Hornby P2

[Fireline]

The loco will run, but the sound will NOT work.

[gr.king]

'Tis only an unsubstantiated theory, but drawing on experience with a very notchy Ringfield tender drive motor some years ago, I wonder if insufficient assembly consistency regarding the exact location of the pole pieces is causing the problems in these motors? Magnetic field intensity varies dramatically with distance from the magnet. If the pole pieces are marginally too close to the armature the motor will be very notchy. Unless anybody fancies pulling a can apart and fiddling with the assembly then there's not much that can be done. Deliberately dropping the motor on a hard surface a few times might weaken the magnets enough to get smoother starting but power would then suffer too. I had far more joy with the old Ringfield whose size and "open" construction allowed me to back the magnets away from the armature slightly giving much better running - well, er, better for a Ringfield anyway!

[Sir Topham Hatt]

Dominiom - was it you that Peters spares spoke to me of, a customer in Canada?  If so, they would like your feedback when the 5 pole is fitted.

 

The can itself is easy to open, just two weak looking tabs, but to pull it apart you will need to remove the worm and if that's as difficult as the flywheel to get off then it could be a problem.  I have a pinion puller for slot cars but their shafts are fatter.  The suggestion of dropping the can to weaken the magnets is worth a try though - a trick I'd forgotten all about, thanks.  Yes, it will weaken the torque of the motor but I'm not planning to pull a rake of more than 4/5 coaches on my layout and the new 'weaker' motor pulls 6 or more with ease.  BTW, I think Peter's spares sells spare P2 cans for around £7-8 +p&p with pinion/fly wheel attached so replacement costs are low when they wear out.  A 'King' motor was about £11 I think.

 

Today's mini project?  Having double checked the back to back on the P2 tender it still bobs around so I thin I'll try a little ballast!

[Dominion]

'Tis only an unsubstantiated theory, but drawing on experience with a very notchy Ringfield tender drive motor some years ago, I wonder if insufficient assembly consistency regarding the exact location of the pole pieces is causing the problems in these motors? Magnetic field intensity varies dramatically with distance from the magnet. If the pole pieces are marginally too close to the armature the motor will be very notchy. Unless anybody fancies pulling a can apart and fiddling with the assembly then there's not much that can be done. Deliberately dropping the motor on a hard surface a few times might weaken the magnets enough to get smoother starting but power would then suffer too. I had far more joy with the old Ringfield whose size and "open" construction allowed me to back the magnets away from the armature slightly giving much better running - well, er, better for a Ringfield anyway!

Yes, that is my hypothesis too. When turning the shaft by finger it is clearly only every second notch that is strong in a revolution of 6 notches and as I believe there are 2 magnets and 3 poles that suggests to me the location or strength of one of the magnets. I would guess location rather than strength. I can imagine for instance that a magnet not fully seated in or if they are glued, perhaps with too much glue behind it would end up a little too close to the pole creating a stronger magnetic pull. Guessing only as I have not opened the can ... which would not be full of worms, that is on the outside :-)

[Dominion]

Dominiom - was it you that Peters spares spoke to me of, a customer in Canada?  If so, they would like your feedback when the 5 pole is fitted.

 

The can itself is easy to open, just two weak looking tabs, but to pull it apart you will need to remove the worm and if that's as difficult as the flywheel to get off then it could be a problem.  I have a pinion puller for slot cars but their shafts are fatter.  The suggestion of dropping the can to weaken the magnets is worth a try though - a trick I'd forgotten all about, thanks.  Yes, it will weaken the torque of the motor but I'm not planning to pull a rake of more than 4/5 coaches on my layout and the new 'weaker' motor pulls 6 or more with ease.  BTW, I think Peter's spares sells spare P2 cans for around £7-8 +p&p with pinion/fly wheel attached so replacement costs are low when they wear out.  A 'King' motor was about £11 I think.

 

Today's mini project?  Having double checked the back to back on the P2 tender it still bobs around so I thin I'll try a little ballast!

Yes it was.

 

The x9108 is in the chassis now. Thanks for the early posters advice and sharing.

 

It was not a drop in fit for me. It was too long. It measured 0.1mm longer that the P2 motor which was already a tight fit in the chassis.

I first scraped the paint from the back of the can as I knew I could get a consistent thickness removed there, and it was easy. That was insufficient.

So like the earlier poster I then filed a little off the front housing of the motor. That was relatively easy too.

 

The loco runs nicely now.

The starting is smooth. The sound is different too. I think a little quieter and perhaps slightly lower pitch.

I am wondering if there may be a little tightness introduced somewhere from the sound, so I will remove a little more material and see if it perhaps alters the meshing of the worm and the top drive gear, or relieves some other introduced stress perhaps.

