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!

I had a running session with D829 Magpie yesterday (DCC). I agree with the views that running performance smoother on the earlier models. I have D820 Grenville: start up is a much smoother transition. I did try a couple of alternative motors in D829 Magpie. The running stayed somewhat lumpy compared to the older model. No apparent tight spots in the drives. I might bypass the PCB in the newer model later, as the older model lacks any PCB.

I finally got hold of a new 47xx this afternoon in the post. Like many others, the body did not like the journey. The pony wheel had come apart, RHS lower slide bar was out and pipework at front of cab also out loose in box. There is another piece of plastic I am to find a home for! Given how fine the wheels are, and given the limited play with the draw-bar, I was thinking the loco would derail easily. So far, no issues in that regard. Running-wise on DCC, I was thinking it might be comparable to a number of Heljan type twos I have. The type twos all are excellent runners. I've tried a few decoders. The engine, as supplied, is wired for tender-first running as "Forward". There seems to be a tight spot in the revolution of the drive wheels at low speed. At low speed, it has stalled a couple of times. I will keep an eye on that. I'm hoping more testing or running in will remedy the slow-speed end, as once this loco gets in it's stride, it's smoothness on the road is probably better than any other loco I've run in OO.

I've just emailed Dapol and Rails to seek assistance first. I've even asked if they are aware of alternative motors or gear arrangements that might yield better results. Otherwise, I shall intend to send this locomotive back.

Yep, tried others. Tried reducing max speed right down, although with mid speed. Taking CV9 to the low-frequency control range does improve the starting acceleration to step one. However, the unrealistic racket from the motor defeats the visual improvement.

Just received 6336 this morning. Aesthetically, the loco looks excellent. Control-wise, I'm on DCC. Zimo MX618n18 installed earlier. I own many other steam engines and diesels the UK RTR manufacturers. I'm sorry to confirm that the starting from standing to step one is just not acceptable. I have tried every conceivable alteration of motor-related CVs. At all values of CV9 below 101, the engine jumps seemingly instantaneously to a very, very fast step one. If CV9 is set to a value above 100, you get annoying humming from the motor, although the transition from standing is improved. I've tried changing max voltage, reducing CV58 throughout the range. I've also tried alterations to CVs 57, 112, 23, 66, 95 and CVs145-150. None of these have cured the instantaneous jump from standing. Above step one, fine, but the starting performance is utterly unrealistic compared to everything else I have. I'm toying with the idea of taking the loco apart to see if another motor would sit in easily in-case it's a poor motor. If I was a better engineer in miniature, I would want to strip the thing down and change the gearing to improved slow-speed running. I

When starting on DCC, I tried Gaugemaster and DCC Concepts. Found them rubbish compared to analogue control. Tried Lenz: much better but that jump from standing to speed step one on all locos put me off Lenz. I had a good look at information from Lenz and there wasn't a fix to improve the starting to step one. Similar with ESU decoders. I've opted for Zimo in the end for the sheer choice in CV control. Testing the 700 closely against the Bachmann C Class, the C Class is much smoother. Without the 700 motor in place, the chassis rolls smoothly and the gears don't appear to have any visible cracks or dirt that might impact motion. In my head, it must be the motor that's the weak point compared to other locos. Must admit, I've had a number of Bachmann Halls in the 32-000 to 32-005 range and they all behave in a similar manner to the 700 Class, noticeable stuttering at low smooth (similar gearing and basic three pole motors).

Regarding running at slow speeds: today I took delivery of a 700 from a reputable shop. I'm now on DCC. A quick test on direct current showed the engine to be very stuttery at low speeds on a feedback controller compared to other engines. It was a similar story initially with a decoder. I tested different decoders and varied CVs without much improvement, although the engine was smooth in the moderate to high speed range. Having read earlier posts, I tried putting a shim against the worm to reduce the noticeable play. This helped somewhat reduce the slow-speed stuttering. As a final test, I opted to snip out the TV interference capacitor hid underneath the decoder plug. Removing the capacitor there has made a great improvement to slow-speed running. Hopefully, with more running and CV tweaking, it will improve. Comparing some locos I have on DCC, the 700 looks marginally less smooth than the Bachmann C Class. I recently got a bargain Hornby LNER J15. The running on that is extraordinary. If I get a rainy day, I should try and look at seeing if it would be feasible to fit a J15 motor to the 700.

Hello Bob, I converted to DCC two years ago. Being a fan of the GWR, I had four Bachmann Halls all DCC ready models. Same as you: they were silky smooth on DC. Put on to DCC, they have been the most challenging locos to get running smoothly, especially starting and then accelerating at low speeds. The staccato progression would be amplified with a load, as the wagons would snatch jumpily. I tried decoders and every conceivable CV variation I could think of: DCC Concepts, ESU, Lenz and my preferred ZImo decoders. I did find with Zimo, you could set CV9 for low frequency motor control, but this meant the motor made a very noticeable, unrealistic racket. Lenz I liked apart from the jump to speed speed one which I didn't find a fix for. I am convinced the specific issues with the Halls boil down to the combination of basic small three pole Buhler motor with the gear train output. On direct current, the motor rotation is smoothed out. I've seen elsewhere that a few people have managed to fit the current Hornby Hall chassis in to Bachmann Hall bodies as a work-around. I've tried to look to see if the current set of Bachmann Modified Halls share the same motor and gearing combination. Not seen a definite answer yet. Regards, John.

I've had a bit of time to look closely at the behaviour of one of my Bachmann Halls with the body off. Watching the rotation of the motor on DCC, the motor has a propensity to keep rapidly stalling. I believe this is due to the design: the three poles with relatively large gaps barely covered as they rotate between the two brushes. Tested on DC, the Hall motors worked well. Without the motor in the cradle, the chassis rolls smoothly. I do have a number of other Bachmann steam engines and none seem as jerky as the Halls (this is probably due to different gearing). I tried a number of different decoders. In the end I have settled for a Zimo MX633R. Having CV9 set in excess 100 improves smooth starting transition, at the expense of motor noise. As and when i get to a show, I might hunt for an alternative motor that might fit in the Hall cradle.