Simon Says

[melmerby]

Back when Hornby were getting into Design Clever, 5-pole Mashima cans were obtainable for under £15 retail.

 

If Simon was right, somebody must have been paying Hornby to take 3-pole motors off their hands.      

 

John

And off the shelf suitable 5 pole motors on AliBaba were $1 for quantity purchase.

Personally I obviously don't know Hornby's purchasing details but IMHO a £20 difference was pure fantasy.

 

Keith

 

EDIT If Hornby had standardised on a core range of motors the price per each would be lower, currently, seemingly, they have a multiplicity of types.

[KalKat]

I have never subscribed to the point of the motors saving that much... even at the point of sale. There would be no difference in assembly pricing either, as they are to all intents the same thing whether the motors have 3 or 5 poles. If you must reduce costs by omitting brass bearings, could they not have been replaced with moulded delrin?

[frobisher]

And off the shelf suitable 5 pole motors on AliBaba were $1 for quantity purchase.

Personally I obviously don't know Hornby's purchasing details but IMHO a £20 difference was pure fantasy.

It's more than likely that the saving would be £20 at RRP for the model when you work the cost through the manufacturing process and the various parties mark-ups and margins.

[exet1095]

It's more than likely that the saving would be £20 at RRP for the model when you work the cost through the manufacturing process and the various parties mark-ups and margins.

20p I'd believe. £20 is marketing hyperbole.

[KalKat]

Manufacturing prices don't come into it, the motors are stock items from the suppliers. You buy one or the other. As I pointed out before, it  makes no difference to the assembly workers - it's simply part x to be put in to assembly Q instead of part y. There aren't any dimensional differences in most cases between  3 or 5 pole motors.

 

Companies like Mitsumi,  Mashima, Buhler et al knock motors out by the truckload, and mostly on automated manufacturing lines so they are very cheap.

 

Hornby can only be saving pennies.......... makes you wonder why?

[Fenman]

... Hornby can only be saving pennies.......... makes you wonder why?

Presumably for the same reason that Bachmann have always used them?

 

Paul

[Ian Hargrave]

Manufacturing prices don't come into it, the motors are stock items from the suppliers. You buy one or the other. As I pointed out before, it  makes no difference to the assembly workers - it's simply part x to be put in to assembly Q instead of part y. There aren't any dimensional differences in most cases between  3 or 5 pole motors.

 

Companies like Mitsumi,  Mashima, Buhler et al knock motors out by the truckload, and mostly on automated manufacturing lines so they are very cheap.

 

Hornby can only be saving pennies.......... makes you wonder why?

The thing is,if your model purrs along happily hauling a reasonably prototypical load,then does it really matter ? The J 15 has a 5 pole job whereas the Black Motor gets by with a 3 pole Call me retro if you like but I can't tell the difference.My Railroad A4 does the same job as its 5 pole sisters.It is both smooth and powerful.Likewise my P2 and 71000.I should add that I operate DC only.

Saving pennies makes extra profit in mass produced items.I am sure they are negotiated down to a price when they are contracted for. Not so very long ago Hornby were in choppy financial waters.Remember that ?

[Dunsignalling]

The thing is,if your model purrs along happily hauling a reasonably prototypical load,then does it really matter ? The J 15 has a 5 pole job whereas the Black Motor gets by with a 3 pole Call me retro if you like but I can't tell the difference.My Railroad A4 does the same job as its 5 pole sisters.It is both smooth and powerful.Likewise my P2 and 71000.I should add that I operate DC only.

Saving pennies makes extra profit in mass produced items.I am sure they are negotiated down to a price when they are contracted for. Not so very long ago Hornby were in choppy financial waters.Remember that ?

All other things being equal, there is nothing wrong with the performance of a 3-pole motor, all the more so if it has a flywheel attached and the 5-pole in the comparison doesn't..

 

That said, the provision of a flywheel probably costs more than the price difference between 3- and 5-pole armatures and not all locomotives have room for one.

 

Given that the cost saving is marginal, for me, a 3-pole motor (without flywheel) suggests that the product is built down-to-a-price and I am more confident that a loco with a 5-pole one (especially if the armature is skew-wound) will retain its performance and smoothness in the longer term.

 

In short, a 5-pole motor is a plus point worth drawing the customer's attention to whereas a 3-pole is something manufacturers tend to keep quiet about unless asked.  

 

John

[stewartingram]

Many moons ago Triang/Hornby produced their own motor - it was listed as an X04; remember them?

