Hattons announce 14xx / 48xx / 58xx

[Paul_sterling]

to be fair, having a load of weight on the tail end doesn't do a Fergy TE20 any harm for traction............. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Paul_sterling

[melmerby]

to be fair, having a load of weight on the tail end doesn't do a Fergy TE20 any harm for traction............. 

But isn't that where all the power is required?

Wouln't be much good for ploughing with 90% on the front wheels

[NickC]

Being tail heavy doesn't help with electrical pickup on the front wheels either. You tend to only get pickup on the back driving wheels and the rear truck. Perhaps a brass chimney would help to balance the weight forward onto the driving wheels and thus improve electrical pickup

Edited March 10, 2017 by NickC

[tender]

Are the wheels of the rear truck sprung?

[melmerby]

Are the wheels of the rear truck sprung?

Don't seem to be.

 

Keith

[melmerby]

Perhaps a brass chimney would help to balance the weight forward onto the driving wheels and thus improve electrical pickup

There might be room in the smokebox for a little extra weight as it only seems to contain wires and socket (plus chip) for DCC.

Could be a bit of a squeeze though.

 

Keith

[The Johnster]

I take your point about gearing and wheelsize favouring the Pug, but there is not much weight in the Pug yet there is minimal

wheelslip ! In theory the smaller diameter wheels have a smaller contact area with the rail.

 

Surely the 0-4-2 configuration could be constructed as a rigid chassis and the rear axle geared up to compensate for the smaller diameter wheel. Something coupling rods couldn't do!

 

 

Mmmmm.  Have to say I don't like the sound of that, Limpley.  Not the powered rear axle, that's a great idea if it can be done, but 'rigidising' an 0-4-2 chassis; the rear truck needs to be seen to move as that loco runs through a curve.  Hatton's/DJM are coming in for enough stick already with oversize driving wheels and splashers and recessed number plates, and would be crucified if they tried to make the loco an 0-6-0, rightly too in my view.

[Limpley Stoker]

Mmmmm. Have to say I don't like the sound of that, Limpley. Not the powered rear axle, that's a great idea if it can be done, but 'rigidising' an 0-4-2 chassis; the rear truck needs to be seen to move as that loco runs through a curve. Hatton's/DJM are coming in for enough stick already with oversize driving wheels and splashers and recessed number plates, and would be crucified if they tried to make the loco an 0-6-0, rightly too in my view.

I suspect Hattons have stopped reading this months ago, but on the point of the 14xx rear axle I assumed it did not move radially because it has external bearings fixed to the frames.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Limpley Stoker

[coachmann]

I suspect Hattons have stopped reading this months ago, ....

Funnily enough I feel that way about their website at times when trying to find new locos buried in all that secondhand tat. 

[Nelson Jackson]

Funnily enough I feel that way about their website at times when trying to find new locos buried in all that secondhand tat. 

There's a tick box which you can select which hides all of the second hand items, very useful indeed.

[melmerby]

 but on the point of the 14xx rear axle I assumed it did not move radially because it has external bearings fixed to the frames.

Exactly, that's how it is on the prototype

On the model the rear axle already moves from side to side quite a bit as do the drivers, presumably for the benefit of "toy train" curves, so gearing it as a drive axle would not IMHO make it an 0-6-0

It just needs gearing up by a ratio of 62:44 (assuming correct sized wheels!)

 

Keith

Edited March 11, 2017 by melmerby

[Pannier Tank]

If you are considering a new chassis why pay £100 for the Hattons variety when there are plenty of Airfix ones around at £20 which leaves £80 for detailing/customising of the body.

 

Keith

 

I've just cancelled my 14xx order.

[kandc_au]

I've just cancelled my 14xx order.

 

Same here!

 

Khris

[tender]

Don't seem to be.

 

Keith

Oh dear, maybe that's why the traction is not so good. Both the BWT and O2 have sprung (non driven) axels, bogie in the case of the O2 to keep the coupled driving wheels firmly on the track.

