Are Modern Models Poor Runners?

QUOTE (Gary @ 12 Mar 2006, 22:34)To be honest OZ the typical railway modeller in the UK won't have a clue what all this stuff about wheelgauging is about. I don't!

I like to open a box, stick an item on the track, and watch it go. I prefer to use track that permits this and if that means I use track that offends pure scale modellers then tough. I do run new and old models and find Hornby track copes well with nearly all rolling stock produced over the 50 years that Hornby have been producing trains (I won't say models as we live in a PC world! )

Hornby and Bachmann know their typical customers and I suspect a very high number think like me and like things to be very simple.

What this has to do with poor running I don't know but if Hornby and Bachmann, by pandering to the whims of those that demand perfection and finescale, are starting to produce locomotives that run poorly and won't pull the skin off a rice pudding and won't go up gradients, then is this progress?

A 1967 Triang Hornby Hymec with Magnadhesion on steel track could pull 11 coaches according to press reviews of that year. On nickel silver track it struggles to pull 5 coaches! It can only pull 2 Hornby Dublo tinplate coaches on nickel silver track. As for any steep incline on nickel silver track forget it.

A Hornby Dublo diecast loco can easily pull 6 tinplate coaches without magnadhesion.

It seems that locomotives now have to be heavy to pull any weight.

The truth is you simply cannot put heavy weight into a steam locomotive. Diesels yes you can and tenders yes you can and possibly this is why tender drive became fashionable.

I wonder how many of todays UK steam train modellers actaully haul more then 4-5 coaches? Even todays high detail locos can cope with that. If 95% of modellers who buy Hornby and Bachmann models haul 5 coaches or less then they are going to be very satisfied with running performance.

The other thing is of course is that you cannot compare UK outline OO with the rest of the worlds HO. UK steam tenders are generally much smaller due to shorter distances travelled so less space for weight in there even with tender drive. USA HO steam locos are much bigger even in HO scale so can be heavier. There is plenty of double and triple heading in the USA and elsewhere in the world so modellers can model this and pull long consists. If UK outine locos tend to be lighter then this is the very nature of the animal as they are smaller.

Happy modelling
Gary
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gary, You may be right as to how many UK modellers know how to re guage their wheels or modify drawbars, add pickups or even add weight to their models. A lot of this stems from the fact that the manuafacturer has changed his philosiphy and is producing a more accurate model, a change in materials from die cast bodies to plastic bodies. Even governments can influence the hobby with no lead in toys or lead based paints. Magazines have had a big change on modeller attitudes. Why spend hours sourcing parts, even longer putting it together when you can just buy it, put it on the track and hey presto away it goes and the magazine gives a glowing review. I have some Model Railway Constructor magazines from the late sixties to the early seveties and half the articles that appear in the magazine are either on modifying existing models or scratchbuilding models be they rolling stock or buildings. It is true that UK models while larger in model form are smaller in real terms to US or European prototypes. But even US models are light in weight. Diesels are okay but who wants a powered boxcar. Bachmann US produced a model of a USRA light mikado or 2-8-2. A very nice model, beautiful detail and wouldn't pull more than 5 passenger cars on the level. Now Bachmann make a couple of models with cast boilers, a lot more weight, that allows the model to pull more of a protoype load. Perhalps this is the way Hornby and Bachmann UK should be heading. I would only add weight to the tender of a loco if the tender was bouncing around and derailing a lot as that extra weight is something the model has to pull if it's loco drive.
I have added weight to quite a few Hornby locos, BR/LMS Princess in particular, so that it can pull passenger cars that I have weighted to NMRA standard. Most UK modellers may not be familiar with this but this is what it is the initial car weight 1oz or greater plus 1/2 an ounce for inch of length. This makes for a very stable car or wagon but it can make life difficult for a light model loco so we weight the loco and if it slips on a grade add a banker.

Ozzie 21

All good points OZ. My old copies of model railway magazines are full of detailing and scratchbuilding projects and little else. It is a bit different these days. And Russell also seems reasonably accurate with his assessment of current hauling power. Its not that the motor can't cope. Its that the wheels slip.

