Kernow Adams O2

[Gwiwer]

Has anyone had any issues with haulage capacity on an incline. My O2 had two maunsells on a barely noticeable incline and stalls.

 

Has anyone taken the body off to see where additional weight can be added ?

 

"Barely noticeable" can still be significant.  Do you know the actual angle of gradient?  Is there a curve involved which would significantly increase the drag and consequently reduce the haulage capacity of anything, not just an O2?  Have you run-in the O2 thoroughly before asking it to climb hills?

 

If it slips to a stand then gravity is overcoming the coefficient of friction and additional weight might help.  If it's stalling then the problem might be insufficient current reaching the coreless motor.  Those are new to most of us and there may be some set-ups where they aren't quite happy.  My layout for example uses ultrasonic track cleaners on the 16Vac uncontrolled output which coreless motors may object to.  I'll let you know dreckly once 30182 arrives.

[billbedford]

Will the coaches run down this incline unaided?

[70E]

Thank you for the replies.

 

Yes it slips to a stand, there are some curves involved and the coaches do run freely down the incline.

 

I think it may be the curves but I have noticed that when it is stood on a flat surface it rocks/pivots on the rear driving wheels and has a tendency to lift the front driving wheels ever so slightly which may be exacerbated with a load, incline, bad track laying etc etc.

 

If it is that, how best to keep the nose down or just use on the flat!?

[DCB]

You could follow prototype practice Lyme Regis style  and if the 02 can't cope with the curves and gradients bring in an Adams Radial?

 

It is a bit late in the day to worry about traction, getting as much weight forward as possible and making the back as light as possible is something for the start of the design process, the alternative is to power the bogie wheels.. which I have been looking into for my M7 and 14XX

 

As regards the derailing on the code 83 it does sound odd if it copes with code 75,  Did the derailing occur at the same place every time?  There could be a problem with the side of the railhead, dirt or poor manufacture or gauge narrowing due to not cutting all the sleeper webs on one side on flexi track.     

 

However post 762 links to a video of an 02 running which looks to have quartering troubles as the tyre of the leading wheel is clearly moving backwards and forwards in relation to the chassis.  Over length or short coupling rods can also cause this problem. but I guess correcting a quartering issue could be challenging.  

[Bill]

Well - The O2 arrived today..

On surface inspection it is a truly lovely little model to look at.

The level of detailing is extraordinarily fine - Well done Kernow and Dave..

However..

A brief examination and a short test revealed four points of concern..

(1) Very minor but the decorative front coupling hook had fallen off in transit and lay on the bottom of the Box..

(2) There are what appear to be moulding lines running along the length of the tanks. These appear just below the BR emblem.

Now they may represent some feature of the O2 that I am not aware of - in which case fine...

But they, well, show...

Of major concern...

(3) When running around the track it is definitely binding and thus dragging around the corners.

(The curves on this layout are mostly 4th and 3rd set track type atlas code 100..)

At creep speed it halted.. At slow speed it was halting.. at moderate speed there is perceptible slowing.. At fast just a sense of grinding around the bends

Upon examining the back to backs of all the wheels. The front drive wheels were too far apart by about 1/2 mm and so were the rearmost wheels.

Now I am not sure how to fix the back to back issue without

(a) Completely disassembling the model (something I would rather not do as something is bound to get broken) or

(b-) Trying in-situ and irrevocably damaging it in some way...

Any suggestions?

(4) Derailing so far has not been a big issue... 19 times out of 20 the front wheels derails on a certain Peco medium left hand turn-out when turning left.

For some reason the foremost wheels jump or ride up on the check rail and they come off the track..

This is the only Loco (and I have many both OO and H0) that has this issue with this turn-out

(this might have something to do with the back to back issue, and will disappear if and when fixed.).

Over some of the other points its a wee bit too 'bouncy' for my peace of mind but it does not derail..

Its a pity.

Much of the enjoyment of running a model railroad comes from locomotives that behave well and predictably...

So I do hope the running issues at least can be corrected...

I'll post some photos later on in the day..

A bit sad really..

