 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / December 2009Railroad Jinties
Anyone had any problems with these? We've had two returned in the last few days with badly worn gears. One loco lasted just one day. John. > Anyone had any problems with these? > > We've had two returned in the last few days with badly worn gears. > One loco lasted just one day. My problem is that the chassis is too rigid, with too little play in the wheels to negotiate minor track irregularities, whereas Railroad Pacifics do not have the same problems. The old chassis with sprung rear axle (and traction tires) performed better and maintained better electrical contact. I don't think an exchange for the same thing would solve my problem. Are you giving a straight exchange? Is the Bachmann Jinty (at double the price) a better deal?  SignatureMartin S. >> Anyone had any problems with these? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Is the Bachmann Jinty (at double the price) a better deal? You fixed those 'minor irregularities' in your track yet ? Cheers, Simon > "MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You fixed those 'minor irregularities' in your track yet ? No. The Jinty is still sitting in a siding. SignatureMartin S. > Is the Bachmann Jinty (at double the price) a better deal? That's a subjective question, but I'd say that the Bachmann 'Jinty' is a far nicer and better detailed model, which has a much superior chassis too. They often suffer (straight out of the box) from badly adjusted electrical wiper pick-ups, but a little tweaking results in a superb & reliable slow running shunting loco, which has enough of a turn of speed to fulfil other 'Jinty' duties. I've had no problems with running on my layout which utilises Peco Code 75 track & Electrofrog points. John. > "MartinS" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They often suffer (straight out of the box) from badly adjusted electrical > wiper pick-ups, A common problem with Bachmann N (Farish) too, esp. the 04 shunter. Tender pickups on my Jubilee really were "straight" out of the box, i.e. not just badly adjusted, no attempt had been made to adjust them at all. Why do we put up with it? MBQ [re badly designed/made RTR models] : Why do we put up with it? Because with only two fully paid up, and a couple of dabbling, RTR manufactures in each of the two most popular gauges 'we' (meaning 2mm and 4mm scale British outline modellers) don't have a lot of choice if 'we' want to use RTR models. Non one has these problems when kit or scratch building... > : Why do we put up with it? > > No one has these > problems when kit or scratch building... Let's just stick to Jinty's for the purposes of this discussion. BTW they were never called that in Scotland - we called them 'Derby pugs' - we only had three of them, thank God.. There is only one good 4mm kit for this loco, which is currently out of production due to AG's outfit having passed on to new owners. You might find one second hand, and by the time you have bought it , motored it, built it, and painted it you will have little change from £100. I think that's a big problem for 90% of present day modellers who are more used to paying about £35,opening the box, and tipping the contents on to the track. There is another little problem - you will need to be a competent wielder of the soldering iron and airbrush which again excludes about 90% of the potential owners. There are plenty of problems for scratch and kit builders, you'd better believe it. Why do you put up with it? Well, when I was a lad, this loco was only available RTR in an appalling format from Triang with horrible wheels, ghastly detailing (where there was any) and a very noisy motor - it was only just recognisable as an LMS 3F 0-6-0 tank and its performance on the track is best not mentioned. I think the last few years of RTR have spawned a new generation of modellers (well, train set owners then) who have become so used to near perfection in the trade's offerings that any tiny deviation or hiccup from this state is seen as a major catastrophe, Combine that with the perpetual whining about models they would like to see, and forum polls to advise the makers as to their next introduction ( frequently some exotic prototype seen only on remote branch lines) and the impression I get is of a community which contains some very noisy and very spoiled people. Do try to get some perspective into your thinking (and writing). To quote a famous statesman - "You never had it so good". The 'Railroad' versions now being pumped out by Hornby should be seen for what they are. Cheapo re-runs (with a few mods) for the less discerning modeller. No harm in that, if your bent is playing trains rather than building a model railway. If you want top quality you are going to have to pay for it. >> : Why do we put up with it? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >were never called that in Scotland - we called them 'Derby pugs' - we only >had three of them, thank God.. Reminded of Smith's comments: "They were like something George Stephenson had left over... drivers would have never given them an affectionate name (like Jinty) - their scorn was too great" >Why do you put up with it? Well, when I was a lad, this loco was only >available RTR in an appalling format from Triang with horrible wheels, >ghastly detailing (where there was any) and a very noisy motor - it was only >just recognisable as an LMS 3F 0-6-0 tank and its performance on the track >is best not mentioned. I think the last few years of RTR have spawned a new But, judged by even early 1970s RTR standards (let alone the 1950s, when it dated from), it didn't look entirely unacceptable - and its crude chassis formed the underpinnings of whole hordes of whitemetal kits.. {perceptive comments chomped..