OO Gauge class 71 Electric Locomotive

[JSpencer]

Body should be tight and require inserts to disengage the clips, I think my video featured this bit?

 

4:10 in https://youtu.be/CFYKMAO_2A8

Indeed I saw your video which is why I asked. Clips are easy enough to put right though.

[RFS]

 

However, I have made progress.  I took the Zimo MX634D out of my Dapol Class 68 and put it into the Class 71.

 

Pete

 

Hi Pete - I've tried a Zimo MX634D in mine but couldn't get the head code lights to work.  Do they work on yours?

[JSpencer]

I have only got one of my 4 running so far. Body clips were fine. But there doesn't seem to be as much vertical/ side to side movement of bogie units as you get with for example with Bachmann Bo Bo locos and I dont wonder if this isn't behind the rather demanding nature of my current running 71? I have had to sort out track around some points (on a small but complex layout) so that it is perfectly level. Additionally I have had to impose speed restrictions of not> 6/28 on ordinary Peco Setrack points (no problem with the 4 sets of express points tho). Some of the more knowledgeable  on here will probably say this is what happens for real anyway. Did try adjusting b2bs  but they just spring back to their factory position. 

 But I continue to be pleased with my 71's. And look forward to getting the rest of the fleet running later in the week.

If the gent with the information on how to smooth out the running of locos with the early version of DC KITS sound chip could post on here that would be good. Charlie isn't an easy person to get hold of.

Once the initial little niggles with loco and sound chip are sorted these locos are going to be right at the top of the quality league........not bad for just under £250 (loco + chip).

 

The design seems to be an evolved Dapol 73. I say that because the pivot points of the bogie is almost above the inner wheel pair of each bogie on both designs. The Dapol 73 bogie is however floppy, The outer edges of the bogies dropping about about 3 mm or more, where as the down play on the 71 is restricted on the outer edges. Now that I tested the thing around the big layout, I have some rather paradoxical results. On level 2nd radius track in shunting areas, it is fine. But on the gentler curved super elevation stuff, it sometimes comes off at the points of transition (actually it happens only once the entire bogie has passed transition). I think the combined lack of down play on the outer wheels plus weight being concentrated on the inner wheels plus those very fine flanges cause this to happen.

Point work seems to be ok, even a double slip.

 

Overall I am quite pleased with the 71, lighting is great, detail is great, the colours are spot on.

[SGP]

Looked at mine a bit closer today and the pantograph is broken at one elbow. It looks like there are actually no pivots there, just plastic work hardening over time. Too small to see so it's going back.

[Gwiwer]

Body removal on mine was dead easy, the chassis fell out as soon as I picked it up. Between this and the stiff bogies (won't easily follow curves), I am starting to think I got a duff.

No - you definitely got a 71 .

 

Sorry to hear this and of a very few other issues but realistically there is always likely to be a very small number of faulty items in a production run. Even when they are so closely monitored.

[SGP]

 

 

Sorry to hear this and of a very few other issues but realistically there is always likely to be a very small number of faulty items in a production run. Even when they are so closely monitored. 

True, but fitting a flimsy plastic pantograph is just corner cutting and asking for trouble. Even if it isn't broken to start with (like mine was) how long will it last under wires? As far as I'm concerned, as a pantograph it is not fit for purpose. Also the fitting of the handrails and works plate is very poor. I haven't seen a good one yet. The handrails and plates I could have lived with but that pantograph, no.

[PeteB]

I will try tweaking the track voltage up a bit (within NMRA DCC limits) to see if that makes a difference - I'll report back if it helps.

 

Ok, done some experimenting now.

 

I measured my track voltage as about 13.8V on the track with an AC voltmeter (not so accurate) and 14.0 V in the booster drive to the output FETs with the meter on DC (more accurate).

 

So fairly low by normal DCC standards.

 

I measured out a 2.1m length on the layout, which is 1/10th mile in 4mm scale (2112mm to be precise) and timed the class 71 over this - averaged in both directions and with the loco on the track either way round to remove any slight gradient or variations in performance in either direction from the calculation.

