[gazzavc]

I was just reading through this thread, and I have to agree with the chaps who think the new Hornby is incapable of pulling the skin off a rice pudding.

My old Princess Elizabeth (R.832) 80's manufacture will roar up an incline with 5 coaches (one being a Royal Mail coach)
where as a New Princess Elizabeth (China Mfg.) will barely pull itself up the hill.

I'm too scared to even run the new Hornby stuff in case of a derailment lest I should break some small and fiddly part off, destroying the value of a 100 Pound + locomotive.

I respect and appreciate my peers who are into the realism and replication of a model railway , but for those of us who know deep in our hearts that we'll never have the time, space, skill or money to be able to create that "dream" layout in the spare room , we still need a model railway manufacturer who can make models that are robust enough , and strong enough for us to still play trains with our kids.

I would like to see Hornby expand its "Railroad" range to reintroduce the older Ringfield tender drive models for those of us who still like to play with trains.

Cheers chaps

Gaz
A small spare room layout

 

[billericaybill]

At the moment I run Fleischmann steam locos on code 75 and 83. What's a derailment ?

I have had the layout running for nine months. I studied every derailment closely and try to reproduce it. The most common cause by far is point blades not opening or closing properly after ballasting. Bit by bit I eliminated all such causes and have, very rarely, replaced a point. Once in a blue moon its a dud axle or too crude a flange on German stock.
The leading pony trucks and bogies work perfectly. As with a real railway I avoid facing points where possible. I avoid putting points next to tight curves and use transition curves laid roughly by eye to what looks right and runs well. The result is I can set a long train running at a realistic speed (say scale 50mph) and it will run without me loooking at it for hours, and I feel confident enough to leave the room for a bit. I can also reverse long trains at moderate speed over pointwork but even real raliways could not reverse over pointwork at any speed.

I am sure that this can be achieved on any kind of model railway so long as consistent standards are maintained and speeds are realistic and suitable to the curve radii and points used. Real railways had line speeds determined by such things too.

Andrew

 

[Pete T]

I was a "dyed in the wool" British Steam modeller for close on 40 years and upon the introduction of Hornby's super-detailed, loco drive models, I thought all my prayers were answered.

I only had one small grade of about 1% and the new locos which were a mix of Rebuilt WCs, A4s, Black 5s, 8Fs and Royal Scots, could cope with my requirement of 6 coaches without slipping - any more than 6 was a problem. Slow speed running with the 5 pole motors was much better than earlier models and once I had converted them to DCC, this improved even further but it was still not what I had hoped for. I even tried an 08 diesel shunter and a Class 31 with similar results.

Then I started having reliability problems with all but 2 of the locos within 12 months of purchase and they became very erratic in their performance. As I reside in Australia, Hornby service and spare parts was a time-consuming issue and in the end I decided to bite the bullet and sell the lot.

For the last two years I have been running Atlas American diesels with Athearn rolling stock. For the same price that I was paying for a DC powered Hornby loco, I have been purchasing the top of the range Atlas diesels with excellent detailing, DCC and sound fitted. Slow speed perfromance is more than I could have hoped for - scale speeds of 2 - 3 mph are not a problem. The new layout has a 3 level hidden helix at one end with a 22" radius curve and I believe the average grade is around 3%. All locos are quite capable of hauling more than eighteen 50' freight wagons up the helix with no sign of slippage.

I do get the odd derailment - possibly 1 for every 40 hours of running time and this can be quickly traced to a bit of "junk" that has fallen into a point frog or similar and I have had no loco (or rolling stock) failures at all - big improvement. The quality of the models exceeds anything I have seen from Hornby and the prices in Australia are half the British products. Best move I ever made

 

[class 153]

QUOTE (Doug @ 9 Mar 2006, 15:48) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>My Code 100 is fine too, but I think that the Code 75 points will highlight problems associated with out-of-gauge axles and slightly large wheel flanges.

I'm going to get some Code 75 track for the sections that are most visible. Basically the the parts of the layout that will have the most work done on the scenery. I'll leave the Code 100 for staging yards and track at the back of the layout.

I dont quite understand the difference between code 75 and code 100 (i use hornby track) Will someone explain please?

 

[dwb]

QUOTE I dont quite understand the difference between code 75 and code 100 (i use hornby track) Will someone explain please?

Code 75 rail is 75 thousandths of inch high. Code 100 is 100 thousandths of an inch high. This means that wheels running on code 75 track are closer to the top of the sleepers than on code 100 track. Any wheel which has a deep flange - yes 1970s Lima, I'm talking about you - it is quite likely to bottom out on the tops of the sleepers on code 75 or bump along the bottom of the flangeways through point frogs. With code 100, there's an extra 25 thou of clearance available.