Well, a little bit of an aside of the motors way back when. Originally, they had little lubricating pads fitted (which generally were over-oiled on all the home maintained samples I got in for servicing), these were later omitted from the production. Probably about the same time, the armature shaft was shortened (it is too long ago now to remember if it was exactly the same time, but it doesn't really matter). The original shaft protruded right through the brass worm, with a stub poking out te other end, from memory probaly 1/8" or so. The modified ones had a much shorter shaft, not even protruding from the worm, so at least 1/4" shorter.(All measurements approximate and from memory). So on a rough calculation, they saved 1 shaft's worth of material on every 8-10 motors, not much cost per motor but a saving never the less. Add the saving of the pads, and there assembly time, and the same motor is produced much cheaper - worthwhile to any company?

Incidentally, the same motor (using its spares list part number) remained in production - identical except for the worm -for many years as the X03. This version had a differnet ratio, and plastic, worm fitted.

 

Stewart

 

edit to correct typo in the layout

[frobisher]

20p I'd believe. £20 is marketing hyperbole.

20p might be the difference in cost of the part, at source - not saying it is. But the cost of the part is not the only factor involved as I said. I would be inclined to believe the word of someone who was actually involved in the process of costing RRPs for Hornby based on steps in the manufacturing and retail processes than say a bunch of amateur quarterbacks such as ourselves

[BlackRat]

There's a vast choice of good quality electric motors on Ali's from as little as 10 cents a pop!

 

Shows how much we have ben over paying........??

[Dunsignalling]

20p might be the difference in cost of the part, at source - not saying it is. But the cost of the part is not the only factor involved as I said. I would be inclined to believe the word of someone who was actually involved in the process of costing RRPs for Hornby based on steps in the manufacturing and retail processes than say a bunch of amateur quarterbacks such as ourselves

When the retail price of a complete 5-pole motor superior to anything Hornby were likely to be using (however many poles it had) was around £15, a claim that using a 5-pole armature in preference to a 3-pole incurs an additional cost of £20 just doesn't add up.

 

All motors are bought in and come in a standard range of sizes whatever is inside. There is no additional cost involved in fitting a better one beyond that of buying it.

 

Looking at the sort of prices electric motors of the required size can be purchased for if you are in the market for several thousand, estimating a unit cost to Hornby of £1 for a 3-pole motor and £1.20 for a 5-pole doesn't seem too far wide of the mark.

 

John

[melmerby]

Many moons ago Triang/Hornby produced their own motor - it was listed as an X04; remember them?

Well, a little bit of an aside of the motors way back when. Originally, they had little lubricating pads fitted (which generally were over-oiled on all the home maintained samples I got in for servicing), these were later omitted from the production. Probably about the same time, the armature shaft was shortened (it is too long ago now to remember if it was exactly the same time, but it doesn't really matter). The original shaft protruded right through the brass worm, with a stub poking out te other end, from memory probaly 1/8" or so. The modified ones had a much shorter shaft, not even protruding from the worm, so at least 1/4" shorter.(All measurements approximate and from memory). So on a rough calculation, they saved 1 shaft's worth of material on every 8-10 motors, not much cost per motor but a saving never the less. Add the saving of the pads, and there assembly time, and the same motor is produced much cheaper - worthwhile to any company?

Incidentally, the same motor (using its spares list part number) remained in production - identical except for the worm -for many years as the X03. This version had a differnet ratio, and plastic, worm fitted.

 

Stewart

 

edit to correct typo in the layout

Can't remember that.

I've got some very old ones (50 years) and the shaft never poked beyond the worm.

 

Keith

[Free At Last]

The top one is from my mid '50's xmas present, a Triang Jinty.

 

 

Edit to say I have just measured the worms, top one 8.75mm, bottom one 10mm approx.

[jjb1970]

Of all the design clever compromises the change from 5 to 3 pole motor was the one that concerned me least of all. I don't remember Bachmann being criticised for sticking with 3 pole motors and going by my own experiences with Hornby models there is no discernible difference between those fitted with 3 and 5 pole motors. In fact one of the smoothest Hornby runners on our train set is a Hornby Railroad Bon Accord pacific that came with the boys Christmas train set and is super smooth.

I am with Legend and some others on this one. If design clever had been properly executed I do not think the idea was in itself bad. The problem was poor execution, if costs can be cut without it being apparent to the end user then I see nothing wrong. Hornby went wrong as some of the cuts were very obvious, there was also a problem that some of the design clever era models were visibly compromised yet this was not really reflected in the price.