It has occured to me that you could get small lead pellets that can be glued in place and this seems like the ideal solution for adding weight. They used to be advertised in Model Rail at about £18 for a jar full. I may be wrong however I don't recall seeing them advertised recently. For steam locomotives this appears to be a reasonable solution for getting weight into any available void of any shape. However, these days with the need to keep voids clear for DCC bits and bobs and the more accurate boiler and model shapes there are few voids actually free in anything other than streamlined locomotives.

We now have finer scale flanges on loco bogies that are definitely more lightweight than 20 years ago. Again, with manufacturers pandering to the whims of the few who demand detail in these areas, we are suffering with bogies that derail. With the introduction of dampening spring type designs on current models I do occasionally find that the natural bogie height at rest is sometimes set too high relative to the main drive wheels and this is something that can be adjusted.

Remember that there are still model railway exhibits around the UK. One in Poole, one on the Isle of White and one in Exmouth that I have visited. They are all massive claiming to hold world records for length or for something else. And they have locomotives running non stop throughout the day that don't derail. What are they doing right?

What I do notice at all of them is that they run older locomotives! Why I don't know. But they do.

The other thing is that they have few points and they normally make sure that any loco is running against the point rather than into it.

Now for those who have tail chasing oval layouts who like to run there trains continuously for hours on end then good layout design is very important. Always run against the point if you operate continiously and you probably won't go far wrong with any loco. Keep shunting areas away from the main running area. Avoid diamond crossings and uncoupling ramps on main lines. And so on.

Common sense really.

Happy modelling
Gary

QUOTE (Gary @ 13 Mar 2006, 10:59)Now for those who have tail chasing oval layouts who like to run there trains continuously for hours on end then good layout design is very important. Always run against the point if you operate continiously and you probably won't go far wrong with any loco. Keep shunting areas away from the main running area. Avoid diamond crossings and uncoupling ramps on main lines. And so on.

Common sense really.

Happy modelling
Gary
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gary yes it is good operating practice as well but a bit unfortunate if you love is single track branch lines.

Why does the ideal layout begin to sound like a train set oval with one set of points to get to a shunting yard/ engine shed that you rarely go near for fear of derailing on the points. This does not really make for interesting operation but looks wondeful on the model shop shelf.

Modern real world track layouts are far simpler than those of old & I wonder if we are being forced the same way regardless of the era that we model. In fact the era with the most complex track plans is the one with the locos least able to run on them.

Chris

Perhaps with all the S&Djr modellers here we should ask for a seperate litle section just for us !
The product you want is liquid lead, I got a couple of pounds from Eileens Emporium.
Back to backs I set with a clock venier, I found the back to back gauge I was using was wrong ! . I check all new stock before using, Hornby are the worst offenders in this regard.
Apart from that I generally find the newer R-T-R models generally quite good. Most of the Hornby stuff can be made to pull a decent train, the same goes for Bachmanns stuff.
We certainly much better off than five years ago, when Hornby was exclusively tender drive, and almost every thing from Bachmann had a split frame chassis. I say well done the manufacturers the improvements have been fantastic more please !.
Chassis driven 4F
Chassis driven 2P
S&D jr 7F .

I've been checking out the weights of few models having just appropriated a couple of diesels. A Bachmann class 25 weighs in at around 533grams or just over a pound and a Deltic around 563grams. A Hornby A3/A4/ Duchess/ Princess weighs in at 322grams, without tender. You can see that the steam loco is at a disadvantage as it's lack of weight will have a prounounced effect when load is increased or eight new Greseley coaches is the limit. I have added weight to the A3 to get it up to 441grams so now 13 Bachmann mk1's are the limit. It will slip when it gets near the top of my 1.5% grade which I think equates to around 1 in 100. If I could add another 20grams it'll go over the top . You are hampered by the lack of space in the boiler and attempting to keep the weight balanced. On the other hand my DJH Duke of Gloucester has no problems romps over the grade with nery a worry. My next weight project will be an unrebuilt BoB 222sqdn and I think with the space in the spam can I should have no problems. Another thing that can affect the adhesion of a model is springing of leading and trailing bogies. I removed the springs on Bachmann V2 after I found it struggled with six mk1's on the flat. I removed the springs from the front and rear bogies and it now hauls six mk1's without slipping but again it would benfit from additional weight. I also added a decent drawbar to the loco and threw that thing Bachmann fitted over the fence.

