clip at the rear with two small screws, very lose anyway and won't do up.

Anyone removed the motor so far to check it out?

 

I love this engine but feel very cheated by the rubbish motor fitted.

 

 

http://youtu.be/UdBYbiOTx5A Thought this might show a way to make it better, sadly not really but at least you can see what I mean

Edited October 6, 2014 by mikesndbs

[mikesndbs]

I'm not dcc  just operating analogue. I get the point on the above motor being cheap, but for me its doing the job so far. A little concerned now that it wont last long , but we will just need to wait and see .  It maybe is a bit noisier than my latest Bachmann models, but to be honest theres not that much of a difference. I have noticed the jerk into life, but it is at relatively slow speed . For me its still miles ahead of the old tender drive locos

 

Respect your opinion but what you say there is that its better than 1980s models, should be really!

[Steffi_C]

 

Did C of N have a lower Tender height than the standard Pacific version ? Compared with a decent detailed Hornby Pacific Tender to the C of N version shows a huge difference in the height of the fairing . I haven't got the RCTS book for the P2 and Yeadon doesn't have a decent side on photo of C of N and doesn't mention anything relating to its Tender. The streamlined P2's had the normal height of Tender as can be seen in other photos therein.

 

The Hornby tender looks an absolute match for the one pictured on page 5 of Yeadon.

[Bernard Lamb]

 

 

I love this engine but feel very cheated by the rubbish motor fitted.

You only had to look at the price when it was first announced to see that it was not going to be a full spec model, but was going to be held down to a price some way between Railroad and what we have come to know and love these past few years. That means quite a few corners had to be cut, including the motor.

Hardly amounts to being cheated.

I know I repeat myself, but I do wish that Hornby had not gone down this road.

Having spent upwards of £30 and several hours on it and seeing more problems every time I look at it, I am having second thoughts about the value of what they have produced.

That rear of the tender picture shows it all to well. Probably be better to start with a new body.

Bernard

Bernard

[edcayton]

Why would Hornby make a new, incorrect, tender just for CotN when they already have a selection of LNER 8 wheel tenders to choose from?

 

Ed

[mikesndbs]

You only had to look at the price when it was first announced to see that it was not going to be a full spec model, but was going to be held down to a price some way between Railroad and what we have come to know and love these past few years. That means quite a few corners had to be cut, including the motor.

Hardly amounts to being cheated.

I know I repeat myself, but I do wish that Hornby had not gone down this road.

Having spent upwards of £30 and several hours on it and seeing more problems every time I look at it, I am having second thoughts about the value of what they have produced.

That rear of the tender picture shows it all to well. Probably be better to start with a new body.

Bernard

Bernard

 

See, I am basically just a bit silly or must be.

I see a product I like, can I afford it, yes/no and then I either buy it or wish I could.

 

What I don't do is analise the situation to determine if something will be any good.

 

Hornby say its a long life motor, one bit of paper says three pole another says five.

 

I based this purchase on what I have come to expect from model manufacturers these days.

They reap the benefits of dirt cheap labour and materials and produce things we could never have dreamed of in the not too distant past.

 

But, setting aside the imitation plastic valve gear, this motor is a insult to anyone who shells out over £100 of their hard earned cash.

A proper motor should have been fitted.

Bachmann seem able to do it, and Hornby have done it in the past for around the same money.

 

I don't get the mind set behind this at all, make a very nice model that loads of us want, hype it up, sell it at £130 mark and fit a £1.50 motor to it!!!!!

 

I really hope this is not Hornby's plan for the future?

 

Still love it, but still feel cheated. 

 

 

Here is the issue and what I tried 

Edited October 6, 2014 by mikesndbs

[DaveyBfromG]

Hi everyone,

Took the body off of my own CotN....Then it struck me!

A few minutes after regaining conciousness, I decided to take the ollowing action...REPLACE THE MOTOR. Not for the faint hearted but here's what I did....

Seperate the tender from the loco. Remove the strip of black tape holding the grey and black wires on the top of the chassis...they sit in a groove.  just ease them away from the chassis. Unscrew the dcc 8 pin block setting aside the screws, ease the dcc plate up, DO NOT PULL THROUGH THE GREY AND BLACK WIRES THAT RUN DOWN TO THE BASE OF THE CHASSIS. Unscrew the top weight which also acts as the motor retainer above the gearing and worm screw, pull forward and gently lift, but don't seperate it from the chassis...this is only so you may access the motor. Remove the retaining plate at the back of the motor just in front of the flywheel.   Now, ease the motor up and out including the attached worm gear and flywheel.  De-solder the motor connections.

Now solder on a X9108 Hornby King 5-pole motor. This motor comes with the same size wormgear and it simply locks down in place.

NO FLYWHEEL NEEDED.

Reverse fit all the steps previously taken......Test, then plonk the body back on......SWEET!