My suggestion to Kernow is that before sending out any more O2s they check the B to B on every single model in stock and fix them..

 

P.S. I have written to Kernow advising them of this problem - although by now they are probably well aware of it...

Edited October 24, 2015 by Bill

[Ryde-on-time]

Concerning point 2 above, the model of 30182 has the repair plates modelled along the bottom the the side tanks, strips of metal which were added to repair leaks. From photos they were quite prominent and seem to be accurately portrayed. They can be seen in pictures of 30182 on the RCTS rail tour

[mevaman]

Over my lifetime of modelling, I have had models from all manufacturers which don't run well out then box.! Having worked in the business I have seen batches of models going out with varying small % of returns. I always put it down to minor QC issues as most can be readily fixed.

 

Some customers, rightly return models and others almost enjoy the challenge of fixing the problems. I am in the latter camp.

 

It looks as if some models have back to back issues leading to derailments on some track configurations and others have binding on

cirves. I don't know statistically how many models are affected. Kernow have said that they had sold 1,000 with no returns to-date,

 

When I worked at Kernow, I set up a spreadsheet to monitor the % returns for each manufacturer. I had some surprising results - suffice to say that the worst rates were around 4% (I won't divulge who this was). This is 40 models in 1,000 so O assume that the 02 has a much lower rate than this.

 

Hope that this helps put some perspective on things.

 

Andrew

[Loconuts]

The problem with the Back to Back could be the same as experienced with the Mainline models. The stub axle was pressed into a blind hole in a plastic muff which compresses the air in the hole.  if there is no where for the air to escape it will provide a force on the stub axle forcing the axle out of the muff.

 

To solve the problem requires drilling of a small cross hole through the muff to enable the air to escape.

 

Loconuts

[dibber25]

Well - The O2 arrived today..

On surface inspection it is a truly lovely little model to look at.

The level of detailing is extraordinarily fine - Well done Kernow and Dave..

However..

A brief examination and a short test revealed four points of concern..

(1) Very minor but the decorative front coupling hook had fallen off in transit and lay on the bottom of the Box..

(2) There are what appear to be moulding lines running along the length of the tanks. These appear just below the BR emblem.

Now they may represent some feature of the O2 that I am not aware of - in which case fine...

But they, well, show...

Of major concern...

(3) When running around the track it is definitely binding and thus dragging around the corners.

(The curves on this layout are mostly 4th and 3rd set track type atlas code 100..)

At creep speed it halted.. At slow speed it was halting.. at moderate speed there is perceptible slowing.. At fast just a sense of grinding around the bends

Upon examining the back to backs of all the wheels. The front drive wheels were too far apart by about 1/2 mm and so were the rearmost wheels.

Now I am not sure how to fix the back to back issue without

(a) Completely disassembling the model (something I would rather not do as something is bound to get broken) or

(b-) Trying in-situ and irrevocably damaging it in some way...

Any suggestions?

(4) Derailing so far has not been a big issue... 19 times out of 20 the front wheels derails on a certain Peco medium left hand turn-out when turning left.

For some reason the foremost wheels jump or ride up on the check rail and they come off the track..

This is the only Loco (and I have many both OO and H0) that has this issue with this turn-out

(this might have something to do with the back to back issue, and will disappear if and when fixed.).

Over some of the other points its a wee bit too 'bouncy' for my peace of mind but it does not derail..

Its a pity.

Much of the enjoyment of running a model railroad comes from locomotives that behave well and predictably...

So I do hope the running issues at least can be corrected...

I'll post some photos later on in the day..

A bit sad really..

My suggestion to Kernow is that before sending out any more O2s they check the B to B on every single model in stock and fix them..

 

P.S. I have written to Kernow advising them of this problem - although by now they are probably well aware of it...