Ozzie21

QUOTE A 1967 Triang Hornby Hymec with Magnadhesion on steel track could pull 11 coaches according to press reviews of that year. On nickel silver track it struggles to pull 5 coaches! It can only pull 2 Hornby Dublo tinplate coaches on nickel silver track.

A Hornby Dublo diecast loco can easily pull 6 tinplate coaches without magnadhesion.

It seems that locomotives now have to be heavy to pull any weight.

Note that the Dublo is alleged to have three times the pull!
The word "now" should be omitted.
They just need to be heavy, whether then, now or in the future. Dublo locos were and it's that simple.
Weight is the first and most important key to good running and haulage power.

As we are frequently reminded, British steam locos are nothing like as intricate as those from most of the rest of the world, so there is very little reason why British models should not utilise metal bodies at a reasonable price. Other than the urge to leave space for digital electronics, there is also no reason why cavities can't be filled with weight by the manufacturer. This is done very effectively in non-Brit N gauge and N gauge locos are PRODIGIOUS haulers! I can't speak for British N as I have none for comparison.

While magnetraction solved a problem, it was an abomination - a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It created problems of its own, with serious friction effects that put a massive strain on motors and rendered low speed running virtually impossible. That's the real reason why it is dead and buried, not nickel silver rails! Is Hornby track nickel silver these days?

Further necessities are low friction axles and wheels on all rolling stock AND good maintenance of these. An awful lot of people allow the most appalling crud to build up both on wheel treads and, less obviously, in the axle bushings. Gunged bushings are a lethal haulage crippler and though cleaning and lubing these is not the manufacturers' responsibility, providing precision axles, bushings and rolling stock wheels in the first place is. Wheels must also be concentric and axles must be straight.

As for enhancing electrical pickup - traction tyres don't help in this, but precision designed and manufactured wheels and SUITABLE tyres are actually not that much of a detriment. Unfortunately the precision manufacture requirements and suitable tyre materials are not always provided! In those cases, the tyres are a menace. I have to assume most people prefer their absence or we would see more of them present. Another recommendation for good pick up is to provide it on ALL wheels, not just the drivers. This can and does provide a very significant improvement.

I'd just add that electrical pick up is an area where 3-rail can really score, particularly where a long skid is used in the centre. The sliding action helps to keep contamination of any sort at bay and the number of pick up wheels is automatically doubled for the other polarity - a definite high score for 3-rail! (studs preferred)

A further important factor, particularly for steamers, is precision design and manufacture of the entire chassis. If just one wheel is even slightly out of alignment or not perfectly round, then both electrical pick up AND adhesion are drastically impaired. It is in this area, perhaps most of all, that the more expensive products score more highly - and also the commercial exhibitors. It stands to reason that no one but an idiot would pull a brand new loco straight out of its box and run it on exhibition without careful checking, extensive test running and, adjusting as needed, even totally replacing duff candidates! This is the MAIN reason why one rarely sees derailments at exhibitions. It's a product of the six Ps rule.

"Perfect Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance"!
(and woe betide anyone who ignores it!)

Your average kiddy at home usuaully does not appreciate the huge importance of this and it's simply not realistic to cite good exhibition running as some form of 'evidence' that cheap RTR locos are as good as more expensive, precision jobbies. - they aren't.

There's more but I'll just fleetingly mention that if the 'average OO Brit at home' has only an 8' x 4' oval or less, then it's doubtful he will ever haul more than 4 coaches and, if he did, he would immediately run into massive friction problems from the viciously small radius curves. Would more than 4 coaches plus a loco ever get an unrestricted straight run in such a layout? So maybe certain manufacturers reckon that their locos don't need the ability to haul any more than they do . . .

