Hattons announce 14xx / 48xx / 58xx

[Tom F]

Just had a look regarding the Railroad 14XX. Pre order £34.50 at Rails...... I think that's going to be my way forward.

[tender]

Are the gears brass on Roco? I can imagine them using a tight gear chain will little slop. This might be hard to do with nylon gears but possible with Brass.

 

The crux of the question is, does the (shall I call it) DJM method of Nylon gears and loose con rods cause bad running or not? Reading the above, I wonder how much is real and how much psychological. You know "oh, that's different, but I don't like it".

 

This method has been around with first the Dapol Well tank then the same Well tank under DJM (motor changed), then the O2s, then the J94s and now out with the 48XXs. So getting on for 5 years but the well tank, O2s and J94 threads are not blistering in comments about this approach.

Likewise I have many 4mm models using just con rods for transmission with a lot of slack, however they only ever caused running issues if the quartering was out.

 

I am not saying there is no problem, just how much is psychological? how much is real? if real, is it design or assembly? does it go away with running in. Some people are full of praise on the running qualities here while others are quite the opposite and there are no in-between comments.

The 'rocking' con rods was an issue on the O2 thread, they could even be seen on the static 'advertising' photo. Some seemed worse than others which might be due to less than accurate quartering, I sent two of my three O2's back for replacement.

 

Edit: removed.

Edited February 20, 2017 by tender

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I had planned to use the loco in OO, so wouldn't have to convert it to P4, but if I find that I can't live with the larger wheels, I'm going to have to consider what to do about them. Perhaps the DJM ones could be removed and I could persuade a friendly Baron to turn them down for me?

 

The alternative is to replace them with Gibsons or Markits ones, which will probably be a whole lot of extra work. .

 I would seek advice whether the wheel material will machine readily, and if it will require replating or other treatment on the machined surface for pick up efficiency in particular. Kit wheelsets are unsuitable, because the model is of split chassis construction.

[coachmann]

Just looked at the image of a Railroad 14XX on Rails website. The double-rim wheels with quite a wide plastic rim inside a metal rim possibly betray the locos origins. At £34.50, one can afford to add a metal smokebox dart and some of the grab handles around the cab and bunker. The coupling rods certainly look slim, neat and chemically blackened. I wonder how the mechanism performs. 

Edited February 20, 2017 by coachmann

[dibber25]

Just looked at the image of a Railroad 14XX on Rails website. The double-rim wheels with quite a wide plastic rim inside a metal rim possibly betray the locos origins. At £34.50, one can afford to add a metal smokebox dart and some of the grab handles around the cab and bunker. The coupling rods certainly look slim, neat and chemically blackened. I wonder how the mechanism performs. 

 

I am presuming that the Railroad 14XX is just the old Airfix/Dapol/Hornby model in a Railroad box. There seems to be an impression on here that it's a 'new' basic '14XX'. Have I got it wrong? (CJL)

[Hilux5972]

I would have thought the same thing Chris. I can't see Hornby releasing a brand new tooling for it specifically for Railroad when DJM's one has just come out.

[coachmann]

I am presuming that the Railroad 14XX is just the old Airfix/Dapol/Hornby model in a Railroad box. There seems to be an impression on here that it's a 'new' basic '14XX'. Have I got it wrong? (CJL)

It might well be Chris. However, I am never surprised when Hornby pulls a rabbit out of the hat ...

 

When was it last in production?

[Izzy]

Are the gears brass on Roco? I can imagine them using a tight gear chain will little slop. This might be hard to do with nylon gears but possible with Brass.

 

The crux of the question is, does the (shall I call it) DJM method of Nylon gears and loose con rods cause bad running or not? Reading the above, I wonder how much is real and how much psychological.  You know "oh, that's different, but I don't like it".

 

This method has been around with first the Dapol Well tank then the same Well tank under DJM (motor changed), then the O2s, then the J94s and now out with the 48XXs. So getting on for 5 years but the well tank, O2s and J94 threads are not blistering in comments about this approach.

Likewise I have many 4mm models using just con rods for transmission with a lot of slack, however they only ever caused running issues if the quartering was out.