I was hoping that the problems I described in the MR review were unique and resulted from a mismatch in some way between the model and my layout. They clearly are not unique but they are rare. What you describe is pretty much exactly what happened with the review model. I have done a great deal more investigation since the original test. In particular, I could not see how the geometry of the bogie pivot could work, although it obviously DOES work on most layouts. It appears that successful negotiation of tight curves has been achieved by narrowing the frame width of the chassis and the bogie so that axles can slide further sideways to accommodate the fact that the bogie itself has no sideways movement and merely swivels. The sideways movement of the axles is more generous if the back-to-back is wider than the 14.5mm standard. On my sample, all four wheelsets are over, the front drivers being 15.2mm. The sliding axle arrangement clearly works on set track with generous clearances but is much less happy on finer-scale track, particularly as the angle of 'attack' of the wheelset is slightly compromised (the axle is no longer running precisely at 90deg to the rails). This sideways movement relies on the axles sliding freely in their bearings, the axles not being obstructed by any details such as brake gear, and it requires the leading driving axle to slide sideways in one direction while the trailing bogie axle moves in the opposite direction. When all these things happen as intended, the model runs well. At its fullest extent, the sideways movement of the axles (if they are over-gauge) allows the wheel face to come into contact with the brake rods, restricting any further movement. I have considered adjusting the wheelsets to 14.5mm but it looks to be difficult without major dismantling as there is a lot of very fine detail in the way. Of course, any such adjustment could also be expected to void the manufacturer's warranty. At the moment it is clear that the vast majority of models are perfectly happy on the vast majority of layouts and that is really good news. Kernow is backing its product 100% so, if you are unlucky, the best thing to do is return the model. (CJL)

[NHY 581]

Thank you for the replies.

Yes it slips to a stand, there are some curves involved and the coaches do run freely down the incline.

I think it may be the curves but I have noticed that when it is stood on a flat surface it rocks/pivots on the rear driving wheels and has a tendency to lift the front driving wheels ever so slightly which may be exacerbated with a load, incline, bad track laying etc etc.

If it is that, how best to keep the nose down or just use on the flat!?

I have a similar 'rocking' problem with one of the original batch of Well tanks which has seen little use as a result. This did contribute to my decision not to buy an O2.

 

Rob

Edited October 24, 2015 by nhy581

[billbedford]

The problem with the Back to Back could be the same as experienced with the Mainline models. The stub axle was pressed into a blind hole in a plastic muff which compresses the air in the hole.  if there is no where for the air to escape it will provide a force on the stub axle forcing the axle out of the muff.

 

Maybe, but I would expect very many more locos would suffer from the same problem. Since the video of the assembly shows both wheel sets being mounted in the same press and people who are having trouble report that both wheel sets are out of gauge it is more likely is that the axles have not been full pushed home into the muffs. The answer, then, is to squeeze the axle ends until they are fully home. 

Edited October 24, 2015 by billbedford

[Bill]

Maybe, but I would expect very many more locos would suffer from the same problem. Since the video of the assembly shows both wheel sets being mounted in the same press and people who are having trouble report that both wheel sets are out of gauge it is more likely is that the axles have not been full pushed home into the muffs. The answer, then, is to squeeze the axle ends until they are fully home. 

Thanks this a useful understanding of the problem - but easier said than done - Do you have any recommendations on how to do it without damaging the model.?

[Bill]

I was hoping that the problems I described in the MR review were unique and resulted from a mismatch in some way between the model and my layout. They clearly are not unique but they are rare. What you describe is pretty much exactly what happened with the review model. I have done a great deal more investigation since the original test. In particular, I could not see how the geometry of the bogie pivot could work, although it obviously DOES work on most layouts. It appears that successful negotiation of tight curves has been achieved by narrowing the frame width of the chassis and the bogie so that axles can slide further sideways to accommodate the fact that the bogie itself has no sideways movement and merely swivels. The sideways movement of the axles is more generous if the back-to-back is wider than the 14.5mm standard. On my sample, all four wheelsets are over, the front drivers being 15.2mm. The sliding axle arrangement clearly works on set track with generous clearances but is much less happy on finer-scale track, particularly as the angle of 'attack' of the wheelset is slightly compromised (the axle is no longer running precisely at 90deg to the rails). This sideways movement relies on the axles sliding freely in their bearings, the axles not being obstructed by any details such as brake gear, and it requires the leading driving axle to slide sideways in one direction while the trailing bogie axle moves in the opposite direction. When all these things happen as intended, the model runs well. At its fullest extent, the sideways movement of the axles (if they are over-gauge) allows the wheel face to come into contact with the brake rods, restricting any further movement. I have considered adjusting the wheelsets to 14.5mm but it looks to be difficult without major dismantling as there is a lot of very fine detail in the way. Of course, any such adjustment could also be expected to void the manufacturer's warranty. At the moment it is clear that the vast majority of models are perfectly happy on the vast majority of layouts and that is really good news. Kernow is backing its product 100% so, if you are unlucky, the best thing to do is return the model. (CJL)