I find code 75 more flexible than code 100 in that it is more likely to retain any curve set in it with less pressure than code 100. This is a useful feature when you use glue to secure your track rather than pins.

David

 

[class 153]

QUOTE (dwb @ 6 Apr 2011, 19:18) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Code 75 rail is 75 thousandths of inch high. Code 100 is 100 thousandths of an inch high. This means that wheels running on code 75 track are closer to the top of the sleepers than on code 100 track. Any wheel which has a deep flange - yes 1970s Lima, I'm talking about you - it is quite likely to bottom out on the tops of the sleepers on code 75 or bump along the bottom of the flangeways through point frogs. With code 100, there's an extra 25 thou of clearance available.

I find code 75 more flexible than code 100 in that it is more likely to retain any curve set in it with less pressure than code 100. This is a useful feature when you use glue to secure your track rather than pins.

David

Thanks now i know!

 

[silky_jack]

I have to say, my modern locos seriously out perform my older ones both in terms of reliability and ease of use.

 

[JSpencer]

Some of the lasted Bachmann models (UK outline) do have diecast boiler parts and running plates, for example the Ivatt 4MT and ROD 04.

Running wise..... Hmmm, I agree with the comments on Diesels. Modern diesels pull as well as their much older cousins, have better looks and - often - all wheel drive, although some what more fragile. They generally have enough play in the bogies to cope with all track work, very weighty locos, working lights, easier to chip and fit sound. They have really come of age.

Steam locos are another matter. About 15 years ago Bachmann introduced the WD 2-8-0 with its sprung axles, it is an excellent runner, and copes with any track work. The more recent Rod 04 does not have this and does not run as well. Other locos, the T9 and M7, have very rigid chassis, the bogies having no up play, they can derail at the point were track goes from flat to incline. Indeed for the T9, certain minor underlations will cause the tender to lift the loco off. The tender chassis are equally rigid, no sprung centre axle. This lack of suspension - essential on the real thing - combined with rigid and tight chassis increases the risk of derailment with modern steam locos.

Pulling power has increases recently with traction types and weight creeping back into fashion, but models releases from 2000 to 2007 are lighter and more prone to wheel slip.

 

[Coboman]

QUOTE (JSpencer @ 7 Apr 2011, 19:57) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>.

Steam locos are another matter. About 15 years ago Bachmann introduced the WD 2-8-0 with its sprung axles, it is an excellent runner, and copes with any track work.
Are all the axles sprung or just some of them? Sounds very innovative, and might explain why they were so expensive when they were first released.
However I must say Robinson 8K runs very well indeed and pulls well too. It happily copes with 30+ wagons and never stutters or derails. My worst offender for that is a GWR 43xx. The pony truck absolutely hates reverse curves and set track points, something my other moguls dont suffer from.

 

[JSpencer]

Only some (two) axles are sprung on the WD 2-8-0, (initial release, cannot comment for today's). I believe it even has a bauhor (or however its spelled) motor making the model an exceptionally smooth runner (like the N class I brought at that time).

There is no contest between the ROD 04 or WD 2-8-0. Running wise the WD is far better, quiter and smoother and pulls just as well too. The 9F will out pull (and anything else I suppose) perhaps just as smooth but not as quiet.

Agree on the 43XX, I have the 93XX and its pony is not sprung un like more recent moguls, mind you the model has a split chassis, and design dates mostly from Mainline's era (about 20 years before the WD appeared) with a better motor though.

 

[Coboman]

QUOTE (JSpencer @ 9 Apr 2011, 18:05) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Only some (two) axles are sprung on the WD 2-8-0, (initial release, cannot comment for today's). I believe it even has a bauhor (or however its spelled) motor making the model an exceptionally smooth runner (like the N class I brought at that time).
Ah yes I had forgotten about that motor in the WD and N. IIRC it was the advent of the A1 and 4mt that introduced a much cheaper 3 pole motor. I'm not sure whats in the 56xx but mine is probably the smoothest running loco I have.

 

[JSpencer]

Interesting as my Bachmann A1 is a very smooth runner, as good as my Hornby A1 equally smooth. Unfortunately my 56XX is the mainline one so not as good.

These cheaper motors are not consistant however. I have some Hornby 5 poles that run really smoothly and quietly (they must be well balanced), others which are noisy and vibrate, the same for Bachmann - all of these test ran by motors themsleves outside the locos and gear trains.

 

[Coboman]

The problem with my A1 and orriginal 4MTT was they were utterly gutless. Also whever made the motors made a mistake and used the wrong wire and the A1s were prone to overheating, and Bachmann did a recall. I missed out on that. I hear that a mashima 1830 will fit, which is what I have planned for the A1. The 4MTT I had got sold and replaced with a later one....