 

I don't know whether this procedure would work with TTS as it's possible the Decoder was programmed with the 3-pole characteristics, but good luck for any-one prepared to try. And yes,I know it's a £20 motor, but perhaps it's what we should have got in the first place.

 

Hope this helps,Dave.

[micklner]

Why would Hornby make a new, incorrect, tender just for CotN when they already have a selection of LNER 8 wheel tenders to choose from?

 

Ed

Mistakes can and do happen and it would appear that the Hornby version the  is correct height and my suspicions were incorrect . Hornby did not have a Tender for C of N as its Tender has lower fairings.

 

What  they shouldn't have done is dumbed it down as they have . The moulded handrails and the really awful moulded Tender front detail for the sake of a few pounds is a really pathetic decision. It doesn't help that the got the rear lining miles too high as well (see my photo above).

Mine will get a repaint ,proper handrails and front detail added . The only problem is Hornby used a darker than normal Apple Green for this Loco.

 

The only good thing is the actual Loco is much better detailed than the Tender and the Cab Handrail are nowhere as noticeable as the ones on the Tender.

[WD0-6-0]

If the Bachmann split chassis motors are going to be an improvement over the one fitted then I have a V1 in horrendous condition that could donate it's motor to my P2 if the fitted one plays up.

Rhys

[mikesndbs]

Hi everyone,

Took the body off of my own CotN....Then it struck me!

A few minutes after regaining conciousness, I decided to take the ollowing action...REPLACE THE MOTOR. Not for the faint hearted but here's what I did....

Seperate the tender from the loco. Remove the strip of black tape holding the grey and black wires on the top of the chassis...they sit in a groove.  just ease them away from the chassis. Unscrew the dcc 8 pin block setting aside the screws, ease the dcc plate up, DO NOT PULL THROUGH THE GREY AND BLACK WIRES THAT RUN DOWN TO THE BASE OF THE CHASSIS. Unscrew the top weight which also acts as the motor retainer above the gearing and worm screw, pull forward and gently lift, but don't seperate it from the chassis...this is only so you may access the motor. Remove the retaining plate at the back of the motor just in front of the flywheel.   Now, ease the motor up and out including the attached worm gear and flywheel.  De-solder the motor connections.

Now solder on a X9108 Hornby King 5-pole motor. This motor comes with the same size wormgear and it simply locks down in place.

NO FLYWHEEL NEEDED.

Reverse fit all the steps previously taken......Test, then plonk the body back on......SWEET!

 

I don't know whether this procedure would work with TTS as it's possible the Decoder was programmed with the 3-pole characteristics, but good luck for any-one prepared to try. And yes,I know it's a £20 motor, but perhaps it's what we should have got in the first place.

 

Hope this helps,Dave.

 

 

Hey Dave

 

That sounds like the answer! how does yours run now, you say sweet?

 

Great guide.

[3737]

My P2 also has problems and I have emailed Hattons for a solution.

 

It happens when she starts running, especially in forward direction, although backwards she isn't exactly a slow starter as well.

 

Most of the time the motor starts humming before she moves forward at a jerk. I have had her run in for a couple of hours (so long, because this behaviour didn't stop) and then inserted a TCS decoder.

When I let her start at speed step 16 of 128, the motor started humming and off she went at speed, and after a second or two she calmed down and continues at the right speed.

 

 

Now she does indeed start at speed step 1 of 128, and backwards she behaves approximately correctly, in fact she is shuddering backwards, but what can you expect with a 3-pole motor? In speed step 2 she moves slowly and approximately like she ought to. However when moving forward in step 1 she repeatedly takes a run as if it were in step 16, then almost stops, then starts again etc. I have checked the valve gear and it is not binding. I am now almost sure it must be the motor that is the culprit.

 

Whilst composing this message, DaveBfromG came up with the solution so I promptly ordered a X9108 King motor, which presumably is a much better quality motor anyway.

 

Thanks Dave, this is what I was hoping for.

 

Leen.

Edited October 6, 2014 by 3737

[DaveyBfromG]

_{Yes,  the word sweet was chose deliberately....I only made these changes a few hours ago,so I want to 'run in' the new motor...but what I've seen so far I'm VERY HAPPY with.}

 

_{I'm sold on sound ....and I needed to do something about the gowd damn racket from that 3-pole before I put a full fat sound chip in.}

[mikesndbs]

Just ordered my new motor, £20 well spent.

Wonder if I can reclaim it off Hornby? 

[JSpencer]

See, I am basically just a bit silly or must be.

I see a product I like, can I afford it, yes/no and then I either buy it or wish I could.

 

What I don't do is analise the situation to determine if something will be any good.

 

Hornby say its a long life motor, one bit of paper says three pole another says five.

 

I based this purchase on what I have come to expect from model manufacturers these days.

They reap the benefits of dirt cheap labour and materials and produce things we could never have dreamed of in the not too distant past.

 

But, setting aside the imitation plastic valve gear, this motor is a insult to anyone who shells out over £100 of their hard earned cash.

