2020 range EFE J94

[gppsoftware]

I've two class 41s and both run exceptionally well. Powerful and quiet. The motor is far from garbage.

They certainly do run extremely well on DC. It is certainly very quiet. I wouldn't say it is any more powerful than any other loco, but it has very little momentum.

The problem is that theses motors don't work well with a lot of DCC decoders, particularly sound decoders because the motor is not properly matched - in fact, the BEMF of the motor completely confuses sound decoders, probably because there is very little of it. Every sound supplier I have communicated with have had problems with this loco and denigrate the motor.

It seems that the designer of these models chose the motor without regard for the decoders people would attach to them rather than the other way around of choosing a motor which fits the DC and DCC requirements of the customer base.

My class 41 actually damaged an ESU Loksound 4, not the other way around. Had to replace it with a Loksound 5.

Don't get me wrong, the class 41 is a lovely model. Looks really good and I like it. But the motor is crap. Same as the motor in the class 22 which also has the same 'individual' behind it who wanted to experiment. Both my locos from this heritage have poor, but different motors. The class 22 judders at very low speed with the vibration of the rotation of the motor armature. Does the same thing both on pure DC and with a DCC decoder. Have replaced the motor and new motor does the same thing. And no, it's not a mechanical issue.

Graham Plowman

[Bigmet]

It remains to be seen how effective this is, but the EFE OO J94 has been stated to have a different coreless motor in it from that which it had as a DJM product. And one other revision, it will have a Next18 socket. Now we must wait for the first tranche of purchasers to make their assessments.

Side note: I have samples of two types of models with what are reported to be coreless motors. All ran very sweetly on resistance controller DC, and extremely well with Lenz and Zimo economy decoders (Standard+ and MX600) with no special adjustment required, and reliably operating to date.

On which limited sample - just four relatively small mechanisms so far - I conclude that model railway manufacturers have some suitable coreless motors potentially available to them: there is no intrinsic problem. I have yet to see one in a heavy centre motor mechanism though...

[6C]

S..but I had a J94 that only ran half speed one way while sounding like a cement mixer with gravel in it.
This was on DC too....

Sounds like my 'original' Dapol WD Austerity (with a later Hornby J94 body), that I use for shunting my iron ore wharf - grinding bag of spanners - but v.near 30 years old and still on the original motor and gears - so I guess the conclusion is - if it sounds like a duck - quacks like a duck - sometimes it isn't one - for me anyhow !!

[Bufferstop]

@ Graham, what are you calling pure DC? Most DC controllers these days don't produce anything near "pure" DC, a basic transformer rectifier unit is going to produce a current varying between zero and whatever max you have set it at, at 100Hz if it has a full wave rectifier. If it's a half wave you'll get a 50Hz current with a wave form that looks like Nessie on a bad day. If there's some smoothing it probably won't go down to zero between pulses, if you float a battery across it you will get something approaching DC with a ripple. The bigger the battery the less the ripple. Leave the battery in and pull the plug you'll get pure DC.
It's the lack of a heavy rotating core that causes the problems with coreless motors, too much ripple and they try to follow the pulses causing unwanted vibration, they won't be generating a constant back EMF so they don't get on with feedback controllers. Feed them a DCC waveform without a decoder to change it to chopped up DC and they'll try to shake themselves to pieces. They will run but noisy and hot as loco 0, leave them on the track not moving for too long and they'll destroy themselves. If a DCC system comes with the "one DC loco" feature enabled it ought to have a b' great warning notice to isolate the loco or take it off the track when not running.

[Bufferstop]

Sounds like my 'original' Dapol WD Austerity (with a later Hornby J94 body), that I use for shunting my iron ore wharf - grinding bag of spanners - but v.near 30 years old and still on the original motor and gears - so I guess the conclusion is - if it sounds like a duck - quacks like a duck - sometimes it isn't one - for me anyhow !!

I've got two Hornby versions with over ten years between them, the newer of the two is the noisiest! As you say a grinding bag of spanners.