} >The 'Railroad' versions now being pumped out by Hornby should be seen for >what they are. Cheapo re-runs (with a few mods) for the less discerning >modeller. No harm in that, if your bent is playing trains rather than >building a model railway. If you want top quality you are going to have to >pay for it. And, indeed, probably more than adequate in appearance when viewed at a distance on a scenic model: I can see no possible reason to complain about a manufacturer offering high-quality full-detail at full price, and a less detailed model at a lower price. Seems like win/win for the modeller.. Shame there's just this ongoing emphasis on the Black Boring Period of Decline and Decay... (personal opinion, that one..) SignatureAndy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair) <snip> : Shame there's just this ongoing emphasis on the Black Boring Period : of Decline and Decay... (personal opinion, that one..) 30, even 20 years ago many people were fed up to the back teeth of periods that they never knew, never mind being able to remember and the then RTR manufactures got their ears (IMO) right royally toasted each year about the absence of decent BR stock. Saying that whilst assuming you were not commenting on the old LNWR black and boring period?! :~) > There is only one good 4mm kit for this loco, which is currently out of > production due to AG's outfit having passed on to new owners. Are you discounting the LRM kit? I haven't built it yet but it looks good. Well, apart from the resin boiler/firebox top... SignaturePaul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/ >> There is only one good 4mm kit for this loco, which is currently out of >> production due to AG's outfit having passed on to new owners. > > Are you discounting the LRM kit? I haven't built it yet but it looks > good. Well, apart from the resin boiler/firebox top... Two points: The LRM kit is nothing like as nice as the Gibson one, if the photo on the S4 Website is any guide. I don't like mixed material kits where resin parts are glued to metal parts, especially if the metal bits are brass. Brass is a 'greasy' metal which does not take glues very easily. Secondly, can I up my estimate of what a kit built Jinty will cost you to about £120 based on the LRM kit price? I bought my Gibson one some years ago and I don't have an up-to-date price for this kit but I doubt it would be £80 even at 2009 prices. If pictures were allowed on this forum I could let you see my Gibson 3F Tank. You can of course see it if you pm me at awhwright@btinternet.com Alistair W : > : Why do we put up with it? : > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] : owners. There are plenty of problems for scratch and kit builders, you'd : better believe it. I wasn't implying that one doesn't, but any errors (certainly with scratch building) are largely the fault of the builder and were a fault is with the design of a kit, it can often be found and put right with nothing more than a little bit of research and some modelling skills, that was my point. : Why do you put up with it? Well, when I was a lad, this loco was only : available RTR in an appalling format from Triang with horrible wheels, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : get some perspective into your thinking (and writing). To quote a famous : statesman - "You never had it so good". Indeed, couldn't agree more, 30 years ago even most (so called) highly detailed kits are worse than Hornby's "Railroad range". Unfortunately most people have either forgotten or never knew that era and all they want to do is open boxes and - figuratively - tip the contents onto the track, as you suggest. : The 'Railroad' versions now being pumped out by Hornby should be seen for : what they are. Cheapo re-runs (with a few mods) for the less discerning : modeller. No harm in that, if your bent is playing trains rather than : building a model railway. If you want top quality you are going to have to : pay for it. ...and possibly (learn to) do so 'modelling'... >> : Why do we put up with it? >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > get some perspective into your thinking (and writing). To quote a famous > statesman - "You never had it so good". The "just take what you are given and be jolly well grateful for it" attitude seems to be very much a model train thing. Maybe it's related to the number of railway modelling vicars. Other types of modellers happily rant that an inch-high figure has 1890-pattern shoe laces not the 1897-pattern, that an easily-added logo is conspicuously absent from an aircraft tail, and they don't seem to see gaps in coverage as whining. > The 'Railroad' versions now being pumped out by Hornby should be seen for > what they are. Cheapo re-runs (with a few mods) for the less discerning > modeller. No harm in that, if your bent is playing trains rather than > building a model railway. Is there a difference? Well, maybe for the sort of finescale layout where nothing actually works and the scenery is rubbish, but hey, look, the rails are the right distance apart while that layout where they trains run on electricity rather than fingers has them too close together na-na-na. > If you want top quality you are going to have to > pay for it. SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > Anyone had any problems with these? > We've had two returned in the last few days with badly worn gears. One loco > lasted just one day. > John. I've got one and it kept stalling on Peco insulfrog points, despite it having 6 wheel pickup. It was also rather light. There seemed to be a problem with the rigidity of the chassis. This was exacerbated by the pickups sometimes losing contact with the wheels when negotiating points. I solved the problem by fitting an old Margate (all metal) wheelset, rather than the new one with plastic wheel centres. It seems that with the old wheelset, the coupling rods are able to conduct electricity between the wheels, on each side, making the pickup from individual wheels less critical. I've also added a bit of lead and it runs pretty well now. >> Anyone had any problems with these? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > problem with the rigidity of the chassis. This was exacerbated by the > pickups sometimes losing contact with the wheels when negotiating points. Did you try tweaking pickups to retain contact ? Cheers, Simon > >> Anyone had any problems with these? > >> We've had two returned in the last few days with badly worn gears. One > >> loco > >> lasted just one day. > >> John. > > I've got one and it kept stalling on Peco insulfrog points, despite it > > having 6 wheel pickup. It was also rather light. There seemed to be a > > problem with the rigidity of the chassis. This was exacerbated by the > > pickups sometimes losing contact with the wheels when negotiating points. > Did you try tweaking pickups to retain contact ? > Cheers, > Simon Yes I spent hours tweaking them and watching them while running it slowly over the points. I also checked the back to back measurements. I think the wheel tread might be slightly wider on the older wheels which may also be helping? I have heard of other people having similar problems with the new unsprung chassis on points on another forum. It runs pretty well now, but I think the replacement wheels I put on might be very slightly out of quarter. > nospam@nospam.invalid says... >> Anyone had any problems with these? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > individual wheels less critical. I've also added a bit of lead and it > runs pretty well now. I find the same problem with insulfrog points. If the frog is a tiny bit higher then the running rails when the centre wheel crosses it, it lifts the other two wheels on that side off the track, losing contact and possibly derailing the loco. SignatureMartin S. >> Anyone had any problems with these? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > wheels less critical. I've also added a bit of lead and it runs pretty > well now. Bad scheme using the coupling rods to connect wheelsets electrically! The rods must, for obvious reasons, have mechanical clearance with the crank-pins so there will be sparking. You will have created a basic spark errosion metal mill which will cut away at the connecting rods until they become too lose to turn the non-geared axles. You'll probably get less than half the normal life out of the connecting rods! The only cure for your initial problem is to disassemble and readjust the current collection wipers. Greg.P. > >> Anyone had any problems with these? > > > >> We've had two returned in the last few days with badly worn gears. One > >> loco > >> lasted just one day. > >> John. > > I've got one and it kept stalling on Peco insulfrog points, despite it > > having 6 wheel pickup. It was also rather light. There seemed to be a > > problem with the rigidity of the chassis. This was exacerbated by the > > pickups sometimes losing contact with the wheels when negotiating points. > > I solved the problem by fitting an old Margate (all metal) wheelset, > > rather than the new one with plastic wheel centres. It seems that with > > the old wheelset, the coupling rods are able to conduct electricity > > between the wheels, on each side, making the pickup from individual > > wheels less critical. I've also added a bit of lead and it runs pretty > > well now. > Bad scheme using the coupling rods to connect wheelsets electrically! > The rods must, for obvious reasons, have mechanical clearance with the > crank-pins so there will be sparking. You will have created a basic > spark errosion metal mill which will cut away at the connecting rods > until they become too lose to turn the non-geared axles. You'll > probably get less than half the normal life out of the connecting rods! > The only cure for your initial problem is to disassemble and readjust > the current collection wipers. As a test I just put the original plastic centred wheelset back on. The bad running returned instantly. The rear of rims of the plastic centered wheelset are part plastic and part metal. This can mean that the pickups are partly rubbing on plastic which can make the connection with the metal part of the rim intermittent. It is quite difficult to get the pickups to rest solely on the metal part of the rim. Once I put the all metal wheelset back on everything was fine again. I've not seen any sparking and the old Triang and Triang-Hornby locos ran with metal wheels and metal coupling rods for years with no adverse effects :) >> >> Anyone had any problems with these? >> > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > with metal wheels and metal coupling rods for years with no adverse > effects :) The old Tri-ang locos had wipers (0-6-0 etc) to both running wheels on the insulated side. If one of the wipers failed then there would be sparking on the two crank-pins and connecting rod bearing/rubbing points. That spelled trouble! If the wiper on your loco is bearing part on the metal rim and part on the plastic then it is a very poor design. If I had that problem and wanted to fix it rather than demanding my money back I imagine I would place the wheelset in the lathe and sand the plastic until it was marginally below the level of the metal rim. Consideration would need to be given as to how secure the rim was on the wheel center as such sanding would be useless if the rim could move in relation to the plastic center. > Anyone had any problems with these? > > We've had two returned in the last few days with badly worn gears. One loco > lasted just one day. As Hornby's own sales pitch states :- The Hornby RailRoad range – The first steps to modelling railways. The problem of badly worn gears has not been answered yet. I bought an un-boxed Jinty that was DCC ready about 18 months ago. It had never run smoothly with or without DCC. An inspection of the gears showed a fair amount of play. It now runs OK |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.