New 9F R3987 motor torque issues

[Michael_A]

I'm reading reports that this loco shares the same motor as the troubled S15, and have already seen reviews showing the loco has low torque. Does anyone have a service sheet for this loco (It's not on the Hornby HSS website) so I can check and see if this loco uses the same X7041 motor?

[ColinB]

Firstly it depends what 9F you are talking about, the recently released one or the old Railroad version. The Railroad version uses the X6367 motor, which is dimensionally the same as the X4026 without the flywheel, so if there was an issue with the original motor you could swap it for the X4026. I have not taken the new 9F loco apart to check the motor but I doubt even Hornby would use an unreliable motor on a new design. If they have then I can only assume the quality has to have been improved. I have the latest Evening Star made by Hornby and I have not noticed any significant issues, although I only pull 4 coaches at a time.

[Going Spare]

There does not appear to be a Service Sheet issued yet for the latest 9F, along with a good number of other models. You will need to contact Customer Services.

[96RAF]

The report was by the infamous Sam, who measured the motor torque, found it lacking and pulled the motor apart to compare it with another motor. Having replaced the motor with another ‘same size’ but different motor it appears all is well. I thought this model got rave reviews for its pulling power in the model mags.

@Colin - as to which 9f this is there is a clue in the thread title.

[Michael_A]

As per the title ;)

[ColinB]

Actually reading the text it makes no reference to the low torque, I was going to say that the title needed changing. As to the review by Sam, even he said in a later review that perhaps it was just a feature of the current motors used. He said the same about the Bachman 9f, I have one of these and I noticed no issues. As with all Sam's review you have to watch them and come to your own conclusions, generally he is right. Sometimes he doesn't test them in the right conditions so he is wrong. Generally though out of all the reviews I watch, his are the most factual and he is usually right. He said the Bachmann class 812 (special from Rails) had no torque, with 6 four wheel Caledonian coaches (Hornby Railroad with modern wheels) it cannot climb my gradient. So on that one he was spot on but he missed the fact that the drawbar is flimsy and easily broken (Jenny Kirk didn't notice either fault). The latest 9F is a good loco, a bit expensive, but definitely a vast improvement on the old one. With the 21 pin socket and the bass enclosure it is also more "user friendly" for fitting DCC (I have a Zimo sound decoder fitted).

[96RAF]

The infamous Sam and his ‘...sorry I got it wrong earlier but the damage to the manufacturers reputation is done, so this late apology gets me off the hook...’.

He pulled the same stunt with HM6K by slagging it off before he read the instructions, then wriggled out of it later when he had done so.

He should pull these duff reviews and rework them for accuracy as they are misleading at best.

I have no time for the man and his opinions.

[Topcat2018]

Pardon me for being pedantic and repeating myself, but locos do not have torque.

Motors have torque, which is the turning force measured in Newton-metres.

Locomotives have tractive effort, which is the maximum pulling force, measured in Newtons, before adhesion is lost and the wheels slip.

Provided the torque of the motor is sufficient to make the loco wheels slip (the tractive effort at which this occurs is determined by the weight on each driving wheel and the coefficient of friction) the actual value of motor torque is irrelevant because a motor with more torque won't make any difference to the pulling power of the loco once wheel slip has occurred.

In short, discussing the merits of locos solely based on guesstimated values of motor torque is nonsense. Do what I did and buy a couple of spring balances from rapidonline, 100 and 250 Newton are suitable. You can also use them to measure the tractive effort that will be required to pull a rake of coaches.

[ColinB]

To be quite honest it doesn't need anyone to damage a manufacturers reputation they do it pretty well themselves. There are plenty of reviews out there on the web. There was a one out there by an elderly gentleman about the W1 Hush Hush, now I had bought one one these so I knew their faults which incidentally agreed with what Sam's review pointed out. This gentleman basically said it was a wonderful loco, it wasn't until a month ago when I noticed he was running the latest W1 by Hornby with the twin chimneys and faults improved, that he mentioned that the one he reviewed earlier was a terrible model and he had offloaded it. So at the end of the day you watch the review and make your own opinion. As to Sam I doubt he worries too much he is obviously doing ok. As to the 9F, I will add a load of coaches to mine and see how it performs.

[96RAF]

The problem with any ‘tube’ review or advice is you need to know as much as them in order to work out if their content is BS or not.

Some have good content marred by abysmal camera work and some are well produced but the information given is complete and utter Horlicks. Finding the middle of the road is time consuming and in many cases you are better off looking on Pinterest where content tends to be more reliable.

[ColinB]

To be quite honest the review is not very useful as most people preorder their locos so by the time the review comes out it is a bit late. It also depends a lot on what you want to loco for. RMWeb continually nit picks on certain issues but as I found with the Fell misses out on the really important ones like the axle boxes are only a push fit and fall off easily. Generally the way I judge something and I used to do this a lot at work, is ask somebody's opinion on someone or something that you know is really bad and then see if their answer matches yours. As to the 9F we will not know how good the motor is for another 6 to 12 months, that is usually when the bad ones fail.

I will be honest I like Sams reviews and I have bought a lot of old locos after watching his review. Him and Barry will suggest locos that I never even thought of buying and I must admit I have so far not been disappointed. The only downside to both of them is that they do not run DCC, which is an area where a lot of locos fail. Generally many especially Hornby there is no room for the decoder or half the detailing falls off while you are trying to take the thing apart.