A proper motor should have been fitted.

Bachmann seem able to do it, and Hornby have done it in the past for around the same money.

 

I don't get the mind set behind this at all, make a very nice model that loads of us want, hype it up, sell it at £130 mark and fit a £1.50 motor to it!!!!!

 

I really hope this is not Hornby's plan for the future?

 

Still love it, but still feel cheated.

 

 

Here is the issue and what I tried

Has the model been run in? It took me 2 months before I got my Duke to run as I wanted. Going from full speed to stop after suddenly cutting out the power takes about a foot.

 

The motor is only held in by the two screws at the back. Remove these, and tape covering wires at front, and the whole motor lifts off complete with the top of the gear housing. This will allow you to oil the gear train underneath ( in fact the gear below the worm lifts out as well).

 

I have a smokey Joe from when I was a kid that must be about 30 years old now. It is a slow runner and former shadow of its self. Not that I run much these days, only for nostalgia (I kept all my models from a kid).

Edited October 6, 2014 by JSpencer

[mikesndbs]

Has the model been run in? It took me 2 months before I got my Duke to run as I wanted. Going from full speed to stop after suddenly cutting out the power takes about a foot.

 

The motor is only held in by the two screws at the back. Remove these, and tape covering wires at front, and the whole motor lifts off complete with the top of the gear housing. This will allow you to oil the gear train underneath ( in fact the gear below the worm lifts out as well).

 

I have a smokey Joe from when I was a kid that must be about 30 years old now. It is a slow runner and former shadow of its self. Not that I run much these days, only for nostalgia (I kept all my models from a kid).

 

Oh yeah, got to keep all the original models! Still have my first two, Triang L1 and Pannier tank, bit like Triggers broom to be honest but they are still the same engine

Yes we have a Smokey Joe and yes he is quite smooth, but! he pulls maybe six or seven waggons and not at any great speed.

Where as this P2 is supposed to be a express capable of pulling vast loads at speed.

I really think that with 2 months running in this current motor may be run out LOL

 

Once my new motor comes I'll share the results, but it has to be 100 times better than what it has now

[The Black Hat]

Well if anyone is wanting a spare tender, the one thats on the "Eleventh Earl of Mar" is intending to be changed.....

[DaveyBfromG]

Just as a footnote, when you use the new 'King' motor, CAREFULLY bend the motor bottom solder tab upwards so it won't short on the lower chassis. And, as noted previously, when putting the body back on make sure you don't bend/catch this part of the motor.

Also just realised that the gaping chasm previously occupied by the flywheel may have enogh space to put the full-fat ESU sound decoder....then you can use the whole of the tender for the speaker......A later project.

 

Dave.

[mikesndbs]

Just as a footnote, when you use the new 'King' motor, CAREFULLY bend the motor bottom solder tab upwards so it won't short on the lower chassis. And, as noted previously, when putting the body back on make sure you don't bend/catch this part of the motor.

Also just realised that the gaping chasm previously occupied by the flywheel may have enogh space to put the full-fat ESU sound decoder....then you can use the whole of the tender for the speaker......A later project.

 

Dave.

 

Hi Dave

 

Do you have a photo of the new motor in place?

[Dominion]

I had the same issue of the P2 running nicely after an initial start but that initial start needed too much voltage to get going.

 

This was true on DC or DCC. I had already run the loco in on DC before fitting a  chip. I eventually found a set of CVs on DCC that improved matters, but not sufficient for a nice slow start.

 

I disassembled the loco and traced it back to the motor itself, even outside the chassis. The magnets seemed quite strong or "notchy" turning the flywheel by finger, and so it took some oomph to get the motor to start turning. Watching videos of others P2s running without the problem made me think that there was a problem with my motor.  My retailer very obligingly got a replacement P2 motor for me X6644 and sent it to me in Canada, so you can tell their service was very fast. That motor turns by finger more easily between the magnets. Once installed it has cured the original problem, in that the loco now starts perfectly smoothly. (It always ran smoothly once it got going).

 

So one thing fixed.  However this motor is very noisy, much more noisy than the first motor.

So my current conclusion (forgive the pun) is that there is just production variability in those motors. 

I am not sure where I will go from here. Smooth starting and quiet would be the objective.

 

Overall I still can't believe my luck that Hornby produced a P2 and I am still very happy with it it overall. I would happily have paid a bit more for some upgrades, but I figure that their hope for volume from the railroad end of the market is the only way that I ever got to have a RTR P2.  I am quite happy with that.  The quest for a smooth quiet motor will continue however.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Dominion

[WD0-6-0]

Just read that X9108 is also the motor used in the railroad patriot model and what do I have tucked away at the back of my incredibly cluttered desk? Non other than a Hornby patriot, out with the screw drivers and yes the motor does appear to be X9108. If my P2s motor is an issue then it'll be swapping motors with the patriot as I'd rather have the P2 running well than the patriot.

Worth getting out of bed for.

Rhys