 

I am not saying there is no problem, just how much is psychological? how much is real? if real, is it design or assembly? does it go away with running in. Some people are full of praise on the running qualities here while others are quite the opposite and there are no in-between comments.

 

The overall design and production quality in respect of tolerances are what counts rather than the material the gears are made of, although it's all related. But I think that perhaps poor running and the angle the coupling rods take, are being classed as one and the same. You could take the rods off and the loco will still run. What the running quality might be won't/shouldn't be affected by having rods on or not when all axle drive is involved.

 

I am presuming that the Railroad 14XX is just the old Airfix/Dapol/Hornby model in a Railroad box. There seems to be an impression on here that it's a 'new' basic '14XX'. Have I got it wrong? (CJL)

 

I would have thought the same thing Chris. I can't see Hornby releasing a brand new tooling for it specifically for Railroad when DJM's one has just come out.

 

Judging by the pre-order page on Hattons, where it is stated that the loco is:

 

Hornby  R3589

OO Gauge (1:76 Scale)

Class 48xx 0-4-2T 4837 in GWR green - Railroad Range

DCC compatible but no socket

 

at a pre-order price of £38,

 

and looking at the image, I would hazard a guess you are both correct and that it is a re-issue of the last spec Hornby production, whatever/whenever that was. Personally at that price I would think that it was worth a punt, especially for those looking to replace the chassis with a EM/P4 jobbie. It might even have a useable non-coreless motor that some might prefer.

 

Izzy

[Ian Hargrave]

Just looked at the image of a Railroad 14XX on Rails website. The double-rim wheels with quite a wide plastic rim inside a metal rim possibly betray the locos origins. At £34.50, one can afford to add a metal smokebox dart and some of the grab handles around the cab and bunker. The coupling rods certainly look slim, neat and chemically blackened. I wonder how the mechanism performs.

 

If that is a reasonable representation of what you will get out of the box then at that price ,given the current Hornby 3 pole motor drive which is good,then it's a steal and worth a go.Not to be ignored I think.

[JSpencer]

The 'rocking' con rods was an issue on the O2 thread, they could even be seen on the static 'advertising' photo. Some seemed worse than others which might be due to less than accurate quartering, I sent two of my three O2's back for replacement.

Edit: my recollection of the Dapol BWT was that only the rear axel was driven.

I not saying there were zero problems. Doubtless those badly assembled (mis-quartered) are going to suffer much from running problems than a classic con rod only driven loco. I have had 5 DJM models and sent only one back which ran badly and then burned out. But those which ran superb on day 1 still do now.

 

My point is whilst some posters have experienced problems (not in dispute), others have jumped on giving their opinion doubtless shaped by experience with similar things elsewhere that may not be applicable. For example, all DJM models I have to date are split chassis. That instantly conjures up painful memories of Mainline! But the two chassis are not really comparable as they differ greatly in details. My point is, it is quite easy to not own one, look at the design and say it is not the approach you would take.

 

On the well tank, top is Dapol, bottom is DJM, both axles are geared on both types.

 

[brushman47544]

I am presuming that the Railroad 14XX is just the old Airfix/Dapol/Hornby model in a Railroad box. There seems to be an impression on here that it's a 'new' basic '14XX'. Have I got it wrong? (CJL)

I too understood it was the old model. Two improvements to it that would make a big difference would be to chemically blacken the wheels and do something about the shiny chimney. Otherwise it's a really good loco at the new Railroad price.

Edited February 20, 2017 by brushman47544

[Adrock]

Does anyone have an H1410 5819 model? If so, could you please confirm the shed plate on the smokebox door? I can't quite get my head around it but the colour livery layout on the hattons website shows a shed code of 89C, but the matrix on the very first page says it's from another shed. I wonder which one is correct?

[JSpencer]

The overall design and production quality in respect of tolerances are what counts rather than the material the gears are made of, although it's all related. But I think that perhaps poor running and the angle the coupling rods take, are being classed as one and the same. You could take the rods off and the loco will still run. What the running quality might be won't/shouldn't be affected by having rods on or not when all axle drive is involved.