[melmerby]

Oh dear, maybe that's why the traction is not so good. Both the BWT and O2 have sprung (non driven) axels, bogie in the case of the O2 to keep the coupled driving wheels firmly on the track.

It's still better than an Airfix one as it has more weight on the drivers.

All a sprung rear axle would do is transfer some of the weight from the rear drivers to the front ones

A better solution would have been to get some more weight up front so the trailing wheels do nothing but contact the track.

 

IMHO there is too much plastic and not enough metal in the construction. From that point of view it is no better than the Airfix one but without the huge 5 pole motor sticking into the cab!.

It could have benefitted from some metal being used in the boiler, smokebox, smokebox door, dome etc.

 

Keith

[PMP]

I find myself wondering if some of the responses are from people whom have actually got one or properly looked at one. There are pictures here of the model including the chassis as well as in the instructions parts list

https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/hattons-djm-14xx-review-h1410/

 

The chassis is rigid. The chassis (my example) sits square on a glass surface. I can't even get a feeler gauge of three thousandths of an inch to slide under either main or pony truck wheelset.

The electrical pickup is split axle on all three axles and shows no variation in effectiveness. The rear axle slides laterally and if I recall correctly Bachmann do the same with the L&Y 2-4-2T chassis.

 

Ps @ melmerby, your post #1600, what technique/method did you use to determine weight over axles please?

 

Edit to add last sentence

Edited March 11, 2017 by PMP

[The Johnster]

I stand corrected on the matter of the rigidity of the chassis!

[melmerby]

Ps @ melmerby, your post #1600, what technique/method did you use to determine weight over axles please?

 

Edit to add last sentence

After weighing the loco I balanced the loco horizontally on the rear driving wheels with the trailing wheels on a set of digital scales

As there is no weight on the front wheels I reckoned this would give a satisfactory reading.

 

Unless you have some sort of compensated suspension on level track only two axles are ever going to carry weight.

 

Cheers

Keith

 

P.S. just read the Wordpess bit you linked to, much of the comments on here are similar.

e.g. oversize wheels (why?) lack of forward weight (where's that tungsten I keep harping on about?)

Edited March 11, 2017 by melmerby

[BWsTrains]

After weighing the loco I balanced the loco horizontally on the rear driving wheels with the trailing wheels on a set of digital scales

As there is no weight on the front wheels I reckoned this would give a satisfactory reading.

 

Unless you have some sort of compensated suspension on level track only two axles are ever going to carry weight.

 

Cheers

Keith

 

P.S. just read the Wordpess bit you linked to, much of the comments on here are similar.

e.g. oversize wheels (why?) lack of forward weight (where's that tungsten I keep harping on about?)

The critical question would appear to be "where is the Centre of Gravity on a DJM 14xx?" If it is behind the central axle that might be a problem and vice versa. Surely DJM will have addressed this issue during design to maximise traction?

Likewise, with older models; it seems to me with a heavier motor there is a possibility the CoG might be further forward in the Airfix. Perhaps someone with both can supply some data.

[BWsTrains]

BTW, just in case my point about Centre of Gravity escapes anyone. A body acts as if all weight is applied at the CoG - think a see-saw with one side slightly heavier / lower because CoG is that side of the pivot.

 

In the rigid chassis 14xx the pivot is the middle axle.

So if the CoG is forward of the middle axle all weight will act thru the front two axles whether all axles are on the track or not and no matter how small the difference! If the CoG is behind then all weight will be on the rear 2 axles. One axle can be in contact but with no effective weight applying to the track.

 

Only exception to my point would be if central axle were slightly higher than the other 2 and not acting as the pivot, but that would put a fair bit of weight on the un-driven rear axle and would be a dumb arrangement

 

It might also mean that a small weight placed very well forward, would be sufficient to tip the balance, so to speak. Could be a good market in bespoke Tungsten funnels or even a few grams of Pb carefully placed?

Edited March 11, 2017 by BWsTrains

[JSpencer]

BTW, just in case my point about Centre of Gravity escapes anyone. A body acts as if all weight is applied at the CoG - think a see-saw with one side slightly heavier / lower because CoG is that side of the pivot.

