Hattons announce 14xx / 48xx / 58xx

[dibber25]

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?

 

87G Carmarthen. (CJL)

[JSpencer]

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

 

Mainline were the first major RTR to use split chassis in the UK. They could not be re-wheeled without actually building a new complete chassis.

 

What happens is that one of the nylon axles looses its tight grip with the wheel causing to de-quarter. Re quartering would temporarily address it, but the problem would quite quickly get worse and worse as the grip would become more and more loose.

I don't think any satisfactory glue was found for use between the nylon axle and the mazak wheel (super glue would just snap).

[Ian Hargrave]

87G Carmarthen. (CJL)

 That puzzles me somewhat.Presumably it would have worked from a sub shed..Whitland,maybe ?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...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?...

There is no necessarily intrinsic problem with split chassis / split axle construction compared to alternative constructions, given appropriate design and materials choices.

 

Past designs of commercial rod coupled split axle mechanism construction have proven less robust than comparable commercial steel axled mechanisms with wiper pick up; and experience of this has led many of us to be wary of this constructional principle on commercial models of rod coupled traction. 

 

I have seen one modeller's personally constructed 4mm split chassis steamers, which were clearly robust  - some nearing thirty years old -  and fine performers; engineered to a very good standard indeed. He had chosen the method to avoid the need for any wipers, since the underframe detail he wanted was quite complex enough to attach in the available space.

 

Is that a helpful summary?

[The Stationmaster]

 That puzzles me somewhat.Presumably it would have worked from a sub shed..Whitland,maybe ?

 

Whitland was sub-shed of Neyland and took its 87H code when Neyland was closed  in September 1963 before itself being closed in December 1963.

 

5819 appears to have been at Carmarthen for quite a while - shown as being there in 1948 and still there in 1957, the year it was withdrawn; it had previously been at Newcastle Emlyn and before that at Llandovery indicating that it would seem to have spent its time that side of Carmarthen rather than further west.

[Coach bogie]

Mainline were the first major RTR to use split chassis in the UK. They could not be re-wheeled without actually building a new complete chassis.

 

What happens is that one of the nylon axles looses its tight grip with the wheel causing to de-quarter. Re quartering would temporarily address it, but the problem would quite quickly get worse and worse as the grip would become more and more loose.

I don't think any satisfactory glue was found for use between the nylon axle and the mazak wheel (super glue would just snap).

I think you will find the Triang Stephenson's Rocket beat them by many years with a split chassis.

 

http://www.hornbyguide.com/service_sheet_details.asp?sheetid=252

 

Mike Wiltshire

[The Johnster]

I think you will find the Triang Stephenson's Rocket beat them by many years with a split chassis.

 

http://www.hornbyguide.com/service_sheet_details.asp?sheetid=252

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

So it did; I never knew that!  

 

A well designed split chassis has several advantages, especially in that it can be completely free running as there are no wiper pickups to act as a brake on the driving wheels, or collect dirt.  The Mainline ones employed a very inefficient nylon gear train which negated any such advantage and required a very fast running motor to develop sufficient power to overcome the problem, itself of course needing more than normal gearing down, which in turn needed...

 

The nylon axle shifting and resultant loss of reliable quartering made matters worse, and of my 3 remaining Mainline locos, 2 have died irresurrectably with this problem and I have retired and replaced the third with a modern Bachmann version.  The problem wasn't that the split chassis concept was flawed, more a matter of poor choice of materials and, as it turned out with the benefit of hindsight, less than brilliant initial design!  A better way of fitting the stub axles to the nylon inners and a different gear train might have solved it, but probably at excessive costs in what were mass produced items.

[railroadbill]

The Mainline/Bachmann  solution was to  sell replacement chassis to replace the ones that wore out so quickly....     still have a J72 on it's second chassis that runs sort of ok...

[melmerby]

They could not be re-wheeled without actually building a new complete chassis.

 

Not strictly true.

You could bush the original bearing slots and use standard axles/wheels.

The motor is extremely easy to isolate as it relies on extended brush tags to contact the respective side of the chassis, cut them off and the motor is isolated (I have done that to convert a Mainline Manor to DCC)

Provide conventional pickups.

I had seriously considered doing this to a Mainline 43XX, however there is a big "but".

The motors are rubbish and the chassis is of low quality Mazak, prone to the ever present "Mazak Rot"

 

Keith

[Captain Kernow]

The Mainline/Bachmann  solution was to  sell replacement chassis to replace the ones that wore out so quickly....     still have a J72 on it's second chassis that runs sort of ok...

Interestingly, I was once in a position where I needed to replace the old Mainline split chassis in a J72, but the 'replacement' Bachmann chassis didn't fit. Some problem in the cab area, it seemed. I took the 'replacement' chassis back and got a refund, and built a Perseverence chassis for the loco instead.

