Ventnor

Now........not wanting to cast the first stone but here goes!! I have been studying these photos and others of the pre-production samples (yes I acknowledge they are pre-production samples) but has anyone noticed that "Hummys'" chimney looks a bit skinny? The Ashover fitted cast, lipped versions were wider in diameter than the original Baldwin stove pipes (to assist with a poor steaming issue I believe). I assume that this is to reduce tooling and assembly costs. Just an observation and don't want to court controversy, especially as there's now a thread on this forum about Trolling that goes on in some of these topics!! Anyway, enough negativity!! Photos of these locos that appeared in Pat Whitehouses' "Narrow Gauge Album" that my father had really captured my imagination as a child (now got my own copy). This book and these odd, foreign looking locos in the beautiful Derbyshire countryside cemented my love of railways along with other narrow gauge lines. I am however primarily a standard gauge modeler and enthusiast but with a real soft spot for narrow gauge. My father built a Gem 009 Baldwin many years ago together with a Peco Glyn Valley Tramway loco (which my son now has and loves. The Grafar chassis still runs superbly). Unfortunately the Baldwin never really ran too well and ultimately fell apart for some reason. Wrong adhesive I guess. I have two locos on pre-order and can't wait for their release, they look fantastic!! I hope that Bachmann will produce some Ashover coaches to go with at some point in the future. I am planning a new layout and have worked out an excuse to include a narrow gauge line with ex-WD locos and rollingstock.

Thanks for the friendly, honest advice.

So......given all of the above, what's the Bachmann Coal Tank like? Sorry, just trying to get back on subject. Got an LMS and BR version on pre-order. The LNWR version looks pretty good.

Picked up on this forum just after thier release, page 2 I believe. I emailed Hornby around the same time and got no reply.

My biggest issue with these coaches is that the word "GUARD" is still on the wrong door of the BR brake versions. Maybe it'll finally be put right on the next batch of releases!!

Hello everyone I recently purchased a blue King (R3410), I ran it in over the weekend and noticed a very pronounced "cogging" of the motor at very low speed causing a juddering motion, all other speed ranges are fine. I have run it for 2 hours in each direction with no improvement. I had a similar problem with one of my Hornby Adams Radials but solved the problem by simply slightly loosening the motor keeper plate screw. I've tried this with the King but with no improvement. My layout is DC and all of my other locos work fine. Anybody else had this problem and if so what could it be? It's a great model apart from this. Thanks.

DC layout, conversion to DCC will be a retirement project. Hattons are pretty good, as you say they reply promptly and I've returned stuff before that was either faulty or damaged on arrival and either received a replacement very quickly or got a refund. I've emailed them expressing my intent to return the loco. 1444 has been run again today and is still the complete opposite to 1420!! Kernow's have given me store credit for return postage from Oz in the past, for the life of me I can't remember if Hattons have ever done the same, I always include a short letter describing any faults or issues including drawing their attention to the postage cost. I'll take more notice this time!!

Further to my previous post, my two locos arrived at the end of last week, 1420 and 1444. I ran them each for the recommended time after oiling according to the instructions. 1444 is fine, runs pretty well with no sloppy coupling rod symptoms. 1420 on the other hand has a pronounced waddle, sloppy coupling rods at low speed and after changing direction and stalls on streamline points (slow speed performance is also poor). I can live with all of the confirmed or perceived detail inaccuracies but poor running, especially the coupling rod issue, I draw the line. Coupling rods just should not react like that!!! I have never seen this on any other four coupled ready-to-run loco prior to the Kernow O2 and now this model. Granted there haven't been too many four coupled locos produced but all of the other products by other manufacturers that I have either seen in action or own do not perform like this. I will have to make up my mind by the end of the day to either send back 1420 or just use it as an ornament!! On the plus side I really do like the look of these models, they capture the character of the prototype and include a wealth of detail, it is a shame that either the choice of chassis/drive train or quality control let down an otherwise great little model. I said in my previous post that I would not buy a J94, given the seemingly random nature of the performance of DJM produced models to date I will stand by my decision.

I have an MSC Sentinel and yes, it stalls or stutters on the set track points on my kids layout. Curved points are the worst. A symptom of a short wheelbase, light weight and a dead section of track. Hope this helps.

After reading all of the negative posts regarding the running quality of these models, the fact that they can't be easily dismantled and the sloppy coupling rods it is with some trepidation that I await my two on their way from Hattons to Oz. I pretty much gave up worrying about the persistent running issues I had with 3 out of 4 of my Kernow O2s (even after sending 2 back for replacement), the 4th has never been a smooth and free runner either. They seem to have had similar issues to those described in this forum. I've since sold on 3 of them and I am also considering selling the 4th but I really do like O2 tanks!! I suppose that I should have been wary of the similar drive train being used on both models. I'll see how my 2 14XX's perform and if no better than the O2s and as bad as some of the models described in these posts I will probably avoid DJM produced locos in the future. It will be interesting to see how the Hornby H Class performs and I assume that they will be using a more traditional motor/gear set drive. Granted there are a number of very positive reviews, but after reading such a large number of negative comments and after having similar issues with the O2s it is certainly difficult not to prejudice a particular manufacturer. I was going to buy a J94, I will no longer be doing so.........