 

It averaged just over 7 secs, which comes out at 51 mph.

 

I then adjusted the voltage in the booster, to give 15.8V on the track (16V measured at the booster FET drive).  

 

It did make a difference, it now averaged 5.9 seconds giving 61 mph.

 

Playing with CV 57, which sets the max voltage to the motor, didn't make any difference, so the default of zero (which means auto), is presumably giving the best performance anyway.

 

For me, that's quite sufficient for how fast I want to run my trains, but I could understand that if you want to model the Golden Arrow in full fight, it might be a bit on the low side.

 

At this speed, the motor did sound to be thrashing quite hard, so I guess it must be quite low geared. I suppose that must be necessary to give the haulage power from such a small motor, but it seems that loss of top end speed is the compromise that results.

[PeteB]

Hi Pete - I've tried a Zimo MX634D in mine but couldn't get the head code lights to work.  Do they work on yours?

 

Good point - no they don't work on mine at a the moment.

 

Looking at the decoder manuals, the ESU Loksound Aux3 and Aux4 are only logic level outputs, whereas on the Zimo 634D they are normal full function outputs like the other function wires.

 

So it seems likely that Dave was thinking of the Loksound and has wired it to work from logic level outputs - which is why it is not working with the Zimo.

 

It will probably need attacking the circuit board with scalpel and soldering iron to get the desired behaviour.  I was thinking of splitting the two headcode displays so they could be turned on and off independently anyway, since we have aux4 available as another function output.

 

I'll let you know when I have worked out what needs doing.

 

Regards,

 

Pete

[RFS]

Good point - no they don't work on mine at a the moment.

 

Looking at the decoder manuals, the ESU Loksound Aux3 and Aux4 are only logic level outputs, whereas on the Zimo 634D they are normal full function outputs like the other function wires.

 

So it seems likely that Dave was thinking of the Loksound and has wired it to work from logic level outputs - which is why it is not working with the Zimo.

 

It will probably need attacking the circuit board with scalpel and soldering iron to get the desired behaviour.  I was thinking of splitting the two headcode displays so they could be turned on and off independently anyway, since we have aux4 available as another function output.

 

I'll let you know when I have worked out what needs doing.

 

Regards,

 

Pete

 

On the MX634 you can choose whether AUX3 are 4 are logic output or normal function output.  Setting CV8=3 makes them logic outputs (ie MX634C) and CV8=4 makes them function outputs (ie MX634D).  I've tried both variants and they still don't work and have emailed Zimo for advice.  With a Lenz Silver, which has 5 normal outputs (no mention of logic level) the lights work fine. 

[SRman]

My E5003 arrived today and, after running in, was fitted with a LokSound decoder with legomanbiffo sounds. I have wired a bass enhanced speaker in parallel with a sugar cube speaker (both 8 ohm impedance).

I was thinking along broadly similar lines, Pete, with the view that the marker lights were rarely used, so I would rather swap the feeds from the markers to the headcodes at each end. I haven't investigated this idea any further, yet.

[Oldddudders]

True, but fitting a flimsy plastic pantograph is just corner cutting and asking for trouble. Even if it isn't broken to start with (like mine was) how long will it last under wires? As far as I'm concerned, as a pantograph it is not fit for purpose. Also the fitting of the handrails and works plate is very poor. I haven't seen a good one yet. The handrails and plates I could have lived with but that pantograph, no.

Under wires? How much wire are you proposing to install? The wires were entirely confined to yards and sidings, hence the loco would be no more than crawling every moment it was using the pan. And the pan I examined looked very finely made, only rose a realistic distance, and had the detail of the graphite inlays as per prototype.

[PeteB]

pantograph .....  how long will it last under wires?

 

Don't forget that the Class 71 pantograph was only ever used in yards and sidings, at very slow speed, as that is where the overhead wires were installed to avoid the danger to staff of the 3rd rail. It was 660/750V DC - not the 25KV AC of modern overhead wires.

