Hattons announce 14xx / 48xx / 58xx

[BWsTrains]

"what we have here is a failure to communicate...."  and for those too young to remember see here. 

 

 

"....... some men you just can't reach"

 

As 57xx says above, this thread has more than enough data points to confirm that "luck" with this model is required. Many are very good, far too many are not and we're not talking about "being picky", read the topic if you don't believe this. Sadly in the "world" of smaller models that I frequent, the Hattons 14xx is not alone. The Oxford Rail Dean Goods has as many RMWebbers' onto their 2nd or 3rd attempt to find an adequate running model. The Hornby 48xx (2017 release) was plagued with operational issues, there may be more.

 

IMO, what we are seeing is a combination of issues, foremost, design issues, these differ by model, for the DJM 14xx just read the back pages here (and I'm not talking about all the "....gate" issues). The others have different design issues that create the models' "problems".

Next but in which order? Cost factors impacting / constraining the design OR the issue of adequate QC?

 

For those happy with their DJM 14xx outcome that's fine but buying a £100 RTR model shouldn't be a lottery. Those who buy a losing ticket don't share the warm feelings of the lucky group.

 

Colin

Edited July 12, 2018 by BWsTrains

[chuffinghell]

"The Oxford Rail Dean Goods"

 

Don't talk to me about the Oxford Rail Dean Goods I'm still having counseling following that particular episode in my life

[melmerby]

Sadly poor runners seem to be becoming the norm, rather than the exception. My Dapol DRC was a rubbish runner first time round, until finally failing completely, the replacement is much better, but still not as good as what can be achieved.
I think the various manufacturers need to have a think as what they are trying to achieve.
Personally I would accept a reduced level of detail if the loco runs properly or, an increase in price to get both detailed & accurate models that don't need replacing because of faults, due to both assembly issues and/or poor running.
Less detailed models, as long as they were good runners would leave scope for those that wish, to add what detailing they require.

Cheers

Keith

 

EDIT predictive text on 'phone no good!

Edited July 12, 2018 by melmerby

[chuffinghell]

Personally I would accept a reduced level of detail if the loco runs properly or, an increase in price to get both detailed & accurate models that don't need replacing because of faults, due to both assembly issues and/or poor running.

Less detailed models, as long as they were good runners would leave scope for those that wish, to add what detailing they require!

Couldn’t agree more, Id have been quite happy with my cheap and cheerful Hornby 14xx if it ran better than it did Edited July 13, 2018 by chuffinghell

[PMP]

The chassis design allows the locomotive to work ok on level track, however when you introduce it to a incline, and the model is descending, particularly under load the running is awful due to cogging. The same gear train design fault affects the DJM J94. I’ve had the opportunity to try a Kernow 1361 and the cogging isn’t an issue with that locomotive.

This outlines my trials to get satisfactory running from the 14xx https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/14xx-frustration/

 

Earlier in this thread people mentioned they’d got no problems with the 14xx cogging under load descending a gradient, I asked if they would be good enough to post some video of it. None have appeared.

 

The body has a few minor issues with it, none really of note. The Achilles heel of this model is unfortunately it’s drive system when under load and descending.

[Captain Kernow]

Forgive me for asking, Captain, but have you followed the lubrication instructions and, if so, are you sure you have squirted your lubricant up/down the correct orifice/s?

Fair question and the answer is 'yes'.

[Captain Kernow]

Realistic shunting, yes, the funereal crawl seen on many small exhibition layouts, not so well.

For me, the 'funereal crawl' is indicative of a well-running chassis, that can run smoothly at all speed ranges.

 

This level of running is what I require of all my locos, without exception. I don't always get it - RTR locos, especially steam outline ones, tend to be hit or miss and virtually all the chassis that I've built over the years, whether from kits or (one or two) from scratch, have all taken a bit of work to get them running as I want them to.

 

All my layouts have been small and now that I've sold 'Engine Wood', those that remain are even smaller, so fast running is not a requirement. Smooth slow running is, however, essential, so any chassis that I build myself always have a relatively high gear ratio. I only 'do' DC, by the way.

 

As John (Dunsignalling) will know, I am very well aware of how steam age shunting was carried out and it was generally a pretty rough affair with locos accelerating and then braking as they shoved the wagons around the yard, so that the crews could either book off sooner or get back to the cabin for another brew and a round of cards.

 

But in my view, the ability to crawl very slowly will only help the controlability of a loco engaged in shunting. There are times, such as when buffering up to wagons or coaches or approaching a signal at danger, that the ability to crawl slowly is important, even if only for a relatively short distance.

 

I want my Hattons 14XX to be one of the mainstays of the branch goods on my new layout 'Bethesda Sidings', in the same way as the real thing operated the Kington and Presteign goods in the last years of the lines in that part of Herefordshire and Radnorshire.

 

Unfortunately, unless my second example improves with further running in, the chassis will have to be replaced with a kit chassis.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Captain Kernow

[melmerby]

Earlier in this thread people mentioned they’d got no problems with the 14xx cogging under load descending a gradient, I asked if they would be good enough to post some video of it. None have appeared.

 

I would answer "how?"

 

Keith

[PMP]

^^ I filmed mine on a smart phone, set up a YouTube account, downloaded it from the phone to YouTube, and posted the hyperlink to my blog, and I think to a post earlier in the thread. Took about ten minutes, including setting up the YouTube account. ^^

 

Edit: the request was made to people who had filmed the model climbing a gradient and posted film of that onto this thread, so I doubt there were any technical ‘issues’ of note.