 

 

In a classic, 1 axle drive loco using con rods for transmission, you only need the wheels perfectly quartered.  In an all gear drive transmission with con rods, then all wheels PLUS all gears must be quartered. Doubtless the gears need to have the same number of teeth on each quarter too (solid round number on each quarter) otherwise the person putting these together has the added nightmare of making sure that the gears are pointing the right way by looking at the teeth (tedious).

 

On the other hand the theoretical advantage of all geared drive (when assemble correctly) are finer rods. The gear train needs to be tight between wheels but not overly so that it overloads the motor.

[Izzy]

 then all wheels PLUS all gears must be quartered. Doubtless the gears need to have the same number of teeth on each quarter too

 

Quarter gears? I must admit I have never heard of or encountered that before in specific terms. It's totally immaterial to the wheel quartering anyway, as two or more meshed gears of whatever size/gear tooth number/tooth form will keep the same relationship to each other. As I wrote previously there is the small matter of gearing backlash to take into account, that is what determines the relationship between gear connected wheels/axles, but of course in pure theory I suppose anything is possible.

 

Izzy

[Paul_sterling]

Quarter gears? I must admit I have never heard of or encountered that before in specific terms. It's totally immaterial to the wheel quartering anyway, as two or more meshed gears of whatever size/gear tooth number/tooth form will keep the same relationship to each other. As I wrote previously there is the small matter of gearing backlash to take into account, that is what determines the relationship between gear connected wheels/axles, but of course in pure theory I suppose anything is possible.

 

Izzy

 

In this instance Izzy, yes the gears would need to be quartered in relation to the quartering of the crank pins.

 

That being said, loose tolerance on the quartering of the gears to crank pin could well be a contributing factor towards the need for a generous hole tolerance on the connecting rods, as the worst a gear can be out of quartering by in this instance is less than a single tooth, and if that equates to a distance of less than the tolerance of the hole size, you have a poke-yoke solution to not having to quarter the gears, at the expense of a less than steady fitment of connecting rod. 

 

Paul. 

[tender]

In this instance Izzy, yes the gears would need to be quartered in relation to the quartering of the crank pins.

 

That being said, loose tolerance on the quartering of the gears to crank pin could well be a contributing factor towards the need for a generous hole tolerance on the connecting rods, as the worst a gear can be out of quartering by in this instance is less than a single tooth, and if that equates to a distance of less than the tolerance of the hole size, you have a poke-yoke solution to not having to quarter the gears, at the expense of a less than steady fitment of connecting rod. 

 

Paul.

 

A backwards step IMO, I'd rather have single axel drive and con rods that stay parallel to the track.

[Paul_sterling]

A backwards step IMO, I'd rather have single axle drive and con rods that stay parallel to the track.

 

I can't really say either way, as I haven't ordered a 14/48/58 from Hattons yet. I'm sure beyond the theories I've put in post #1394, there will be a strong underlying reason for going to the trouble of a gearbox design as opposed to the 'traditional' layout. 1 perhaps it is the historical bad running of the Airfix chassis, perhaps it was a desire to commonise the drivetrain between the DJ range. 

 

Paul. 

[Caddy]

If you have been following this thread, you will see a few pages back I posted a video of my 18 year old Hornby 14xx. It has always been a good running loco and was even better after I replaced the second pair of driving wheels which had driving tyres fitted, with another pair of plain wheels. It is well balanced, travels very smoothly through points and works equally well off plain or feedback controllers with its very basic motor and drive arrangement.

 

I have so far experienced 2 DJ models, the O2 and Beattie well tank. The well tank started well but has become very noisy lately whilst my O2 was one of the rogue ones. Being in Australia, I tried to work on it myself and am still trying! I am NOT convinced with these gear coupled DJ models mechanisms and I certainly was not going to fork out another 100 quid for the 14xx.

 

Why anyway, when I have a superb running model which to my eyes looks like a 14xx, acts like a 14xx and reminds me of a lovely holiday in Dorset all those years ago!

 

To those awaiting the new Hornby release, or should we say re-release, "good on you" - you will not be disappointed and you'll have enough money left over to buy any super detail parts you want, another pair of plain driving wheels and a new Bachmann autocoach to go with it. Makes sense to me.

[ROSSPOP]

  As mark Kermode says....