An example from another industry might be the VW Golf. The Golf V was an excellent car but very expensive to make as it was not designed for ease of manufacture in the same way as rival cars. The Golf VII and MQB platform were designed from the outset to slash manufacturing costs and be cheaper to make yet to the end user there is no sense of cost cutting and if anything the touch point quality took a step up. That to me is real design clever, designing a product to be easy (ie. cheap) to manufacture yet retaining product quality.

I'm happy that Hornby are back up to pre-design clever standards of detail but if they can reduce some costs by using 3 pole motors and on bits that are not apparent to the end user then all well and good.

[KalKat]

To me the argument isn't necessarily the quality, it is more the argument "it costs £20". On the argument of motors... a number of people suffered issues with their P2s (if I  remember correctly)

 

Once you start cutting pennies- there's a major chance of quality falling quite dramatically.

 

The idea that Hornby make enough models to warrant saving 0.01p on each worthwhile seems a little farfetched.

[No Decorum]

Of course, a lot more than the motor can affect the running of a model. My experience of steam locomotives is that Hornby five-pole, skew-wound motors always run smoothly and quietly. Of my three design clever eight-coupled tank locos with three-pole motors, one runs well, one not so well and one badly. With Bachmann steamers, which have three-pole motors, most run as well as I could wish but some are poor. My experience leads me to conclude that five-pole motors are consistently good whilst three-pole are inconsistent.

[jjb1970]

I find that the thing that makes a model run smoothly is as much the transmission as the motor. Usually when I've had a growler a little bit of tlc to the gears and transmission parts sorts the problem. Usually the motors either work or don't work. A 3 pole motor with a flywheel and a well set up transmission is a perfectly good set up IMO.

[Brit70053]

My experience leads me to conclude that five-pole motors are consistently good whilst three-pole are inconsistent.

That certainly seemed to be the concensus of opinion in the days of open frame motors such as the X04 and Airfix/MRRC 5 pole equivalent.

 

I thought the inconsistency of motor performance had been overcome with the introduction of totally enclosed 'can' motors, but there have been steps backward with reversion to 3 pole motors in certain models. Flywheels certainly aid smooth running once a loco is 'in motion' but seem to me not to be much help if a motor is 'sticky' on starting.

 

 

Edit for typo

[melmerby]

The top one is from my mid '50's xmas present, a Triang Jinty.

 

XO4.jpg

 

Edit to say I have just measured the worms, top one 8.75mm, bottom one 10mm approx.

IMHO It's the worm that's longer not the shaft.

And my mid/late 50s one from a 46205 Princess Victoria is like the bottom one (or was until I pulled the worm off!)

 

Keith

[Venator]

I think 'Design Clever' was management speak for trying to make models cheaper and more robust. Personally I don't mind some moulded detail as it means the model doesn't loose half its detailing if it derails or someone clumsy like me knocks it over. However it has to be done in such a way that it doesn't compromise the overall 'feel' of the model. I also support the Railroad idea, that if you just want a basic cheaper model then you can or if you prefer super detail you can have that either. 

 

As for motor design, I just want something that runs smoothly and reasonably quietly. The older motors meant that late night running would wake the house up! 

[stewartingram]

Can't remember that.

I've got some very old ones (50 years) and the shaft never poked beyond the worm.

 

Keith

I've seen many X04/X03 in for servicing in the past, and I'm still using some of the early ones

[stewartingram]

I find that the thing that makes a model run smoothly is as much the transmission as the motor. Usually when I've had a growler a little bit of tlc to the gears and transmission parts sorts the problem. Usually the motors either work or don't work. A 3 pole motor with a flywheel and a well set up transmission is a perfectly good set up IMO.

There was an article in the old MRC about this. Someone added a small screw, bearing down on the shaft of an X04 to quiten it. I still have that article somewhere.

 

Stewart

[Pandora]

Design Clever, why did Hornby shout this message from the rooftops?

 

Design Clever is an In-house design process, as a modeller I do not need to know about an in-house design process, I just want a model which looks the part.

[Pandora]

In "Design Clever" sprung buffers would have to go.

 

Sprung buffers on a model are almost certainly a waste of money and a complication in manufacture and assembly, in model form they are far too soft, on the "real thing" the  buffers are very stiff, close to solid, I know I'm  a driver!

 

You really have to hit hard to compress the  buffers more than a couple of inches when coupling up,  a good driver will control the  six feet of approach aiming to stop  and "tickle"  the buffer faces