I have seen this photo in a book (title of which I can't remember), the caption I think said that the loco "struggled" with this load (or words to that effect)!! Must have been quite a noise!! For those interested there was a semi-professional film made on the last day of the Wallingford branch passenger services. It features 1444 (as per the Hattons model) pulling a train of six vehicles; 2 x auto trailers and 4 x mainline gangwayed vehicles. I think that two return trips were made along the branch with this load. This is obviously not a typical working and I believe that apart from a couple of very short, steep grades the Wallingford branch was (is) relatively easy going. It does show however that these relatively small locomotives could pull a fair load. This film is included in Vol 3 "Western Region Steam in the 1960s" by Geoff Holyoake. Available from DUKE productions (Google it). This film is also quite interesting from a social history perspective (the dress fashions/styles etc). The rest of the DVD is quite interesting also!!

Since posting the above there has certainly been a frantic amount of activity around these models. It seems that the vast majority of feedback and "reviews" have been quite negative. What does surprise me is that they have been compared to the Hornby (ex-Airfix) offering and the Bachmann 64xx. I have to say that these DJM offerings do capture the look of the prototype much more so than the Hornby model and body detailing apart, it seems to be more of an issue with the motor and drivetrain. I guess it's all down to personal preference putting the looks of this model over the tried and tested performance of the Hornby offering or just not bothering and settling for a Bachmann 64xx. It has to be remembered, the 64xx is far from perfect; oversize slashers, wrong front vacuum pipe (DJM 14xx is correct), no smokebox lamp iron, no bunker top lamp iron, moulded lamp irons on the bunker, no hand rail/grab rail above the front steps under the tanks, no smokebox steam cock and undersize tank vents. However; they run extremely well, I have one so the shortcomings still didn't put me off!! As for the Hornby offering? I would never go back, I've had a few over the years and always sold them on. I do still remember though the awe of getting an Airfix version and Auto Trailer back in the late 70's/or very early 80's for Christmas as a young kid..........the detail!!! The Titfield Thunderbolt created another 48xx/14xx fan and I'm not even a GW modeller (I'm a green badge man). As mentioned in my previous post, I have two on pre-order and despite the negativity, warnings and disappointment I think I'm just going to take a chance...........there's always eBay in a couple of years and inflated resale prices!! I really have enjoyed following this thread..........keep the advice and experience coming. Hopefully some more positive reviews will follow to justify my stubbornness to still get a couple of these models!! However; the spectre of the Kernow O2s and Beattie Well Tanks still haunts me.........

So....I don't often reply to posts and topics on the forums but I've been fervently reading any posts that review these models. My one question is; do the coupling rods stay parallel when the loco is moving or do they adopt a drunken angle even for a few seconds or get out of sync? I ask as I have two 14xx's on pre-order and considering a 58xx. I had problems with all four of the DJM O2's that I purchashed and sent one back as it was so bad. Sharing experiences with the 48xx/14xx and 58xx's would be most appreciated.

Thanks for the quick response Dave. I'm waiting for a couple of the BR green versions so not seen the detailing pack yet. Cheers.

Lovely looking models but I was wondering why the decision was made to model the 48xx/14xx locos without the lift up cover over the auto gear on the buffer beam? I am not suggesting that this should actually be a working lift up cover but I have only ever seen one photo of the originals in service with this cover missing. Refer to any photo of the prototypes in service and this cover is apparent.

So, definitely a J36 and a Crane Tank. Don't recall a crane tank in any wishlist polls so highly likely a J36!!!

Actually, looking again it does look like a J36 splasher and balance weight. If so, nice change of geographical region. Not my area but would buy one.

Q Class.

Model Rail Offers website is showing MR-104 (30064 in Green) as more than 10 in stock. The latest Kernow newsletter says that this is due to order cancellations. I've ordered one!! I would recommend doing the same if they are as sought after as this forum subject would suggest!!

The chimney should taper from bottom to top (inwards towards the top as you say), definitely no parallel section!! They are a very distinctive shape and generally (and I stress generally), Wainwright chimneys have some kind of taper, look at a C Class and D Class. Locos rebuilt/reboilered with a Wainwright boiler tended to have them as well such as the ex-Stirling R1s (0-4-4T and 0-6-0T) and O1s. It is a most distinctive feature on the Bluebell loco!! Hopefully it will be corrected.

Looking at the CAD images the chimney looks to be the wrong shape. The base should be wider than the top. The CAD images make the chimney look more like a Drummond product rather than a Wainwright one. The accompanying photos on the Hornby blog show the true shape. Early days so hopefully it'll be corrected.