Most repairable 00 locos

I seem to spend a lot of time repairing old locos and trying to get parts for them. This is partly for sentimental reasons, partly because I hate
throwing things into landfill sites and also because many new locos seem rather fragile and won't go round my curves.
I have the impression that many of the current locos are pretty much disposable once something breaks? Hornby parts seem to be much more available than Bachmann ones, does it follow that they are more repairable?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Can of worms your opening there ! Be interesting to see what some of our retailing contributors say - John, over to you...
Cheers, Simon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gerald H wrote:

No, it follows that Hornby locos are more likely to be defective. ;-)
But mostly it's an effect of how modern model trains are made. The loco was jig-built to start with, so disassembling and reassembling it will be beyond most modellers' abilities. Also, there just aren't that many repairable or replaceable parts - many details are cast on or glued in place.
IOW, manufacturers do not stock repair parts, as a rule. Keeping track of parts is hellishly expensive. The overhead of warehousing, tracking inventory, and servicing and shipping small orders is amazingly high to the uninitiated. (That's why a car built from repair parts will cost you 5 to 10 times as much as new one.)
Manufacturers try to have as many common parts as possible, eg, motors and wheels, and these are the parts most likely to be available for repairs. But they are also the parts least likely to break. However, if it turns out that some part (such as a gear) fails too often too soon, a manufacturer may arrange to have improved parts made. But that doesn't mean they will be available to the few modellers who want to potter about repairing defective equipment (I'm one of those, too, I speak from experience. ;-)
Thus, when you have a defective loco, it may be cheaper for the manufacturer to just replace it with another one, and do the repairs in-house than to handle small orders. (The cost of handling small orders is one reason most hobby shops no longer stock all those odd bits and pieces of yore.) You get a replacement loco, and yours will go into the "refurbishing" stream to be satisfy another customer's warranty claim. Or, as you fear, it may just get dumped.
All that being said, manufacturers will from time to time just send you a replacement part. Sometimes even at no cost, as it's cheaper to just bung the thing into an envelope than to process a sale!
HTH
--
wolf k.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hornby definitely support their products with the exception of bodies but I have noticed that guys like Modelspares do break up some of the new units. Bachmann themselves provide a surprising range of spares but have reduced (rationalised) the number of chassis available and of corse no bodies. Spares for rolling stock are the most difficult to locate. The cannibal routine is the most successful IMHO.
Regards
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Wolf K." wrote

In the words of that well known song:-
'You took the words right out of my mouth ...........'
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Gerald H" wrote

Both manufacturers provide a repair facility, so I'd say there's no repair problem with either.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gerald H said the following on 16/04/2008 23:00:

Certainly Hornby parts seem to be more available, and some might say (have said!) that they need to be!
I've just gone through an exercise of getting about 40 locos up and running for sale, dating from 1950s Hornby-Dublo through Tri-ang to 1980s/1990s Hornby. It's certainly the case that the older ones are much easier to get running smoothly (or they never stopped running) than the newer ones. My impression is that Hornby lost the way when they started using plastic :-)
If I ever see an X-04 motor again though, it will be too soon!!
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

Indeed, it's taken over 40 years to get back to the smooth RTR locos that we had with H-D back in the early '60s, and that was on those old resistant-mat controllers!

Hmm, in my opinion, whilst the X-04 motor needs regular servicing, it is not so bad - that is compared to the abortion that replaced it, namely the 'Ringfield' motor. (Triang-)Hornby lost their way when they started to put the motor in the tender of their steam loco models...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:Jerry: said the following on 17/04/2008 10:42:

My test track (I model P4, so had to knock up a length of OO) is powered by a very cheap Hornby controller that is probably nothing more than a resistance mat! I figured that if the loco would run smoothly on that, it would run smoothly on anything.

I didn't mean to imply it was bad, it's just that I've seen rather a lot of them lately! As you say, they are actually quite nice motors.
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:Jerry: wrote:

The X04 was an excellent motor, way ahead of everything else available in Britain in 1948/50. IMHO it's the reason the Rovex/Tri-ang range florished for so long. (that and the excellent gears)
Hornby Ringfield was a straight copy of the successful Fleischmann drum motor - even the parts were semi-interchangable. A problem with copying German technology is that it doesn't neccessarily work as well when you lower the quality.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes.
D800 Warships vs V200 series.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:

I have a Fleischmann model of each of those - I can't see anything to complain about other than there being no provision for fitting a second motor bogie :-(
Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:

I think Christopher meant the real thing?
(kim)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kim wrote:

Yeah, I guess that's a possibility.
From what I've read (including/particularly between the lines) the German design was tailored for German conditions where high power, relatively short dash running with continual maintainance was the norm. If you were to put the V200s onto long distance continuous running routes with less than Germanic maintainance, or heavy drag operation as on the US Southern Pacific where there were high ambient temperatures and maintainance consisted of checking the oil monthly, kicking the tyres and flicking an oily rag over the radiator cap, the German design wasn't up to the job. Of course the German designers couldn't conceive of maintainance schedules that didn't include checking stress effects on all cotterpins daily and the like, so failure was guaranteed. Of course, the Webb Compounds sold to France and the USa also didn't fare well either.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

:-)
The hydraulics gave a better power to weight ratio than the diesel electrics of the era.
So the D800 Warships were 2000hp on only four axles, dating from 1960.
All the other type 4 diesels being built at the time needed eight axles. They were still building class 40s until 1962, and Peaks until 1963.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most
Not as good as 3300 on 6 axles
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Martin wrote:

The V200.1 gave 2700hp on 4 axles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is quite pokey - how heavy was it?
Would I be right in saying same engines as a Western?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Martin wrote:

87 tonnes. The original V200 gave 2200hp (PSi) but the engine manufacturer uprated it to 2700hp with the same reliability in time for the second batch.(V200.1) Well, third batch really, if you count the seven prototypes as the first batch and V200.008 on as the second. I don't know what engines were fitted to the Western.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When introduced the spent a long time on Paddington- Wolverhampton services as a stop-gap until the EE Type 4's were available. Unfotunately the EE Type 4's weren't up to the job (they had to have shorter trains to keep to time-table), so the Warships carried on until the Westerns were ready.
I always hated the Warships when they were alive, but they were actually remarkable engines.
Cheers Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk snipped-for-privacy@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
I have become... comfortably numb
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.