GWR_fan wrote:Hattons are only listing a heavily weathered early crest with rotating bunker as available. Given the number of You-tube videos from disappointed customers I decided to avoid this model as I did not need a shelf queen. Obviously some may have enjoyed their time with their models for it to get model of the year, but for me the risk of a failed dead on arrival was too great a concern.
Lots of videos on YouTube, of well pleased Garratt, owners. My 47975 is still running sweet as a nut no problems.
It was also Model of the Year, and won by a large margin.
COLIN.
“What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it”
Lysander wrote:Motor burn-outs have been reported by a number of RMWeb contributors...
It's been a long time coming, but I see today that someone has been sufficiently interested to actually open up a B-G motor following a failure while running. The commutator was the failed component, it had a melt down. My opinion (FWIW) is that this is most probably down to a materials failure; could be wrong material specified, could be incorrect material used in production of the motor. Now if that is what has been causing the majority of the reported 'failure whle running' problems with the model, it is at least readily rectified by motor exchange.
Had a problem with mine. The center and inner axles of each power bogie have compensation. The trouble is the coal bunker end one the inner axle was raised in the air, something was stopping the compensation from moving. I attempted to dismantle the power bogie, but it's a nightmare. The valve gear is so delicate its almost wafer thin. I did manage to get the top off and the motor out (a very tiny motor indeed) and the compensation seemed to free up enough for all wheels to sit on the track. A reassembly and it remained ok. The loco runs well now, but likes exceptionally well laid track.
Hattons definitely had it specced down to a price. Given that they know the UK RTR model railway market well enough to have been the largest retailer 'forever', I am not going to argue with their call. What might it have cost if engineered to be a centre motor shaft drive to both power bogies design? Tricky, but definitely possible; and that of course would be as good as any centre motor diesel or electric type, as the old Rivarossi steam articulateds have been demonstrating for over forty years.
I would hope for the owners that an aftermarket opportunity is spotted by one of the motor and drive line specialists, and in time a re-motor kit emerges.
Compromises perhaps had to be made to keep within budget, but if the specs determined that a motor at each end costing less than 50p each was powering these models, just how many would have been so eager to buy them. I wonder what percentage of production now spend their days on sidings or mantlepieces?
But that's the thing; there's folks I know who will confidently tell you that 80%+ of models sold in the UK are destined to never turn a wheel. I have no way of knowing the truth of that, but the size of the collections of unopened boxes of model railway items - almost all locos - that have been coming to auction in recent years does suggest that there may be something in this. Then there's all the collectorising that goes on around model road vehicles, that's all of it aimed at adults who put it on a shelf if they take it out of the box. (Never heard of anyone pushing them around a layout.) It may well be that wes madmen whioc expect the model railway products to actually work well and prform reliably over the long term are a minority.
Bigmet wrote:Hattons definitely had it specced down to a price. Given that they know the UK RTR model railway market well enough to have been the largest retailer 'forever', I am not going to argue with their call. What might it have cost if engineered to be a centre motor shaft drive to both power bogies design? Tricky, but definitely possible; and that of course would be as good as any centre motor diesel or electric type, as the old Rivarossi steam articulateds have been demonstrating for over forty years.
I would hope for the owners that an aftermarket opportunity is spotted by one of the motor and drive line specialists, and in time a re-motor kit emerges.
Have to agree.
You only need to look at the Bachmann articulateds with 5 pol center mount flywheel motors to see that.
But these models are expected to pull realistic length trains and they are not silly money. Also threy are not limited productions despite the fact that not many of the real ones where made and had a limited working life due to the advancement in diesel technology.
The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, “Linking 13 Great States With The Nation.”
Bigmet wrote:............................ What might it have cost if engineered to be a centre motor shaft drive to both power bogies design? Tricky, but definitely possible; and that of course would be as good as any centre motor diesel or electric type, as the old Rivarossi steam articulateds have been demonstrating for over forty years.....
Bigmet,
the only 'tricky' part in the design is aligning the power truck and universal joint pivot points in the same vertical plane. The articulated is just an oversize bogie drive locomotive. There could be a cosmetic issue disguising the front driveshaft from view, but nothing is impossible these days.
In garden scale, locomotives with multiple motors have proven troublesome when liberties are taken with the quality of chosen parts and you have two drives not in sympathy with each other. A centre drive ensures all is in harmony.
Right with you there GWR_fan. (If taking the twin or multiple motored path then reversible drives - no worm gear - are the simplest plan for better reliability, as any slight speed differences are more readily taken up in the drive lines.)
When we get a RTR model of the first and greatest UK Garratt, the wonderful U1, hopefully it will have a motor in the boiler section, geared to drive a lay shaft beneath the motor concealed in the bridge frame; with this shaft connected by UJ's to drive points on the inside ends of the power bogies.
Mine has disgraced itself. Its only run a scale 100 odd miles if that and the valve gear fell to bits and jammed everything up. It seems to be a push fit construction, not really very inspiring in confidence.
I recently acquired another of the first issue of these and one of the second issue. I must say that although the first issue one runs very sweetly indeed, the second issue one is so much better. The black is less glossy, the handrails are blackened which makes the loco look more workmanlike, and it run just superbly. Whisper quiet and super smooth, plus it seems to have more torque. I've put 60 on the back and it just walks away with them. That many on the first issue ones and it noticeably slows down compared to light engine at a fixed power setting (DC). They can handle the same loads, just need more juice.
Good news there. I bought the Heljan O2 with a feeling of 'let's see', but it romped away from day one, quiet, smooth, ample traction, and a second example was if anything even better. Both have performed immaculately since, not a hint of trouble.
I don't think there is any doubt that Heljan simply received a batch of duds from their motor supplier(s) that were used in the initial Beyer-Garratt release. Outwardly the same motor in the O2, and also classes 15 and 16, and not a hint of trouble with these, nor any great problem count online.
I remain however unenthusiastic over their steam mechanism constructional plan, (which also applies to the rod coupled diesels I have seen) an awkward cuss in almost all respects; much better technique is well proven and I gather Heljan's HO steam models are not well received, on the same grounds. Such a contrast to the very simple and successful constructional plan of their twin bogie mechanism.
If the universal joints are positioned above or below the pivot point for the bogie each bogie is then just a steam loco chassis minus the motor, a crown wheel and pinion would be preferable to worm reduction. The gearing of the motor to the drive shaft would provide any extra reduction required. In the 50s Graham Garish produced locos driven like this. With the motor in the tender driving the rear axle via a flexible joint and worm drive.
Much as suggested I believe the ideal for a BG is a large motor in the boiler with a spur gear reduction concealed in the grate and ashpan, driving a layshaft hidden in the bridge frame, with UJ's to sub- shafts each end to the crown wheel drive of a coupled axle of both bogies as described by 'Bufferstop'. Should be very free running indeed. (I'd like a good BG model, as I footplated one while in Zimbabwe, going up the Niagara Falls escarpment, and it was deeply impressive.)