[railroadbill]

Interestingly, I was once in a position where I needed to replace the old Mainline split chassis in a J72, but the 'replacement' Bachmann chassis didn't fit. Some problem in the cab area, it seemed. I took the 'replacement' chassis back and got a refund, and built a Perseverence chassis for the loco instead.

   Um yes I actually cut the tension lock coupling fittings off the second chassis (with the "flywheel motor" as they called it), as I fitted screw link type couplings instead, but unfortunately that also removed the screw fixing at the front of the chassis (the rear fixing was a couple of lugs into the rear buffer beam).  In the end I drilled and tapped a hole in the chassis under the chimney and put a nylon bolt down the chimney to screw the body down.  I was given another J72 body and used that with a Mainly Trains chassis kit, much better runner with mashima motor and gibson wheels.  But I digress....

Apologies for being    

[lofty1966]

Received my order today.

Those that "won't purchase as recessed no. Plates are shoite" really should take a look at themselves and maybe move on to stamp collecting or coin collecting.

I really cannot see what the fuss is about

Only problem I can see is the previously mentioned sand pipes and ashpan (lack there of)

[The Johnster]

Interestingly, I was once in a position where I needed to replace the old Mainline split chassis in a J72, but the 'replacement' Bachmann chassis didn't fit. Some problem in the cab area, it seemed. I took the 'replacement' chassis back and got a refund, and built a Perseverence chassis for the loco instead.

 

Did the same thing a short while back with a 56xx.  Mainline and painted and lined green by yours truly even before the Mainline lined green one came out, so very old, though still a good (if noisy) runner.  But I'd just had a Mainline 8750 die on me because the front axle had worn through the rh chassis block, and the 56xx was going the same way, so when my local model shop had a s/h recent Bachmann 56xx chassis for less than silly money, I jumped at it!

 

Thought it was going to be a straight swap-out, but it wasn't.  Baccy have obviously made minor changes to the body moulding, and I found the new chassis fouled on the cab floor and rear sandboxes.  I had to remove the sandboxes and cut away the front half of the cab floor to get it to fit, to find that the fixing screw holes didn't line up.

 

I have bodged it with £1 shop superglue to fix the body onto the chassis, pending a better engineered solution; £1 shop superglue sticks thing together but is reasonably easy to break if they need to come apart.  The sandboxes were just £1 shop superglued back on.

 

I also have a Mainline 8750 body which I may try to fit to my new Baccy 57xx chassis to ring the changes a bit, and will probably have similar issues with that.  It's not difficult, but is faffy, and I can see why you exchanged your J72 chassis!

[JSpencer]

We are OT here but the Bachmann and Mainline 56XX are two totally different toolings. Unlike the 57Xx

[DavidH]

On the other hand, to me, your first picture looks as if the plate has been melted into the cab side, rather than being mounted on it. Of course, it is an extreme close up, but it's the sort of detail that, once spotted, stands out.

 

[...]

Those that "won't purchase as recessed no. Plates are shoite" really should take a look at themselves and maybe move on to stamp collecting or coin collecting.
I really cannot see what the fuss is about

[Captain Kernow]

Those that "won't purchase as recessed no. Plates are shoite" really should take a look at themselves and maybe move on to stamp collecting or coin collecting.

I really cannot see what the fuss is about

 

Thanks for posting your photos, but I'm afraid that I can see what the fuss is about.

 

I've only just got my modelling mojo back after over 2 years of absence, so I won't be moving on to stamp or coin collecting, thank you.

 

 

On the other hand, to me, your first picture looks as if the plate has been melted into the cab side, rather than being mounted on it. Of course, it is an extreme close up, but it's the sort of detail that, once spotted, stands out.

Agreed.

 

 

I am letting my order stand, though.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Captain Kernow

[melmerby]

We are OT here but the Bachmann and Mainline 56XX are two totally different toolings. Unlike the 57Xx

Still

The current Bachmann 57XX/8750 is a different beast to the Mainline versions. The Bachmann chassis has had two upgrades and the body has also been upgraded.

I've got a Mainline 57XX on a late type Bachmann chassis and you do need to fiddle a bit to get it to fit. I have also several late Bachmann 57XX/8750

 

This is the old type Bachmann 57XX:

http://www.Bachmann.co.uk/pdfs/37-900.pdf

Which does not use the same chassis as Mainline.

The current Chassis is totally different.

 

Keith

[Guest chris.trebble]

On the other hand, to me, your first picture looks as if the plate has been melted into the cab side, rather than being mounted on it. Of course, it is an extreme close up, but it's the sort of detail that, once spotted, stands out.

