liathach

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!

9 hours ago, liathach said:

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 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.

Hello Ray, since my last posts on RM Web, I've gone over to DCC on a rebuild.  I bought R2822 5053 Earl Cairns and R2848 5011 Tintagel Castle.  Both these are from the same production group.  Both at slow and moderate speeds tend to intermittently "lock up" when hauling a decent load.  My investigation this time led me to the meshing of the motor worm and central gear.  With the motor out, the chassis rolls evenly, with no indication of the motion being any issue.  The motor runs well out of the cradle. I swapped motors (bought a new spare to eliminate motor issue).  Looking closely at the worm and gear there are no obvious defects in either.  However, when they mesh, it looks like the gear tends to get drawn up in to the worm unevenly.  I've tried reducing lateral and horizontal movement of the gear, but so far nothing has ironed out the problem.  I have ordered a replacement gear to test an alternative.  If that fails,  I might give up on Hornby Castles again!  I've tested a Hornby Star with the same group of wagons at the same speeds and that runs fine.

Thanks for the advice on the Kings! I've had a similar experience with the current castle class locomotives.  Three bought and two failures. The remaining loco just about hangs in to its position in the fleet (until another manufacturer comes up with a GWR 4 cylinder product).  Cheers, John

Thanks for the post Ray,

I've been thinking of getting one of the counties and then trying to detail it.  Excellent summary of the Railroad versus the earlier chassis.  Tempted to modify a set of earlier Wrenn slide bars to fit, hide the daylight above the front bogie and in the drag box area, as well as add sand boxes.

I recently bought another (current) Hornby Star class in the hope it had better tractive afford than initially released.  Same story: struggles to pull five coaches on my gradients where all my other locos (apart from recent Hornby Castles, B1s and K1s) easily haul double before they even think of a gentlest hint of spin.  

If only Hornby would work harder on getting weight in to the locomotive and also using a different metal on the driving wheel tyres!

CHeers,

John

Hello Ray, enjoyed your article on the Collett.  

I had a Mainline version in my youth.  Like a lot of Mainline models it had two primary speeds: stop and a very noisy 300mph without nothing in between! I've had three of the Bachmann jobs.  One on of the earlier ones I bought, the driving wheel electro-plated (I think) surfaces wore off partially causing erratic running.  

I have the same model of 3205.  I've experienced the same issue with the wiring passing through under the cab. Somewhere under the cab, the contacts or wires have been shorting against the black-painted chassis.  There is also very limited clearance for the wheel contact strips and these might short against the painted chassis block. This might be happening to yours.  I've not traced the exact spot where this happens.  Separately on the model, I used a brass strip as a shorter drawbar, with wires going to extra pick-ups to the tender I added.  Separate to the short in the cab, this improved a lot the running on this loco.  

On my other loco, I've not progressed with tender pick ups as it runs smoothly as it is (so far!).  On both models I have used odd red painted bits to try and simulate the running gear under the boiler to hide the noticeable flat surface.  Surprises me none of the companies out there do a detailing kit for such a popular model?

Cheers. John

Thanks for the articles on the A4 and the A1 Ray. I shall probably get round to adding a Bachmann A1 at some stage so your information regarding the improvements is most welcome. 

Re comparing the Bachmann LNER locos against the Hornby, I only have a late crest V2 60825 from Bachmann and I have a Railroad A4 Falcon and a loco-drive Gresley A1 Gladiateur in apple green.  

Comparing those three the V2 is a relatively old model.   I do have a soft spot for it.  The detailing is a bit chunky in places, but you at least you know it is sturdy to handle. Despite it's split-chassis age and old body, it's a very reliable and smooth runner. I've not needed to do any major work on the loco, save for a quick shortening of the tender gap and then re-soldering the cartazzi truck pick up wire connection once.  She pulls all the loads I normally use (say up to 6, 7 or 8 coaches) fine. The more recent locos from 31-560+ are well worth their bargain prices. I am very tempted to add the current BR Black release!