 

This means that, even if you go to the trouble of installing the wires in your yards, you would only be using the pantograph at shunting speeds, once the class 71 leaves the yard onto the main line, it would be on third rail, so I suspect that the durability of the pantograph when used under the wires is not such a big issue.

[JSpencer]

True, but fitting a flimsy plastic pantograph is just corner cutting and asking for trouble. Even if it isn't broken to start with (like mine was) how long will it last under wires? As far as I'm concerned, as a pantograph it is not fit for purpose. Also the fitting of the handrails and works plate is very poor. I haven't seen a good one yet. The handrails and plates I could have lived with but that pantograph, no.

 

Hornby provided theirs with a metal working panto-graph which can be raised up and down by hand as you like, but one can really question the wisdom there. I agree the DJM looks, feels and is more fragile but I suspect few people have modeled the marshaling yards and such a loco would probably be there just to pick up a goods train and rarely do shunting. However someone wishing to model the loco working in such a yard, then the more robust Hornby one would be recommended for this special case. In any case the panto would have popped up and down at the touch of drivers button entering or leaving such a yard. So such a model would either need to remain in the yard (up) or outside it (down) or have the hand of god come down and change it  - in all cases, not prototypical.

 

I do agree it seems to be a fragile bit of kit and have refrained from raising mine. Not problem really as on this class, the panto is definitely  going to be more decorative than functional.

[PeteB]

On the MX634 you can choose whether AUX3 are 4 are logic output or normal function output.  Setting CV8=3 makes them logic outputs (ie MX634C) and CV8=4 makes them function outputs (ie MX634D).

 

I was surprised about that - I don't see how changing a CV could re-wire the function output of the decoder.  Reading the Zimo manual, which is, of course, a translation of the German, I suspect (although this is a guess) that what it means is that with an MX634C you need CV8=3 and with an MX634D you need CV8=4 for it to work correctly - more to do with output polarity from the microcontroller than the actual wiring of the output on those two decoder variants.

 

 

 

  With a Lenz Silver, which has 5 normal outputs (no mention of logic level) the lights work fine.

 

Looking closely at the Lenz docs, the 5 function Silver decoder is described as "4 functions 100mA, total 400mA function current".  So although it doesn't actually say so, the implication is that function 5 is not included in that, so presumably a logic level output.

 

I spoke to somebody who knows, and he confirmed this, the fifth function output on a Lenz Silver is logic level.

 

He told me that there are conflicting statements in different NMRA spec documents, one saying that function outputs above 4 can be logic level, the other saying that they should all be proper function outputs. So it depends which document you read.

 

Seems that ESU, Lenz and DJM have gone for logic level, whilst Zimo have gone for full outputs.

 

All of which means that to use function outputs 5 and 6 (aux3/aux4 or FO3/FO4) from the Zimo on the DJM Class 71, some wiring changes will be needed.

[charliepetty]

I was surprised about that - I don't see how changing a CV could re-wire the function output of the decoder.  Reading the Zimo manual, which is, of course, a translation of the German, I suspect (although this is a guess) that what it means is that with an MX634C you need CV8=3 and with an MX634D you need CV8=4 for it to work correctly - more to do with output polarity from the microcontroller than the actual wiring of the output on those two decoder variants.

 

 

 

Looking closely at the Lenz docs, the 5 function Silver decoder is described as "4 functions 100mA, total 400mA function current".  So although it doesn't actually say so, the implication is that function 5 is not included in that, so presumably a logic level output.

 

I spoke to somebody who knows, and he confirmed this, the fifth function output on a Lenz Silver is logic level.

 

He told me that there are conflicting statements in different NMRA spec documents, one saying that function outputs above 4 can be logic level, the other saying that they should all be proper function outputs. So it depends which document you read.

 

Seems that ESU, Lenz and DJM have gone for logic level, whilst Zimo have gone for full outputs.