After Canada Customs collected some £17.00 in taxes and fees when it was delivered - I am not too happy in sending it back.

Now, usually if I have a problem with something it is nearly always systemic... Like Mazak rot in my Hornby T9 - If I have it then probably 50% to 90% of all owners have it.

So I suspect there was a problem in the manufacture that applies to most if nearly all the models... at least 50% probably greater.

It was designed to be an exceptionally smooth runner and someone not used to that might not notice.

Especially if they only run it full tilt around a layout or have a plank with more prototypical curves..

So in my opinion - there is a systemic problem here... But I stress its only my opinion... and may not be confirmed by the facts..

Whatever the case It needs to be brought to light.

It can only benefit everyone , including manufacturer and supplier, in the long run.

Hiding or lessening the truth for any reason has never ever been good for anyone..

[The Stationmaster]

After Canada Customs collected some £17.00 in taxes and fees when it was delivered - I am not too happy in sending it back.

Now, usually if I have a problem with something it is nearly always systemic... Like Mazak rot in my Hornby T9 - If I have it then probably 50% to 90% of all owners have it.

So I suspect there was a problem in the manufacture that applies to most if nearly all the models... at least 50% probably greater.

It was designed to be an exceptionally smooth runner and someone not used to that might not notice.

Especially if they only run it full tilt around a layout or have a plank with more prototypical curves..

So in my opinion - there is a systemic problem here... But I stress its only my opinion... and may not be confirmed by the facts..

Whatever the case It needs to be brought to light.

It can only benefit everyone , including manufacturer and supplier, in the long run.

Hiding or lessening the truth for any reason has never ever been good for anyone..

I can't understand how you reach a conclusion regarding percentages when some people on here have reported perfect operation on curves down to 18" radius?  Seemingy some models have a problem with poor setting of the back-to-back - the fact that it has shown up on some neither means that they are the only ones or that it extends to X, Y Z or 50 per cent of the total manufactured.  Logically the only people who will know the answer are Kernow, and only then if those who observe it actually bother to report it back or return the model rather than endeavouring to find a way to correct it themselves.

 

Speculation on percentages - be they high or low or indifferent - is mere surmise and achieves absolutely nothing with the possible exception of putting off other potential purchasers, which might then mean an end to other commissions from Kernow.  Simple situation on this one is covered by various sale of goods legislation and normal good business practice - it if doesn't do what it says on the tin send it back  (and then at least Kernow might get an idea of the percentage even if nobody else does).

[Bill]

Point taken -

It has been my experience in life however that if it happens to me then everyone else seems to have the same problem.

I am not unique - so I was applying the rule of Bill...

Also as stated in the post it is solely my opinion - and carries about as much weight as someone stating the world is flat...

I had already written to Kernow as stated in an earlier post #781

 

Well I found a simple, non-invasive  way to alter the back to back - and its running much better....

Get two nut drivers with a small size head attached - place either side of the wheel over or as close to the axle as possible and then push...firmly...

And the wheels reset to the correct back to back.

So..

The problem is as Bill Bedford described and salute his vastly superior experience.

 

It still does not care much for the Peco medium LH point when turning left but at a prototypical speed for entering a siding it stays on track..

Edited October 24, 2015 by Bill

[G-BOAF]

(2) There are what appear to be moulding lines running along the length of the tanks. These appear just below the BR emblem.

Now they may represent some feature of the O2 that I am not aware of - in which case fine...