 

` if you pay them to make this kind of stuff they will just make more of it `

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...others have jumped on giving their opinion doubtless shaped by experience with similar things elsewhere that may not be applicable. For example, all DJM models I have to date are split chassis. That instantly conjures up painful memories of Mainline! But the two chassis are not really comparable as they differ greatly in details...

 Detail differences do not eliminate a shared constructional principle. Bear in mind I am quite happy with split axle construction on solely gear coupled traction, and own satisfactory examples that are demonstrating longevity in service. All past experience suggests that this split axle construction is consistently troublesome in solely rod coupled mechanisms.

 

..there will be a strong underlying reason for going to the trouble of a gearbox design as opposed to the 'traditional' layout...

 I suspect it is to eliminate the previously observed weakness in split axle construction on rod coupled models, in which the construction is 'worked' to failure by the torque variation produced by the rod drive. By making the drive to all the axles via gears exactly as a bogie traction model this problem should be eliminated; the side rods have no work to do, and simply 'go along for the ride'. What is undesireable is the manifest appearance of their not actually doing any work, by failing to stay parallel to the rails and other horizontals in close proximity.

[Izzy]

In this instance Izzy, yes the gears would need to be quartered in relation to the quartering of the crank pins.

 

That being said, loose tolerance on the quartering of the gears to crank pin could well be a contributing factor towards the need for a generous hole tolerance on the connecting rods, as the worst a gear can be out of quartering by in this instance is less than a single tooth, and if that equates to a distance of less than the tolerance of the hole size, you have a poke-yoke solution to not having to quarter the gears, at the expense of a less than steady fitment of connecting rod. 

 

Paul. 

 

Ah, thank you. My apologies to J Spencer, I mis-understood what was meant by gear quartering, taking the setting of the wheels relative to the gears on the axle for granted.

 

Izzy

Edited February 21, 2017 by Izzy

[kandc_au]

I gather, that that is assuming the re-released one still has rubber drivers.

 

Back to the split chassis for a moment if I may.

I don't understand the issue of split chassis with coupled rods issue.

Can someone elaborate more please?

From memory of what I have read in other threads there are members who make loco's with split chassis.

Do they still have this issue, or is it just commercial ones?

 

Khris

[Izzy]

I have so far experienced 2 DJ models, the O2 and Beattie well tank. The well tank started well but has become very noisy lately whilst my O2 was one of the rogue ones. Being in Australia, I tried to work on it myself and am still trying! I am NOT convinced with these gear coupled DJ models mechanisms and I certainly was not going to fork out another 100 quid for the 14xx.

 

Could you remove one of the intermediate gears connecting the geared axles and alter/produce new rods to suit, so the loco becomes a single axle drive? I am sure I have seen this mentioned/carried out on a thread somewhere on here.

 

I gather, that that is assuming the re-released one still has rubber drivers.

 

Back to the split chassis for a moment if I may.

I don't understand the issue of split chassis with coupled rods issue.

Can someone elaborate more please?

From memory of what I have read in other threads there are members who make loco's with split chassis.

Do they still have this issue, or is it just commercial ones?

 

Khris

 

It's the mating of gear coupled axles with coupling rods that is the basic issue. Most split axle chassis, whether home produced or commercial use a single axle drive.

 

 

Izzy

 

edited to remove duplicate post comments

Edited February 21, 2017 by Izzy

[kandc_au]

Apologies Izzy, but I haven't made myself clear.

There was reference to the fact that split chassis had an inherent problem.

OR, have I misread it?

 

Khris

[JSpencer]

Could you remove one of the intermediate gears connecting the geared axles and alter/produce new rods to suit, so the loco becomes a single axle drive? I am sure I have seen this mentioned/carried out on a thread somewhere on here.

 

 

 

Not easily. Once you get the metal split chassis block out from the plastic body and undersides, the wheels need to be eased off one side then you can split the chassis block and finally remove the gear.

 

Basically if you cannot get the thing to run smoothly after 5 hours on a rolling road and it shows issues of being crooked then replace it in my opinion. When they are assembled well and run well from the word go then there is nothing really wrong with them. 

Edited February 21, 2017 by JSpencer