QUOTE (Ben Manicom @ 20 May 2006, 00:28) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I often here comments about old motors being bad and a lot about new ones being bad in my opion both work for me people critasize bachmann locos with split frame chassis's I have a bachmann pannier (present in my signature) that can out haul my Athearn SD45 (I dont know if this is a powerful or decent model by merican standards) and the pannier has the dreaded split chassis I also posess a Bachmann class 20 which outhauls anything and never derails even on our old railway Highdale's rough trackwork

The older motors weren't very efficient and had a fairly high current draw. Some of the older open frame motors like a Pittman, K's etc could also draw up to 1A in current. More modern motors like Mashima, Sagami, Buler, Tenshodo are a lot more efficient with current draws in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 mA. The newer can type motors also lend themselves more readily to conversion to DCC than the open frame type. Your SD45 is I take it one of the old Blue Box models and yes it was a bit on the light side. Many of the older Athearn models are a bit light but you should expect at least 20 free rolling 40" boxcars behind the coupler. Most of the newer range diesels starting with the Kato Dash9-C44 utilise a different chassis from the old flat ones that fills the almost all the model body. This design philosophy has now been seen on nearly all American HO diesel models , Athearn Genisis, Kato, LifeLike P2K, Atlas. Again this has it's drawbacks as a chassis that fills the whole model leaves little room for anything else.

Bachmann have started producing steam models with a cast metal boiler, Shay, Baldwin ten wheeler, USRA heavy mountain, C&O J-2 class heavy mountain. These models are all good pullers and to look at them you wouldn't know it's metal boiler. Time will tell with Brit models as they have changed much since I first gave then away in favour of US models to now and maybe we will see cast metal boilers on the likes of Hornby and Bachmann in the near future.

Ozzie21

QUOTE maybe we will see cast metal boilers on the likes of Hornby and Bachmann in the near future.

I really hope so. It would give them the extra traction they need.

QUOTE While magnataction solved a problem, it was an abomination - a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It created problems of its own, with serious friction effects that put a massive strain on motors and rendered low speed running virtually impossible. That's the real reason why it is dead and buried, not nickel silver rails! Is Hornby track nickel silver these days?

Hornby still use magnatraction on Scalextric slot car so it is untrue to say it is dead and buried.

The only reason it is not used on locomotives is that Hornby adopted the use of nickel silver track in the 1970's. Nickel silver is not magnetic.

Any weight, whether real or virtual as induced by well positioned magnets, puts a strain on motors. Low speed running is absolutely possible with magnatraction. I would agree it is not possible to induce the less than snail like slow speed running that the current Hornby range enjoy, however for the average model railway operator at the time (and even now?) it was/would be very acceptable.

Magnatraction on Hornby locomotives had an 18 year life. Would this be the case if it was such a bad thing as implied?

Magnatraction provided a number of advantages. It freed up void space within the interior of the model for accessories such as synchrosmoke and lights and it gave the modeller the flexibility to add his own weight around any accessories fitted. Given that we are moving into a DCC world with locomotive sound, smoke, lights and even more wouldn't it be nice to have the sort of void space in small tank locomotives that former magnatraction fitted locomotives enjoyed?

Yes, this can all be done by miniturisation, however small things are expensive and big things less so.

Do Lionel still use magnets for tractive purposes?

Happy modelling
Gary

QUOTE Hornby still use magnatraction on Scalextric slot car so it is untrue to say it is dead and buried.
Of course magnetic attraction is used effectively in several fields that have nothing to do with model trains - fridge doors spring to mind!

Perhaps we should remember that this is a model train forum and my comment IS true for the subject we have under discussion here. While not wanting to encourage off topic comments, I might add that the use of magnets in slot cars is equally considered an abomination by many of that fraternity and that, as usual, the camps become polarised between those advocating more realism and those who just want to 'play with whatever'. Neither side is often influenced by the other and so the impasse goes on. I fall somewhere between those extremes and that is why I have acknowledged that magnetraction imbues certain 'cheap fix' advantages, BUT that it also brings disadvantages. That is a balanced view.

Individual perception of 'slow running' is relative. But it is a fact that magnetic attraction can 'cog' motors to the extent that they are disabled from performing freely at low speed to a much greater degree than that imposed by good old fashioned gravity powered mass. Magnetism produces increased grip but cannot add momentum and it is momentum that produces satisfyingly realistic, smooth running mechanisms. I could be wrong and would welcome correction, but I don't think magnetraction has been used much, if at all, outside Hornby - possibly by other, cheapish British toy train makers? In any case, as far as our trains are concerned, I am pleased to say that it appears to be dead, buried and extinct right now.

If anyone is desperate to resurrect the dark force, they are welcome to revert to steel rail or, even to lay a steel rail under the track bed of existing nickel silvered track!