Edited July 13, 2018 by PMP

[BWsTrains]

I would answer "how?"

 

Keith

2nd option if you don't want to open a Youtube account (with what that entails from a security POV) is to open a Microsoft Outlook account.

 

In Windows File Manager with your iPhone attached via its USB charger cable, drag the iPhone video file to the OneDrive in Outlook.

From here you can create a shared link that others can easily watch. I do it all the time to share videos with our dispersed family and occasionally on here. For example this favorite taken by SWMBO smoke and all!

 

https://1drv.ms/v/s!Au252AreD6BYk0J-pGdd-_koc4Ql

[melmerby]

^^ I filmed mine on a smart phone, set up a YouTube account, downloaded it from the phone to YouTube, and posted the hyperlink to my blog, and I think to a post earlier in the thread. Took about ten minutes, including setting up the YouTube account. ^^

 

Edit: the request was made to people who had filmed the model climbing a gradient and posted film of that onto this thread, so I doubt there were any technical ‘issues’ of note.

 

 

2nd option if you don't want to open a Youtube account (with what that entails from a security POV) is to open a Microsoft Outlook account.

 

In Windows File Manager with your iPhone attached via its USB charger cable, drag the iPhone video file to the OneDrive in Outlook.

From here you can create a shared link that others can easily watch. I do it all the time to share videos with our dispersed family and occasionally on here. For example this favorite taken by SWMBO smoke and all!

 

https://1drv.ms/v/s!Au252AreD6BYk0J-pGdd-_koc4Ql

I could video my 48XX on a 1:100 incline, however any video I take would be on a camera in MTS 1920x1080i format, which I can transfer to the desktop.

I can convert to other formats.

 

What are the options?

 

Keith

[Sir TophamHatt]

Just a note for the above, I have a Google account for that very purpose (Google Drive instead of OneDrive).

 

FYI: When filling in your details for said dummy account, you don't have to fill in real ones and the email address can be anything random too.

[PMP]

What are the options?

 

Keith

By far the easiest is clicking on start an account on YouTube and following the instructions. They’ll tell you what they accept and how to upload it to their site.

 

Simples

[coachmann]

If you set a loco of at less than walking speed on DCC at breakfast, it will still be running at that pace at teatime.   

[melmerby]

Just a note for the above, I have a Google account for that very purpose (Google Drive instead of OneDrive).

 

FYI: When filling in your details for said dummy account, you don't have to fill in real ones and the email address can be anything random too.

 

 

By far the easiest is clicking on start an account on YouTube and following the instructions. They’ll tell you what they accept and how to upload it to their site.

 

Simples

I do have a Google account as I get items (free ones) from the store for my phone & tablet (the phone's video is rubbish and I wouldn't impose it on anybody.).

Presumably it would be better to start again with a dummy account.

 

Keith

Edited July 14, 2018 by melmerby

[melmerby]

Just tried a random e-mail address for You Tube and you have to confirm what they have just sent to it!

 

I think they are wise to that ruse.

 

Keith

[melmerby]

I have done some videos of 4825 with & without a load at various speeds on a 1:75 incline.

Will post once I've sorted a video account.

 

Keith

[57xx]

Just tried a random e-mail address for You Tube and you have to confirm what they have just sent to it!

 

I think they are wise to that ruse.

 

You're supposed to create the actual "random" mail account as well. As Sir Topham said, just fill in junk details and use it as a throwaway account.

[melmerby]

You're supposed to create the actual "random" mail account as well. As Sir Topham said, just fill in junk details and use it as a throwaway account.

I don't understand what you mean.

 

I started You Tube.

I went to open an account and it asks for name, e-mail address & password to "Create a Google account" before you can continue.

Entering a fake e-mail got me nowhere as it e-mailed that address with a code to continue the set-up.

Obviously I couldn't access it.

 

How do I create the fake e-mail to use?

 

Keith

Edited July 14, 2018 by melmerby

[melmerby]

Right

Created a Gmail account and signed into YouTube from that.

 

Try this test video (not my layout!)

 

 

Keith

[57xx]

If you set a loco of at less than walking speed on DCC at breakfast, it will still be running at that pace at teatime.   

 

That nothing unique to DCC, works on DC too. I have had a loco going round my test track so slowly you couldn't perceive it moving. Purely by accident, I hadn't turned the controller right to 0, I only realised when it was in a completely different part of the track several hours later.

[melmerby]

Managed to get the videos up

Three to start with

 

4825 Descending

 

4825 Descending at mid speed

 

4825 Ascending

 

I tried it with a load (two free running Airfix B-Set coaches) as it would be more taxing.

It has a Lenz Silver Mini decoder

The lack of grip is notable on the ascent

 

What do you think?

 

Keith

[Sir TophamHatt]

It says videos are unavailable.

[melmerby]

It says videos are unavailable.

Yes so it does.

I've posted them and now can't see them!

Now as the test video and those were uploaded in exactly the same way, maybe someone can tell me what is wrong.

Looks like You Tube is not as simple as it seems.

 

Keith

 

EDIT it had classed them as private.

Now "unlisted" so should be viewable.

Edited July 15, 2018 by melmerby

[melmerby]

Just for completeness here is 4825 descending solo:

 

 

And a couple of Airfix locos on the incline for comparison

Both have all metal wheels, one Airfix & the other Alan Gibson wheels

 

 

 

Yes the rods are upside down

 

Keith