[Bigmet]

Sounds like my 'original' Dapol WD Austerity (with a later Hornby J94 body), that I use for shunting my iron ore wharf - grinding bag of spanners - but v.near 30 years old and still on the original motor and gears - so I guess the conclusion is - if it sounds like a duck - quacks like a duck - sometimes it isn't one - for me anyhow !!

I've got two Hornby versions with over ten years between them, the newer of the two is the noisiest! As you say a grinding bag of spanners.

When I first made the acquaintance of the Hornby version it was a pair obtained cheaply s/h, both runners, one slow but relatively quiet, the other faster but a coffee grinder. The slow one was 'gummed up' with sticky lube and became yet quieter and free running with cleaning and a relube of the mechanism. So what was the problem with the noisy specimen? Poor alignment of the motor and gear train in short, due to the 'frame' being moulded plastic pieces and neither cleaned of flash or carefully assembled. A rebuild made this a quiet runner, and I still have this one (the other went to a friend). Mine is double the weight as supplied with lots of lead packed in and DCC controlled; it runs very sweetly from dead slow, near match to the Bachmann and Hornby 08.

[gppsoftware]

@Bufferstop, by pure DC I am referring to the DC produced by my Gaugemaster DS100 seen in the middle right of the first picture here: http://www.mrol.com.au/Pages/Vu/WorkBenchLayout
The class 41 does indeed perform very well on the Gaugemaster.

Otherwise, I agree on all your other points.

I believe the class 41 has DJM herritage. I have read on online fora (this may well be incorrect) comments that he was trying to prove DC as the way forward over DCC and hence, considered DCC as out of his interest area and didn't bring it into his designs. Funny how both my locos from this heritage are a PITA, yet I don't have any problems with any of my other locos!

I did find that non-sound DCC decoders (eg TCS, Lenz, DCC Concepts) made a much better job of controlling the class 41 than sound decoders, obviously because they don't rely on the BEMF to the extent that sound decoders do. The BEMF on the class 41 motor is all over the place, so it confuses the hell out of sound decoders - in my case ESU, but I haven't heard comments from anyone using Zimo sound in this loco.

It seems that the re-introductions being discussed in this topic have a more suitable motor. I am aware that Bachmann are starting to use coreless motors, but I haven't seen any bad comment about them so far. Maybe Bachmann just 'got it right' and chose a properly suited motor.

[Bigmet]

...I believe the class 41 has DJM heritage...

It does. Chris Trerice, the principal of KMRC, has maintained a discreet public silence over the trouble he had getting the project completed after parting from DJM.

...
... Funny how both my locos from this heritage are a PITA, yet I don't have any problems with any of my other locos!...

Just my opinion, but the baseline problem with Dave Jones' OO mechanism designs is that he thought in terms of N gauge, which he made quite clear was the scale he was personally interested in. Unnecessarily small motors, gear coupled steam loco axles, glued assembly and the low cost split chassis pick up method which doesn't work so well in OO unless very well arranged, were some of the results. He was up front about the OO products being necessary to generate the cash to fund the N gauge products which were what he really wanted to bring to market.

...I have read on online fora (this may well be incorrect) comments that he was trying to prove DC as the way forward over DCC and hence, considered DCC as out of his interest area and didn't bring it into his designs...

Never got as far as questioning him about design for DCC control...

(My opinions from the one occasion I had conversation with him. None of this filled me with confidence, so it was 'wait and see' on the one useful OO product he proposed for my purposes, a small industrial 0-6-0T, which never appeared.)

[Mike Parkes]

Provided a split chassis is correctly designed and the right materials used then it is a perfectly acceptable form of pick up. The classic example that gets overlooked is the Triang Rocket.

[RuffnutThorston]

Yes, it seems that the Tri-ang Railways “Rocket“, introduced in 1963, was the first commercial Use of a split chassis design.


http://www.hornbyguide.com/service_shee ... heetid=319

[Bigmet]

Provided a split chassis is correctly designed and the right materials used then it is a perfectly acceptable form of pick up. The classic example that gets overlooked is the Triang Rocket.

