liathach

Referring back to the perception of the black colour. I have 5350. To my eyes, it is a satin finish very dark grey. Around the chassis area, it looks fine. On the smokebox area and rooftop the colour looks very shiny satin and much lighter than the black on other locomotives I have. With a bit of powders weathering, I'll be fine with it. Attached image of 5350 facing a Hornby Grange. Having run 5350 earlier, it's performance is very good. It starts very smoothly (Zimo MX617F) and there's no hint of cogging. It runs dead straight and smooth on the track, much better than most of the other locos I have. The motion looks really good in action. Hopefully, an easy fix, the tender wheels do have the odd hint of wheel drag similar to most of the Hornby stock I have.

Regarding DCC running, I decided to look at trying a Zimo MX617F decoder via a LAISDCC NEXT18 Adapter. Much smoother starting than with the Next 18 Decoder. With the the MX617F, running right from the start is excellent throughout. Running further with the MX617F has been excellent. Definitely a smoother start that either the Accurascale Manor or the earlier 43xx. There was quite a bit of movement forward and backwards from the front pony pivot and in the tender connection. A shim has easily sorted the front pony. I might simplify the tender to a bar connection, if that looks practical at a later date.

I've received Great Western green 5350 earlier. Out-of-the-box IMHO, the loco starts more smoothly than the Accurascale Manor I had and the first edition of the mogul from Dapol. There's the odd hint of cogging, but only during the first speed step. Above that first speed step, running is excellent. Hopefully, this will improve with more running. Whilst the satin very dark grey/faded black (the rendition of black) appears ideal for the chassis area, it does look strange on the smokebox and roof. I'll probably use powders weathering to improve the roof and smokebox.

Received the Br Late Version over the weekend. Offer from one of the big shops. RHS coupling rod had been bent badly between the middle and rear drivers in both planes. Test run seemed fine, so rather than return, I removed the rod and gently got it back straight. Another test run good. I decided to apply powders weathering. After running for barely ten minutes, the loco would intermittently stop. After going round the houses, it appears it suffers from a mobile axle gear on the leading driver! I've asked the retailer (cc'd OR) to send a replacement wheelset. Not impressed with the QC or box checking by the retailer!

I've been closely monitoring other locos lately. I have a couple of Bachmann 56xxs. They have a larger standard Bachmann 3 pole motor with a large diameter worm. Both those cause wagon coupling vibration. 45xx I also have a couple. They have the larger Bachmann 3 pole motor. These also cause coupling vibration, but not anywhere as noticeable as the 56xxs, 57xxs/8750s or the Jinties. I have run a number of different Hornby steam loco classes recently. None of the Hornby locos impart the vibration on the wagons. None of the diesels from Bachmann or Heljan run with the vibration. Further to one of the earlier posts, I fixed one of the Jinty motors firmly to the cradle, but this had no effect on the vibration. IMHO, the issue is with the Bachmann motor design.

I've had time earlier to try alternative motors in one of the panniers. I managed to get a coreless motor to mesh with the gears. Next job was finding the magic CVs to get the coreless motor smooth. The previous vibrating NEM coupling issue has gone, so IMHO the small Bachmann motor creates the vibration. I will test the coreless motor when I have more time. If the coreless motor works well over time, I will change over the other Bachmann Jinties and Panniers to the same motor.

I finally got round to trying one of the Bachmann Coal Tanks on DCC. I must admit it's been a right challenge to get enough Tantalum capacitors inside the boiler and under the bunker to keep the loco running consistently. The contacts seem far flimsier than on other Bachmann locos. One wheel contact inverted and jammed against a spoke. Other Bachmann Tank locos have been much easier to get running consistently.

I've just tested a few more Bachmann engines: Two Bachmann 57xx Panniers (same motor) produce the same vibration effect, albeit not as noticeable in intensity. The range of speeds when the vibration occurs is less than the Jinties (I believe this is probably affected by the extra weight of the Panniers?). More modern design Southern E4 tank: dead smooth no visible vibration on same wagons and no audible vibration.