 

Totally agree with DavidH's comments. The recessed number plates, lack of ashpan, oversize wheels and suspect chassis mean I won't be adding one to my collection. BUT, hopefully, DJ Models will be able to take the various criticisms on board and modify future designs accordingly. This new company has entered a very competitive market with very demanding customers but has, perhaps, not helped itself by claiming that its models will offer perfection - a claim that it has so far not been able to achieve. Hopefully, experience will help them to realise their ambitions and we, as demanding customers, will be able to help them to build their business accordingly. As for the near future, I look forward with hope and anticipation to Kernow's warships. 

[Welchester]

On the other hand, to me, your first picture looks as if the plate has been melted into the cab side, rather than being mounted on it. Of course, it is an extreme close up, but it's the sort of detail that, once spotted, stands out.

 

I don't find it noticeable from normal viewing distance, or even close up with the naked eye. However, since reading here about the coupling rods, every time I see the loco trundling around the track, I have a mental picture of the plywood loco in 'The Titfield Thunderbolt'.

[coachmann]

Received my order today.

Those that "won't purchase as recessed no. Plates are shoite" really should take a look at themselves and maybe move on to stamp collecting or coin collecting.

I really cannot see what the fuss is about.

 

Why am I not surprised to see one of our members from the spectator stand telling the few remaining railway modellers on this forum that they should take up stamp collecting! A casual glance at any GWR locomotive on a heritage line will show what a real plate looks like when mounted on the face of a cabside or bunker. The plate has an additional surround outside of the raised edge, which DJM/Hattons in no way replicates, in fact it does the opposite and sinks the plate inside a recess that is not a feature of any GWR locomotive that ever existed. But of course I shouldn't bring logic into it should I.  It was a model manufacturing expediency. 

 

Edited February 22, 2017 by coachmann

[The Johnster]

Still

The current Bachmann 57XX/8750 is a different beast to the Mainline versions. The Bachmann chassis has had two upgrades and the body has also been upgraded.

I've got a Mainline 57XX on a late type Bachmann chassis and you do need to fiddle a bit to get it to fit. I have also several late Bachmann 57XX/8750

 

This is the old type Bachmann 57XX:

http://www.Bachmann.co.uk/pdfs/37-900.pdf

Which does not use the same chassis as Mainline.

The current Chassis is totally different.

 

Keith

 

Thank you for the useful info, Melmerby and JSpencer.  I will be wary, when fitting the old ML 8750 to my new Baccy chassis as it is important that I can refit the original 57xx Baccy body without trouble, so if anything needs cuttiing on the chassis, it's a no no.

 

If I were in the market for a 14xx, which I might be in a while but there are other priorities to be bought first, I doubt if the recessed number plate would put me off; I'd be renumbering anyway and the new plate would cover the multitude of sins.  The chassis comments are worrying, though; if I understand the situation correctly DJH have gone for a drive train which engages with both driving axles.  I don't see why this should be an issue in itself, as 4 and 6 wheeled diesel models have been driven in this way successfully for years, but on a coupled chassis you would presumably need a bit of play in the crankpin/coupling rod interface, which you do anyway.

 

Although having said that I think that DJH have overengineered the drive train and power transmitted to non driven axles through the coupling rods is not only prototypical but a well proven method that works fine.

[Tom F]

Just to be pedantic, I don't believe Mainline ever did the 8750, only the 57XX, The 8750 was released by Bachmann in 1999.

 

My replacement 5819 has arrived, about to go and test....wish me luck!

[PenrithBeacon]

Having grown wary about the quality of new releases I chose not to pre-order this one. Now I'm glad I didn't.

 

Like coachman I have good memories of the auto trains in the Oswestry and Wrexham districts and it would be nice to be able to see them again as it were. I think the Hornby model is the way forward for me.

 

Regards

[Tom F]

No better I'm afraid (actually I'd say it's worse). This is after running in for the instructed time and oiling. I'll be sending back and wont be asking for a replacement, instead a refund.

I'm sure some run sweetly and I've bee unlucky in acquiring two like this. I had asked that Hattons test the loco before sending, which going off the condition of this I don't think they have (could be wrong).

 

May test with a decoder later on the layout, but ultimately I'll be building a chassis for a detailed airfix body.

[coachmann]

No better I'm afraid (actually I'd say it's worse). This is after running in for the instructed time and oiling. I'll be sending back and wont be asking for a replacement, instead a refund.

I'm sure some run sweetly and I've bee unlucky in acquiring two like this. I had asked that Hattons test the loco before sending, which going off the condition of this I don't think they have (could be wrong).

 

May test with a decoder later on the layout, but ultimately I'll be building a chassis for a detailed airfix body.

Something is obviously binding. With a normal drive where the connecting rods transmit movement to the other drivers, one would initially look at the quartering of the wheels. This of course should still be looked at, but beyond this the drive train gearing might make it hard to pin down the fault. For comparison mine runs sweetly (only tested on DC).