 

Incidentally when re-securing the metal block that carries the DDC socket and locks the front of the motor in place, there is a lot of potential lateral movement possible at the front, so just be careful to position it centrally when re-tightening the screw, (as well as not trapping the wires as referred to by an earlier poster.)

 

The down slide is that this motor does not have a flywheel, and one is conscious that the original did, so you think you notice its loss at extremely slow speed. 

 

So my current thinking is that the X9108 is a perfectly reasonable change to make, and I will leave the 5 pole in the chassis now that it's bought and paid for.

But I was also happy with the third P2 motor that worked, the loco starting smoothly, ran slowly very well, and performed well with great haulage capacity.

 

So if you are lucky enough to have a good original P2 3 pole motor and flywheel then I would leave it as is. (That is the situation with my second chassis)

If you have a 3 pole motor with an issue and someone offers you a replacement P2 motor for free, that is certainly worth a try and will probably be really good.

 

For Hornby, I don't think the decision to spec a 3 pole and flywheel was necessarily a bad one, as there are many examples of P2s out there that work very well. I would say the issue is variability and tolerance in the can, and that should be relatively easy to rectify at their motor supplier, and or for Hornby to test before fitting in the chassis. 

 

Hope this "journal entry" is helpful.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Dominion

[vcltel]

My P2 is the enhanced  but not the sound version.  I put it on my rolling road and ran it with no trouble at higher revs but like everyone else's it seems to jump away at low voltages.  It had about 45 minutes running on the rolling road before being taken to the club and it ran round Hillandale for about another 1/2 hour towing a miserable five old type Hornby Gresley teaks with no problem.   I think that when it's had a little more running I'll try it with a really  long rake and see how it looks.  I must say it looks great going through the scenery and I'm not complaining about the overall quality.  As I tend to run  them the packet of fiddly bits is in  a drawer and will stay there.  My kit earns its living by running round various layouts, not sitting in a glass case.

With regard to the motor, it contrasts badly with the quality of motor/flywheel assemblies fitted to my Kato HO American stock. They are smooth as silk and powerful too; I've towed 50+ freight cars with no problem.  Perhaps fitting a Kato motor assembly would be an even better bet.

[mikesndbs]

New motor arrived from Hornby, maybe 90% better than the first but still not where near as good as the Hornby 5 pole that I fitted.

I'll keep this as a spare I think.

 

Very interesting topic. 

[Coldgunner]

I'm a bit reluctant to open mine, is there anyone kind enough to do a quick photo guide for the motor replacement? I'd like a better motor in mine, but I've no confidence to do it.

[mikesndbs]

I'm a bit reluctant to open mine, is there anyone kind enough to do a quick photo guide for the motor replacement? I'd like a better motor in mine, but I've no confidence to do it.

 

Hi, I did it over two videos that should cover it all.

 

 

[Coldgunner]

I just fired up my TTS on the rolling road, it sounds like the speaker has conked out!

 

Attached was recorded on my phone, a little quiet but accurate to the ear.

TTS blown speaker.mp3

Edited October 25, 2014 by Coldgunner

[Dominion]

Yes, I think you are correct. I have had a speaker in the past that sounded just like that and it turned out the black delicate face (I think called the cone) had a 1cm long crease in it.  Thats good news in a way, easier to replace than the chip !

[Coldgunner]

I've emailed Hornby, I'm going to see what they say. If they want me to send it back, I think I'd be better off taking the opportunity to fit a better aftermarket speaker rather than like for like.

[melmerby]

Has anybody checked to see whether an alternative non-Hornby motor might fit?

The one fitted looks about the same size as a Mashima 1620

 

e.g. Are the shafts the same diameter?

 

My P2 is slowly improving, running wise so I wonder whetehr it will eventually be acceptable (just before the motor reaches the end of it's life? )

 

Cheers

 

Keith

[Bywell Burner]

Just been in touch with Hornby by phone this morning, they asked me to change CV 151 to 255, CV 152 to 1, and this has improved the acceleration during start up no end and now much smoother but still slight stuttering but much improved and runs altogether better well worth a try for others with similar problems. Motor still slightly noisy but hoping will quieten down as it runs in more, has anyone else found improvements as the motor runs in.

[Dominion]

Yes, on my TTS it was juddering very badly, on all the settings I tried.

The judder happens during acceleration an deceleration.

 

This P2 works well and smoothly with a non TTS chip in the tender.

Hornby gave me the same settings to try.

CV150=0

CV151=255

CV152=1

It is worth a try, and it is better than it was, but not good yet.