Just looked up this post. I've been running a couple of Bachmann Jinties for years. They display the same behaviour in that wagons tend to "vibrate" rapidly, especially when being propelled and in the low to medium speed range. I'm on DCC (Zimo decoders). I've swapped around motors and tested different decoders and all sorts of alterations to motor-related CVs. Nothing seems to solve the odd issue. The much heavier Pannier chassis (with the same motor) doesn't yield the same vibration when in motion. Out of interest, does anyone have the 1F loco (think this has the same motor?) or the Coal Tank (newer design so might be an updated motor) for comparison? From the Bachmann website, it looks like the more recent Bachmann releases of the Jinty have an updated chassis.

My local, friendly model shop had a used bargain on the BR Blue Weathered model of Falcon last week. I couldn't resist. With a ZIMO MX633 decoder, the running is very smooth. The lights set up is far better on this model than used on the Type Two and Type Three Bo-Bo from Heljan.

I purchased 68733 on a complete whim in Carlisle the other day. Must admit, regarding running, the coreless motor gave jerky running on a GM Feedback controller. I'm on DCC, so the engine now has a ZImo next 18 decoder. Running on DCC far quieter, much better slow-speed. Seems to be getting smoother and quieter. Initially with the decoder, the engine stalled repeatedly, due to the very small wheelbase and lack of sprung drivers. I've squeezed in as many tantalum capacitors connected to a Stay Alive Charging Circuit, as shown on Youchoos' website. Excellent haulage for such a tiny locomotive. Overall, I'm pleased with the engine: only suggestion to Bachmann would be to reconsider the sprung centre drivers, as per the LMS 3F Jinty and GWR Panniers.

I have R3411 S15. Same issues here. Random motor cutting out with different DCC decoders. I've added capacitors, but problem stays. I've tested rewiring. Problem has persisted. I've noticed motor getting warm, so likely internal issue. Interestingly, motor will still run with power directly applied to the motor feeds. I might try one more replacement motor. . If that fails....it might go on a popular auction site. Chuff 34006, have you tried CV145 alterations, just in case that helps? I doubt it will, but when I have time, I might try that.

Hello Ray, I've been digging in the spares box this morning and put a smaller spring, which seemed to fit better (If the spring provides too much push down on the drawbar, the front axle of the tender is lifted). I had a heavy 14-wagon coal train with a 28xx running. This load is far heavier than my previous tests. The Dukedog will now lift that train without a fuss. I will tidy the wires, although they are not in contact with the axle or wheels. Regarding the front truck, I noticed it held the track less smoothly when I placed the original with a finer one giving less tension. I previously had an Oxford Rail Dean Goods, which also could not pull anything near a decent load. Be interesting to see if a spring against the tender drawbar would work with that. Cheers, John

Hello All, Yesterday, I took delivery of 9003 in GWR Green. It does look a treat, and with a good decoder, ran very smoothly. I'm guessing at the gradients I have, maybe 1/50 on 3rd/4th radius curves. The loco struggled to haul ten wagons or three mk1 coaches with slipping. As per Ray's previous advice, I tried removing the front truck washer and using a different spring: this yielded no discernible benefit. I was thinking of consigning the loco for storage. However, I had an idea earlier: maybe put a spring between the tender base and the loco drawbar to see if the tender weight would therefore put more weight to bear on the driving wheels. Initial testing straightaway showed this loco would now smoothly pull five mk1 coaches without the slipping it formerly showed with just three coaches. Adding the spring in that position means that, potentially, the tender front axle can lift due to the loco weight counter-balancing. Moving the spring sit position to reduce the amount wire inside the compressible area has reduced that effect, without loss of traction. I will experiment further, with maybe adding weight at the front of the tender. Regards, John

Pictures above might be of use. It seems the hunch about the PCB being a factor with DCC control might be correct. I swapped a few spare motors from different models earlier. I decided to bypass the PCB. The PCB shown in the picture is labelled with the L and R rail connections from the towers. The decoder is wired to these. Trying the original motor supplied with D829 Magpie, I got a partial improvement with the wires bypassing the PCB. I then tried another spare motor - which I think is from a type two - which needed extended cardan shafts made using cotton bud tubes cut the length with cut track pins through them at their ends to fit the motor and tower females. The motor from the type two now runs almost as smoothly as the older design D820 Grenville. It might be worth other people trying the same with their Warships for comparison!