 

All of which means that to use function outputs 5 and 6 (aux3/aux4 or FO3/FO4) from the Zimo on the DJM Class 71, some wiring changes will be needed.

 

Or you get a ESU Plugin Adaptor to give you more full function outputs.   Charlie

[PhilH]

I sometimes don't really understand people..you get a pantograph which is overscale but can be manually manipulated that is wrong in some quarters. You get one that is nearly scale but is fragile then that is wrong.

 

Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't....

[PrestburyJack]

body removal felt like it was going to break before it gave way

 

I'm having trouble getting the body off too - have put 4 credit cards between chassis and body, but body still doesn't want to come off and I'm worried I might break something.

[SGP]

 

I sometimes don't really understand people..you get a pantograph which is overscale but can be manually manipulated that is wrong in some quarters. You get one that is nearly scale but is fragile then that is wrong.

 

Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't....

Roco don't have a problem.

[PrestburyJack]

I'm having trouble getting the body off too - have put 4 credit cards between chassis and body, but body still doesn't want to come off and I'm worried I might break something.

 

Hooray - suddenly it all worked, body now off with no damage

Headcodes fitted - they are ingenious, a nice touch 

Edited May 22, 2017 by PrestburyJack

[SGP]

 

Hornby provided theirs with a metal working panto-graph which can be raised up and down by hand as you like, but one can really question the wisdom there. I agree the DJM looks, feels and is more fragile but I suspect few people have modeled the marshaling yards and such a loco would probably be there just to pick up a goods train and rarely do shunting. However someone wishing to model the loco working in such a yard, then the more robust Hornby one would be recommended for this special case. In any case the panto would have popped up and down at the touch of drivers button entering or leaving such a yard. So such a model would either need to remain in the yard (up) or outside it (down) or have the hand of god come down and change it  - in all cases, not prototypical.

 

I do agree it seems to be a fragile bit of kit and have refrained from raising mine. Not problem really as on this class, the panto is definitely  going to be more decorative than functional.

 

Agreed but as mine was broken anyway, it may as well go back.

[PhilH]

Roco don't have a problem.

 

 

Nor should they have at the prices they charge.

[Oldddudders]

Nor should they have at the prices they charge.

 

Roco have quality problems too. Their RGP two-unit luxury railcar has a fault in the roof of some examples, like expanded polystyrene bubbles. Not just the one I bought, but other examples on e-bay. 

[SGP]

 

 

Under wires? How much wire are you proposing to install? The wires were entirely confined to yards and sidings, hence the loco would be no more than crawling every moment it was using the pan. And the pan I examined looked very finely made, only rose a realistic distance, and had the detail of the graphite inlays as per prototype. 

I'm not installing any wires. Mine was broken fresh out of the box and, examining it, I do not think it fit for purpose. Two light shunts and it would break ... or perhaps reaching across and catching your sleeve on it .... that's a Sod's Law easily done. Anyway,  I've sent mine back and will be getting the Hornby version instead.

[mikesndbs]

My E5003 arrived today and, after running in, was fitted with a LokSound decoder with legomanbiffo sounds. I have wired a bass enhanced speaker in parallel with a sugar cube speaker (both 8 ohm impedance).

 

I was thinking along broadly similar lines, Pete, with the view that the marker lights were rarely used, so I would rather swap the feeds from the markers to the headcodes at each end. I haven't investigated this idea any further, yet.

Can you post a video with the sound working please?

[mikesndbs]

Don't forget that the Class 71 pantograph was only ever used in yards and sidings, at very slow speed, as that is where the overhead wires were installed to avoid the danger to staff of the 3rd rail. It was 660/750V DC - not the 25KV AC of modern overhead wires.

 

This means that, even if you go to the trouble of installing the wires in your yards, you would only be using the pantograph at shunting speeds, once the class 71 leaves the yard onto the main line, it would be on third rail, so I suspect that the durability of the pantograph when used under the wires is not such a big issue.

And the loco could run for up to 7 mins on just the booster set!