 

[34C]

Check the dimensions of the motor in your A1 carefully, width over flats, length over casing, shaft diameter. Two of mine were supplied with Mashima 1430 motors, but these are not standard with the Mashima motors that you can buy, as they are single shafted.

QUOTE (JSpencer @ 9 Apr 2011, 18:05) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Only some (two) axles are sprung on the WD 2-8-0, (initial release, cannot comment for today's). I believe it even has a bauhor (or however its spelled) motor making the model an exceptionally smooth runner (like the N class I brought at that time).

There is no contest between the ROD 04 or WD 2-8-0. Running wise the WD is far better, quieter and smoother and pulls just as well too. The 9F will out pull (and anything else I suppose) perhaps just as smooth but not as quiet...
The WD remains unchanged in respect of having two of the driven axles sprung, and I second your opinion of its' excellent running qualities. The Buhler motor that was fitted to earlier versions is replaced in more recent editions by a Bachmann three pole motor: to no detriment in my opinion, you would not be able to tell which had what running them side by side as I do; still quiet and smooth and very controllable thanks to the roughly 40:1 reduction ratio. Mine are modified, the boiler ballast weight removed so that the maximum quantity of lead may be incorporated, in this way they can be brought up to 16oz/450g and then pull extremely well.

The Bachmann 9F is currently the OO plastic bodied RTR steam haulage champion, simply because they used the internal volume and properly packed the weight in, about 500g as supplied. (It is easy to lob in another 100g of lead with no modifications required for those that want more; I have operated Hornby 9Fs with my own motor drive on the loco up to 800g, this did the job tractively, but watch out for side rod wear...) Hornby have done a similar weight job on the chassis in their Brit and Clan models which also pull very well in consequence, and hopefully we will see more of this where space permits. I would also call attention to Bach's tank locos, a particular favourite of mine their Fairburn 4MTT. Other than the modelled cab interior there is very little void volume within, the model is a metal block with a thin plastic skin which gives it all the traction a model of this power class needs.

The 'crunch' for plastic bodied RTR is in the smaller locos and those whose construction declines to supply sufficient volume to accept enough weight from the mazak which the manufacturer pretty much has to use as ballast. (Interestingly Lima were putting blocks of lead inside their product until relatively late in their operation, (and surely long after this had been outlawed for toy production?) usually the best component in the item.) So those wanting more weight in their locos have to make the substitution themselves; lead, at near twice the density of mazak makes a huge difference, and since I cannot afford anything denser, it will have to do. In this respect I very much prefer Bachmann's locos, ballast weights are typically screw attached and thus readily removed, enabling locos like the O4, K3 and Ivatt 4MT moguls to be given the mass to do the jobs they undertook in reality.

 

[Capt Jango]

Interesting , I go along with 34C , lead helps . I had some lead flashing left over when the railway room was added to the house . It is thin and easy to cut . I add slices of it to any loco that has space to fit . Weight and number of pickups seems to be the real key to smooth running .

Graham

 

[Dan Hamblin]

Had a problem with the pony truck of new Hornby GWR 2-8-0 No. 3803 derailing on certain points - opened up the back to back on the wheelset and it was fine thereafter.

Regards,

Dan

 

[Coboman]

QUOTE (34C @ 10 Apr 2011, 09:28) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So those wanting more weight in their locos have to make the substitution themselves; lead, at near twice the density of mazak makes a huge difference, and since I cannot afford anything denser, it will have to do.
"Would you like some gold sir? Only $1473 an ounce!"

 

[Richard Johnson]

** Per Troy ounce that is... which makes it appx $1841 per imperial ounce.... What you really need is hevimet, a tungsten/copper/nickel alloy thats close to depeleted uranium in weight... and a wee bit cheaper than gold

regards

Richard

QUOTE (Coboman @ 11 Apr 2011, 06:12) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>"Would you like some gold sir? Only $1473 an ounce!"

 

[trainsntrees]

Hi

Keep a lookout for old Darts, not the cheap brass ones but the semi decent tungsten ones, even with their tips missing they are a fair old weight for size, and you will often find old broken or partial sets been thrown out by working mens clubs.

Regards

Kal

 

[pedromorgan]

Crumbs this thread brings back memories!

Looking back there are some things i agree with (we could do with some more haulage power!) but the old ringfield tender drive motors that someone mentioned were simply shocking!
A weak motor driving 2 axles on the tender with a lousey loco/tender connection was just asking for trouble.

Those are the models that drove me to modelling US for 10 years!!
Why, oah why didnt the magazine editors call them the junk they are instead of copying and pasting the press releases?

I have only ever rejected one loco on the grounds that traction was really poor. that was a Bachmann A1.

To those fo you that are having problems, can you just run a cinger along a couple of inches of track, see if it leaves a black line on your fingers. if it does then this is dirt and grease and oil and removing it should help your traction.

Peter