Best of British to them!

Magnadhesion it was.
Magnetraction is just a generalised term for all forms of the dark force!

Cogging, without an L, refers to the tendency for an electric motor to struggle very jerkily from pole to pole, close to stalling, most likely to occur when under heaviest load. It ruins them.

The problem with magnetraction is that it produces all of its destructive power all of the time, regardless of how heavy or light the actual mass being hauled, or at what speed it is travelling. This is very unlike natural weight which only puts its most severe load on the motor during the initial 'kick' to first get the train into motion. But that is of VERY short duration. Once the train is moving, considerably less power is required to KEEP it moving and natural mass/weight definitely then helps to promote the smoother acceleration, free-running and deceleration that is charavteristic of trains. But magnetic attraction detracts badly from all of those desirable characteristics.

Of course, in those bad old days, all of this was yet further exacerbated by quite nasty, coarse motors and pretty awful axles and wheels on the cheaper models.

Many people consider that anyone who plays with toy trains is an oddball!.

Someone asked whether Lionel still uses magnetic assistance.
This turned out to be quite an interesting sideline.
The answer is yes and no or 'to a very limited degree'.

To explain:
First of all, it seems that Lionel trademarked the term "Magne-Traction" in 1950.
Note spelling, capitalisation and the hyphen, ie not 'magnetraction'.

Like some other toy manufacturers, they lobbed magnets into most of what they made thereafter - for a few years.

I haven't ascertained when they stopped using it. But it definitely isn't a current 'feature', as the Lionel Icon for "Magne-Traction" is simply not listed with the Icon Legend for their current range on their quite impressive web site.

However . . . Lionel has at times nostalgically re-issued some of their very old train sets from the 50s and 60s and a few of them are, amazingly, still available today! A painstaking trawl through their huge online catalogue turns up the odd set that still includes "Magne-Traction". A couple of examples would be their #1563W Wabash Freight Set, first introduced in 1956 and #1805 Land-Sea-Air Marines Missile Launch Set of 1960. Even where the loco has since been tarted up to be more acceptable in today's market, the "Magne-Traction" has been retained. This even applies to at least one that is now produced with digital control built in as standard, even though the original base model may well be over forty or even fifty years old!

We should probably note that Lionel make O Gauge and this is the HO/OO board. However, another interesting and litte known fact is that they HAVE made both HO and, even more surprisingly, OO in the past! However, neither of those (unsuccessful) forays into 'little trains' lasted more than a few years each.

I'll finish with a current quote from Lionel that has nothing to do with magnets but is surely food for thought.
QUOTE In the year 1900, in a cramped third floor loft at 24 Murray Street in New York City, Joshua Lionel Cowen began what would become the world's most famous toy train manufacturer -- Lionel Trains. Since that modest beginning, Lionel has sold more than 50,000,000 trains -- more than all of our competitors combined.

That should disturb a few entrenched conceptions!

As would a check of O Gauge prices against OO/HO prices in connection with the amazing generalisation that "small things are expensive and big things less so."
It's rarely wise to generalise to that extent.

Quote
"
We should probably note that Lionel make O Gauge and this is the HO/OO board. However, another interesting and litte known fact is that they HAVE made both HO and, even more surprisingly, OO in the past! However, neither of those (unsuccessful) forays into 'little trains' lasted more than a few years each."

A thing to note with US modeling is that "OO" was a popular scale prior to the 2nd WW but even then it was severely overshadowed by "O" guage which was the major scale. HO scale came into the fore after WW2 when returning servicemen had found a Japan a great place to get things made. The Japenese craftsmen with little precious metals to work had turned there hand to other things like making models. The story goes that one serviceman had drawings for locomotive which he had made in brass for the the modest sum of US$12. It was the start of something big and by the early fifties a few companies in the US had started to get brass scale models made in Japan for very modest sums, A BigBoy for $40. Needless to say the orginal loco had been made in HO scale which was what the Japenese had used prior to WW2 so all the models coming out were in HO scale and it just took over. "OO" died a natural death, "O" guage shrunk in popuarity and "S" guage gained a few supporters. So here we have a scale that it is exact not a mongrel scale like we have had forced on us by the dark forces of commercialism.

Ozzie21