 

In the rigid chassis 14xx the pivot is the middle axle.

So if the CoG is forward of the middle axle all weight will act thru the front two axles whether all axles are on the track or not and no matter how small the difference! If the CoG is behind then all weight will be on the rear 2 axles. One axle can be in contact but with no effective weight applying to the track.

 

Only exception to my point would be if central axle were slightly higher than the other 2 and not acting as the pivot, but that would put a fair bit of weight on the un-driven rear axle and would be a dumb arrangement

 

It might also mean that a small weight placed very well forward, would be sufficient to tip the balance, so to speak. Could be a good market in bespoke Tungsten funnels or even a few grams of Pb carefully placed?

It is a bit more complex than that.

 

In a rigid chassis on a 14XX, you really do need as much weight over the front drivers.

 

There will be parts of any track work where the middle pair of wheels won,t be in contact with the track.

 

Now if the middle of the loco, which were advised weighs about 180grams, is the centre of gravity then when the middle wheels are not in contact, you will have an even split of 90 grams over the front pair and rear pair respectively.

 

If it is aft the second drivers, then we could find the front drivers with only 70 grams or less depending how far aft the weight is.

When the middle drivers bite the track, the bulk of the weight will shift back onto the driving wheels again, say 150 or 160 grams.

 

In a rigid chassis, it does not take much for the middle drivers to loose contact.

Sprung rear axle would help, but requires the weight to be concentrated over the drivers, that in itself may result in a lighter loco. We do not know if the two alternatives were explored, and without calculations it is difficult to say which would be better.

 

DJM are the only make making it easy to fit DCC sound in these small engines while other makes cram weight in leaving DCC sound people to be inventive. I know other makes mix Diecast and plastic in the body now. That sure adds weight, but not always easy to get as fine detail nor ensure effective joints where plastic meets metal.

Personally, I prefer sprung although respect that this is not always possible.

[BWsTrains]

JSpencer,

 

I agree with most of your points. I was trying to get the principle clear and what we really need to further understand driving problems with 14xx is where is the GoG?

 

Where I disagree is with..

"If it is aft the second drivers, then we could find the front drivers with only 70 grams or less depending how far aft the weight is."

 

If the COG is behind the middle axis, then on perfectly level track there should be no effective weight bearing onto the front axle. This is Physics - the action of the COG is down from behind the centre axle transferring some share of the weight to the rear. Without flexing of the chassis there is no basis for any down action anywhere forward of the "pivot" i.e. centre axle as per my see-saw example. The lighter person on the see saw still has a mass of 50kg but that does not mean there is a weight of 50kg bearing down at that point. Their mass effective acts at the CoG  

Edited March 11, 2017 by BWsTrains

[Wheatley]

JSpencer, on 11 Mar 2017 - 22:21, said:

DJM are the only make making it easy to fit DCC sound in these small engines while other makes cram weight in leaving DCC sound people to be inventive.

In a working model, surely function has to be a given and everything else a nice to have ? There were similar comments about the O2 that the weight was too far back.

[spiket4]

I have 1450 on order and after reading the reviews i'm not so sure it's going to be suitable for my small layout.

I had planned to use it with a Bachmann Autocoach and some shunting duties. 

Are the slow speed running qualities as bad as some have said?

It sounds to me like there is a quality control issue if this is true.

I can live with minor detail issues but poor running i can't.

 

Regards Mark

[melmerby]

C'mon folks

 

The loco is tail heavy so there is no weight on the front driving wheels. No ifs, no buts.

That's what my weight test shows.

 

My Post #1600:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/92852-hattons-announce-14xx-48xx-58xx/page-64&do=findComment&comment=2646467

 

Starting from scratch making this loco front heavy should have been part of the initial design specification. (CoG forward of the rear drivers)

It wasn't, so it is less than ideal for traction, but is still better balanced than the Airfix one.

 

If the DCC decoder was fitted in the bunker area, that would have left most of the front of the boiler and the smokebox empty which could have been filled with ballast.

 

Keith