Assuming it is the BR Early crest one, this is fully prototypical and will have been especially (and commendably) tooled in. It is a patch to the lower edge of the tank W24 has similar, and therefore appears to have been a common BR repair. What is most impressive from what I can see from photographs is that the lining navigates the levels nicely.

Edited October 24, 2015 by G-BOAF

[Bill]

Thank G-BOAF - that resolves that matter - it just seemed odd..

The discovery and learning process goes on forever..

Dave's attention to design detail is extraordinary and he deserves a medal..

 

Here is a photo or two.. showing the line

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2015 by Bill

[stewartingram]

Over my lifetime of modelling, I have had models from all manufacturers which don't run well out then box.! Having worked in the business I have seen batches of models going out with varying small % of returns. I always put it down to minor QC issues as most can be readily fixed.

 

Some customers, rightly return models and others almost enjoy the challenge of fixing the problems. I am in the latter camp.

 

It looks as if some models have back to back issues leading to derailments on some track configurations and others have binding on

cirves. I don't know statistically how many models are affected. Kernow have said that they had sold 1,000 with no returns to-date,

 

When I worked at Kernow, I set up a spreadsheet to monitor the % returns for each manufacturer. I had some surprising results - suffice to say that the worst rates were around 4% (I won't divulge who this was). This is 40 models in 1,000 so O assume that the 02 has a much lower rate than this.

 

Hope that this helps put some perspective on things.

 

Andrew

 

Just for the record, until 1983 I was working for Pye/Philips as a QC engineer, involving monitoring of quality standards, and indeed involved in writing the processes. (We originally had our own quality manual, to satisfy MoD order requirements; this was rewritten to become the standard for BS5750 at the time, since superseded by other British Standard/ISO numbers). We were the largest private mobile radio manufacturer in the world at the time, so can be considered a professional organisation. And what relevance is this to the thread?

Our quality standard was set at 2% failure rate on goods delivered from the factory. Theoretically that was delivered (to the customer) though in reality our recording was done at the factory door. (I honestly don't think it made much difference as the majority of our items were delivered to our agents and service centres worldwide, who reported faults back to us anyway).

How was this 2% measured? Apart from external reports (as just mentioned) the main method was our small team in the factory taking samples of already packed equpment awaiting shipment. Checking against customer order, checking packing etc, checking physical damage (including small blemishes such as scratches) but most importantly testing to factory spec. So our small random sample saw a batch, (size of the batch was dependant upon the type of equipment0, frozen whilst we sampled a small number in that batch (perhaps typically a batch of 20 radios, sample 1 fully). If it had 1 major or 4 minor faults, the whole batch was sent back for rework, and later retested by us.

So QC sampling only inspects a small percentage of each batch, in reality checking up on the factory processes in place. These factory processes are normally thought of by the punter as assembly only, but do also include inspection and test of each item. The QC process is a watchful eye on the operators with a slap on the wrist/repeat work if QC sampling finds a fault in a batch.

Something to mull over in connection with QC checking on our toys from China?

 

Stewart

[G-BOAF]

Thank G-BOAF - that resolves that matter - it just seemed odd..

The discovery and learning process goes on forever..

Dave's attention to design detail is extraordinary and he deserves a medal..

 

Great pics, just noticed the very fine nature of the boiler lining. Best I think I've ever seen in 4mm scale.

[WindyHale76]

This photo hopefully shows the line nicely on 30182. It is allocated at Yeovil Town in this photo. But I do have another photo showing the line just after she arrived at Yeovil Town still with her original shed code on.

Edited October 25, 2015 by WindyHale76

[alfsboy]

Just for the record, until 1983 I was working for Pye/Philips as a QC engineer, involving monitoring of quality standards, and indeed involved in writing the processes. (We originally had our own quality manual, to satisfy MoD order requirements; this was rewritten to become the standard for BS5750 at the time, since superseded by other British Standard/ISO numbers). We were the largest private mobile radio manufacturer in the world at the time, so can be considered a professional organisation. And what relevance is this to the thread?

Our quality standard was set at 2% failure rate on goods delivered from the factory. Theoretically that was delivered (to the customer) though in reality our recording was done at the factory door. (I honestly don't think it made much difference as the majority of our items were delivered to our agents and service centres worldwide, who reported faults back to us anyway).