Small and light, and no coupled wheelsets - ideal!

I have several examples of current RTR OO split chassis traction running on my layout at present and all are good, showing no signs of the troubles that plagued the Mainline and Bachmann split chassis steam models. It is very noticeable that none of the four manufacturers concerned actually mention 'split chassis' in the product description! In each case it is done well with good design and materials choices, and no trouble is anticipated.

[Mike Parkes]

I used Kader made locos under the Mainline Replica and Bachmann brands for years without any of the split chassis problems; then two I had let others borrow/maintain suffered broken axles so I have always wondered how many of the problematic locos are down to the possible use of the wrong lubricant on them. Obviously at some point the lack of brass bearings would have come into play with the wearing down/off of the contact surface on the axle but I have sold all but four and they were in fully working order.

One of the sold locos was on which did have a failed chassis, a Replica B1, as fitted with a working B1 chassis that was also for sale on the club stand; a quick discussion with its owner and a chassis swap was made and both a fully working B1 and also a faulty B1 chassis were sold separately.

The other failed chassis was a Bachmann 04 0-6-0DM, which I replaced with a DCC ready Bachmann 03 chassis back when those 03s could found new for less than £40 .The wheels were mulliputted to look like those of an 04 - it did need the body mounts to be adopted and then when adding new handrails to the body its origins as the Mainline 03 body became evident as the body panels are plainly not wholly in the correct place so I keep on expecting someone to announce an new 04.

[Bigmet]

I used Kader made locos under the Mainline Replica and Bachmann brands for years without any of the split chassis problems; then two I had let others borrow/maintain suffered broken axles so I have always wondered how many of the problematic locos are down to the possible use of the wrong lubricant on them. Obviously at some point the lack of brass bearings would have come into play with the wearing down/off of the contact surface on the axle...

There's much suspicion about lubricant degradation of the split chassis plastic components. However no one can say for certain what is or is not a problem.

When I started purchasing the Bachmann branded split chassis steamers, they were so loaded with white grease, that I scooped out all but a smear from the split chassis and retained it in a metal 35mm film canister. I used that alone for the roughly 18 month interval 'minimal relubes', after cleaning the axles and chassis locations with IPA. The only problem I ever had with the axle muffs was their eventual fracturing which I took to be mechanically induced, and they could be degreased and reassembled with Araldite to outlive the plating on the wheel castings and chassis locations.

The usual end of life was when nearly all the plating was worn off the driving wheel tyres from rail contact, I juggled components that still had some wear life into good combinations for each of A4, B1, J39, V2 and V1/V3 mechanisms, and systematically extracted all the possible operating life from them. With the Lenz decoders that were my choice for them they ran as well as current wiper pick up product, until the plating wear meant pick up became unreliable.

But to be brutally honest my interest is operation and lots of it, not running the loco maintenance programme, so I was happy to replace them as they wore out and became unreliable; with wiper pick up mechanisms good to go for decades with minimal maintenance attention. (My oldest Bachmann WD 2-8-0 has now accrued 20 years service, and is near twice the weight it came out of the factory, as all the Mazak ballast is replaced, the interior packed solid with lead. The only attention it gets is a two monthly light oiling on all the rod joints, and it runs as well as ever. Likely to outlive me...)

[Mike Parkes]

Seen far too many reach for a can of WD40 which is notorious for affecting some plastics.

[Bufferstop]

I have a couple of Bachmann 04s with split chassis and both are running well and trouble free. My first experience of the split chassis mechanisms was a Mainline Collet 0-6-0 which was ten years old and a non runner. Someone had got the chassis screws mixed up and one hole contained a long screw from each side putting a permanent short across it. Soon fixed. I got another ten years out of it before the plating on the axles started to give pickup problems, so I fitted it with rudimentary wipers which connected wheels to frames and got another ten years out of it. It was honourably retired three or four years ago and replaced with a new Bachmann DCC ready example. Hardly the disaster story most people tell of split chassis. I think MAZAK rot was the real killer.