The A1 Gladiateur is the current/recent loco-drive engine.  I've had it for a good few years and it has been faultless - far better than some of the recent Hornby locos I've had!  The motion work is very fine so it needs careful handling whereas the Bachmann locos are a lot more sturdy in that sense.  Some people state the Hornby rods are too thin.  In relation to performance the A1 has been excellent.  It has been faultless and will pull anything I put behind it.  Bear in mind these have the fixed cartazzi truck; thus if you have train-set radius curves the truck overhand is very noticeable.

The A4 Falcon is in garter blue.  It shares the same chassis set up as the A1: hence excellent running.  However, the tender is the old tender-drive with the old connection.  I've shortened the tender gap slightly.  Given all the old weight in the tender the A4  is not as strong or as fast as the A1, but still pulls 6-7 coaches happily.  For the price if you can get a bargain on these they are a good buy if you're willing to put up with the limited body detailing (there is no cab glazing).

Cheers,

John

Hello All,

Having had all of the models referred to, my impressions are similar to Ray's.

I had the split chassis Bachmann Hall for many years.  For it's time it was a very good model.  The chassis was heavier and it could a fine load.  I did have a problem with the odd derailment in reverse over Setrack radius points.  I worked out this was due lack of side-to-side clearance of the rear drivers outside the split chassis.  A little filing of the chassis blocks solved that problem.   The split chassis block needed regular cleaning of the contact points.  Other than that it was an attractive, durable and sturdy engine. Due to Handling the Lining eventually wore.

I have two Granges and two current Bachmann Halls.  I find the paint finishing (although some observe the Bachmann lining can be too wide) on the Bachmann side - the depth of the greens - look more convincing.  Despite the lack of all wheel pick ups the Halls run really smoothly.  The Halls (although I've not weighed them against the Granges) seem slightly heavier.  They do pull a larger load than the Granges.  I believe this is due to the metal finishing Bachmann have used and with the sturdier metal chassis used.

I've not needed to do any maintenance on either new chassis Hall.  On the Granges I have had to occasionally clean the wheels and contacts.  Handling-wise the Hornby locos are definitely less sturdy than the Bachmann range.

I would like to see if Bachmann could maybe modify their Hall tooling to make Saints and well as the Halls!

John

Hello Ray, I am impressed you got the loco running true again.  Hopefully the 8P lasts the distance.  I was fortunate a few years back to be given a current chassis Britannia with the fixed cartazzi truck.  I've never managed to get the body off as it has fused sealed to the motor  - a common issue with these apparently.  Although she runs noisily, she's been fault free and a good, strong hauler.  I returned Beverston Castle to Hattons today - they were excellent regarding the failure of the loco!   Am tempted to see if any improvement will have been made with the next release of Castles when they arrive!

Thanks for the information Ray.  I couldn't resist going for a Hornby Star Class - Knight of the Grand Cross - on the assumption I'd been very unlucky with Beverston Castle.  It certainly looks a picture and runs smoothly. However, the thin plastic mouldings (chassis/footplating area) are a concern.  Secondly, it is a hopeless hauler!  I have a ruling gradient of no more than 1/80 I'd estimate.  The loco goes in to a wheel-slipping frenzy with 5 coaches on.  Most of my other kettles have no problems with 8-9 coaches on!  Inside the body but there is very little room to add extra weight anywhere.  Even where I could add extra weight, this made no difference.  I tested cleaning the wheels and allowing running time to bed in to no avail!  if only Bachmann entered the GWR 4-cylinder loco fray. I shall probably trade in the Hornby Star for a Bachmann Hall.  I'd recommend the Hornby Stars or Castles as a collector's items (never to be removed from the box) but not as a working models.  Regards, John

I purchased R2849 Beverston Castle from a well-known shop in Liverpool this week.  Alas, all the problems mentioned above happened to mine.  When I first tested, the loco ran poorly at slow speed backwards.  I tried to take the body off to try and check more closely.  The pipe work by the cab fell apart.  Then getting the body back the front bogie pin sheared off (fixable).  The loco then ran sweetly for five minutes, then everything jammed and a coupling rod fell off to a rear driver.  I spent hours trying to re-quarter the wheels and eventually gave up.  Never before have I had such a badly made locomotive.  An absolute waste of over