How was this 2% measured? Apart from external reports (as just mentioned) the main method was our small team in the factory taking samples of already packed equpment awaiting shipment. Checking against customer order, checking packing etc, checking physical damage (including small blemishes such as scratches) but most importantly testing to factory spec. So our small random sample saw a batch, (size of the batch was dependant upon the type of equipment0, frozen whilst we sampled a small number in that batch (perhaps typically a batch of 20 radios, sample 1 fully). If it had 1 major or 4 minor faults, the whole batch was sent back for rework, and later retested by us.

So QC sampling only inspects a small percentage of each batch, in reality checking up on the factory processes in place. These factory processes are normally thought of by the punter as assembly only, but do also include inspection and test of each item. The QC process is a watchful eye on the operators with a slap on the wrist/repeat work if QC sampling finds a fault in a batch.

Something to mull over in connection with QC checking on our toys from China?

 

Stewart

I agree .I worked on an electronics production line as a supervisor in two factories over the years and nothing was ever perfect .long battels ensued with QC about just how  fussy they would be .Always a balance between time per item  v quality .There was always a QC percentage it depended on what the job and customer was .Some were really sloppy and cheap ,one job had to be 100% ..It was hell and we had to check every one but they were expensive too .You pays yer price etc .We chucked a good 25 % of that particular jobs output as our machinery wasnt that accurate .same for toy trains .Price V quality .We get a great deal so far .Make the most of it .it wont last .

[billbedford]

Thank you for the replies.

 

Yes it slips to a stand, there are some curves involved and the coaches do run freely down the incline.

 

I think it may be the curves but I have noticed that when it is stood on a flat surface it rocks/pivots on the rear driving wheels and has a tendency to lift the front driving wheels ever so slightly which may be exacerbated with a load, incline, bad track laying etc etc.

 

If it is that, how best to keep the nose down or just use on the flat!?

 

You could try putting a thin washer, start with say 5thou plasticard, between the bogie and the frames.

[45568]

Received 30182 'down-under' on Thursday. Ran well straight out of the box, and runs even better after running in as advised on a rolling road. It will pass extremely slowly through Peco Insulfrog double slips and other assorted insulfrog pointwork. I did not realise just how small these locos are!

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

[DCB]

You could try putting a thin washer, start with say 5thou plasticard, between the bogie and the frames.

If you pack the bogie spring or increase the tension you will put more weight on the bogie and less on the rear drivers.  It will help to keep the front down but is not going to help the adhesion much, though having slightly less weight on two axles is better than slightly more on one axle  However it will help keep the leading drivers on the rails on curves.  I think production tolerances are at fault to a certain extent but it is a design concept decision to have a rigid frame.

 

Personally I think it sounds like a new chassis is the only way to get acceptable haulage, the leading wheels and bogie pivot should be on a rigid frame and the trailing drivers in a heavy sub frame carrying the motor pivoted around the front axle.  Thats what I have planned for my M7 and 14XX which have similar problems, 

[DCB]

Here you go, there's an O2 sneaking in stage right, so these pics are allowed on this thread, closer O2 pics lower down. If you look carefully at the back of the signal box, one of the hipped pipe tops has fallen off, but the part is to hand. Also on the front, one of the window rail joints has come apart, but no big deal either, a tiny drop of supergunge will secure it, although i'd better protect the glazing from fogging.    BK

 

CIMG5002.JPG

CIMG5003.JPG

CIMG5004.JPG

CIMG5005.JPG

CIMG5010.JPG

CIMG5011.JPG

CIMG5012.JPG

CIMG5013.JPG

CIMG5014.JPG

Has anyone else noticed the quartering looks to be quite a long way out on this loco?.  The rods are not horizontal.  Maybe I'm paranoid having spent hours trying to get mine level on a Bulldog.

I have just realised I have never seen a picture of an 02 with cab doors shut, how easy is it to cut the door opening out?  Has anyone succeeded without destroying the handrails.   I

Edited October 25, 2015 by DavidCBroad