I hope to hear again from them tomorrow.

[JSpencer]

Confirm my TTS judders like a percussion drill during acceleration.

 

With a loksound it is very smooth.

[Dominion]

That was a fair description of myTTS. I made small plastic bushings for both ends of the draw bar so at least the percussion effect is mitigated.

 

I didn't have any polystyrene tube with the correct outside diameter, but I found a biro and cut 2 short spacers from the end of the ink tube, and drilled out the inside to just fit over the shoulder between the screw head and the screw thread. But it is only reducing one symptom of the underlying motor control issue.

[GNR Dave]

Just been looking at archive footage and stills of COTN, and it seems to me that the handrail along the boiler is green, not silver / steel / chrome as on the upgraded Hornby offerings. The reason it looks lighter than the body colour is because being a curved surface, it has a highlight from the sun / sky. In a close-up shot from the front where the rail is vertical, it seems to be the same colour as the smoke deflector behind. It wasn't common for LNER locos to have natural metal handrails, especially the apple green ones.

 Quite happy to be proved wrong here, but in a way, the green hand rail on the railroad version looks the more realistic to my eye.

[Mike70]

Just been looking at archive footage and stills of COTN, and it seems to me that the handrail along the boiler is green, not silver / steel / chrome as on the upgraded Hornby offerings. The reason it looks lighter than the body colour is because being a curved surface, it has a highlight from the sun / sky. In a close-up shot from the front where the rail is vertical, it seems to be the same colour as the smoke deflector behind. It wasn't common for LNER locos to have natural metal handrails, especially the apple green ones.

 Quite happy to be proved wrong here, but in a way, the green hand rail on the railroad version looks the more realistic to my eye.

 

The photo below suggests they were chrome/stainless steel.

 

http://d240vprofozpi.cloudfront.net/locos/P/p2_cockothenorth.gif

 

Maybe they were chrome/stainless steel ex-works, then painted green at a subsequent works visit.

 

Mike70.

[Lost Johnny]

Has anyone else felt disappointed by the standard of detail on the new R3207 super detail P2? Personally, I feel that it is just the railroad version with a little extra paint. A very nice model, but only really up to the final Margate standards with the level of detailing.

[micklner]

The photo below suggests they were chrome/stainless steel.

 

http://d240vprofozpi.cloudfront.net/locos/P/p2_cockothenorth.gif

 

Maybe they were chrome/stainless steel ex-works, then painted green at a subsequent works visit.

 

Mike70.

Probably brand new/ being used for a presentation, even the screw coupling is polished.

Handrails on LNER Green Locos were normally painted to match the boiler , Smokebox areas etc. I expect Cof N would have had painted handrails in normal use.

Due to Hornby moulding the Cab and Tender Handrails (what a poor decision) the Loco looks much better with them in Silver, it takes the eyes away from the missing daylight behind the moulded Handrails.

[Mike70]

Has anyone else felt disappointed by the standard of detail on the new R3207 super detail P2? Personally, I feel that it is just the railroad version with a little extra paint. A very nice model, but only really up to the final Margate standards with the level of detailing.

 

It's not up to the standard of an A3 or an A4.  But in fairness it is not the same price as an A3 or an A4 either.

 

I'd have been happy paying a bit extra for more detail (valves), a better motor and tender pick ups.

[edcayton]

Has anyone else felt disappointed by the standard of detail on the new R3207 super detail P2? Personally, I feel that it is just the railroad version with a little extra paint. A very nice model, but only really up to the final Margate standards with the level of detailing.

 

I paid for the extra lining etc. It is by no means the bargain that the RR version is, but I couldn't have done it and I suspect it would have cost a lot more to pay someone to do it. Mine seems to run OK on a test track but I am concerned by the motor issues. I also think tender pick-ups should be fitted. Are the ones on the sound version just for the sound?

 

Ed

[Bernard Lamb]

It's not up to the standard of an A3 or an A4.  But in fairness it is not the same price as an A3 or an A4 either.

 

I'd have been happy paying a bit extra for more detail (valves), a better motor and tender pick ups.

Agreed.

 Seeing the price of around £120 it was built down to a price.

I would rather it had been around £180 -£200 and of the same standard as an A3 or A4.

It has cost me around £40 plus several hours work to bring it up to scratch without exchanging the motor.

Comparing the DoG with a Brit or a Clan I am not going to bother with that model so Hornby have lost a sale.

I will not be buying any new mid range models that they produce in future.

Bernard

[Coldgunner]

Still not got a response from Hornby, can anyone recommend a good speaker that'll fit the tender? I'm still new to DCC sound.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Coldgunner