[ColinB]

I revisited the initial review by Sam on the 9f and the live chat where he analysed the motor further. I must admit the evidence he puts forward is hard to dismiss whether you like him or not. The response from Hornby is also a bit questionable, soon as someone mentions uneven track you begin to worry about whether they know what they are talking about. That is one of the reasons you have pickups in the tender. My track is uneven due to the baseboard sagging but the only effect it has on running is with the pickups.

It seems like when an 8 pin decoder doesn't work the person asks if you have turned the header around when everyone knows an upside down header only effects the lights and direction of travel. Obviously my 9F has a good motor in it, Sam's obviously doesn't.

[SMR248]

Pardon me for being pedantic and repeating myself, but locos do not have torque.

 

 

My turn to be pedantic. Seems to me that 100N (or 10N, for that matter) would be an impressive tractive effort for any 00 scale model. I wonder what is typical, in your experience?

 

 

The prototype had a tractive effort of circa 200,000N and weighed c 100,000kg. Perhaps a model weighing c 0.5kg might have a TE of c 1N? On the other hand the model is driven by an electric motor with a constant rotational force so maybe my analysis is not valid?

 

 

I wondered what all the fuss was about so I watched the video. My recollection is that the 9F stalled rather than the wheels slipping so that does seem to point to the motor/drivetrain?

 

 

I do find Sam a bit irritating (youthful enthusiasm, etc) but perhaps he has a point? Or maybe he's just unlucky and got the only one with the dodgy motor? Or perhaps... (no, can't say that...).

 

 

 

 

[Topcat2018]

@SMR248

Oops! I certainly boobed there. Should have said 100 gram or 1 Newton.

Tractive effort varies on the type and condition of the loco, especially ones with traction tyres.

The maximum tractive effort I have ever measured, on a tender-drive Chinese-made A4, was around 1 Newton at 280 mA current draw. I can't remember at exactly what voltage this occurred at but I think it was around 5 or 6 volts, so applying 12 V wouldn't increase the tractive effort, it would only make the loco go faster on a light load. Chinese-made loco-driven A1/A3/A4 seem to be lower at around 0.55 Newton.

Smaller locos obviously have lower tractive effort. Chinese-made locos such as four-wheel Pugs can't pull the skin off a rice pudding.

I have a couple of LNER P2s but I haven't got around to measuring the tractive effort of those yet.

[ColinB]

I agree with you SMR248, I too find Sam very irritating at times but generally he is right. I was initially very cynical of Sam's initial video, I mean why would a company put a suspect motor into a brand new design of loco, with a price tag to match, that is just asking for trouble. I then watched his second video where he stripped the two motors down. Now it could be that Hornby played with the magnetism, changed the number of windings or subtly changed the brush design. Without a thorough analysis it is a bit difficult to say, I do know that they don't make motors and don't order enough to make the supplier completely change their design. I do know Hornby are very careful with the truth as I know from a response I got about whether they changed the design of the initial Hush Hush chassis when they produced the subsequent rebuilt versions (on the initial version, the bogie sits too low). I suppose only time will tell.

[Topcat2018]

@ColinB

With respect to the Hush Hush bogie, we know from the TV series on Hornby that they go to great lengths to get dimensions and detail right. Maybe the problem is that what works on the prototype doesn't always work on a scale model.

[96RAF]

@Colin said

Now it could be that Hornby played with the magnetism, changed the number of windings or subtly changed the brush design. Without a thorough analysis it is a bit difficult to say, I do know that they don't make motors and don't order enough to make the supplier completely change their design.

Hornby would simply try a different motor. I doubt they delve into the spec to the level you state and as you say they do not make motors, only buy them in from catalogue stock. If you remember the 800 in the TV series they had a motor that couldn’t achieve the train’s top speed so they bunged a another one in.

[ColinB]

Actually Topcat the Hush Hush bogie problem is nothing to do with the difference between the model and prototype, I doubt on the real loco it hung from a piece of plastic. When I analysed the design the bogie sits too low, meaning the boss it sits on is too proud so the bogie cannot travel far enough. I suspect on the subsequent designs they machined off about 1 mm from the boss so that the bogie sits higher. That was the question I asked Hornby, but they came back with the answer that they have not changed the chassis. I have never had the nerve to strip my original Hush Hush and rebuilt ones down to measure the boss, but that is what I suspect they did and of course they tell me that they both use the same chassis. There again they do, a new modified one that is why on the the new Hush Hush there are no issues.

[David-1257202]

I would have thought Sam is on dodgy ground in his update by saying Hornby's statement about the 9f motor being new is "untrue" go to 20 mins in to hear him state it.

[ColinB]

I must admit David he is, but there again for Hornby to sue him they have got to prove it is a new motor which looking at his evidence it is not. If they sued him he would just do a "crowd fund" from all his watchers to pay the fees and Hornby would be crucified in the press for picking on a "little guy". The thing I cannot understand is if it is the same motor why use it, it has given the company grief previously. Do you remember that batch of locos Hattons sold off cheap that all had dodgy motors, Hornby would not admit there was an issue. Surely as a company they must know by now that he would pull the motor apart, for all his faults he is very thorough. Hornby are "old school", I will say no more.

[DarkRedCape]

Hornby aren’t going to sue Sam. He says the motor is one thing, Hornby says it’s something else. That’s the end of it.

Sam isn’t stating it as a matter of legal fact, just his opinion. Hornby would simply disagree and that’s all there would be to it.

Like him or not, he does know his stuff and he’s very thorough in his reviews, but I often wonder if his layout is what causes some of his issues. His track is just laid onto the carpet and you can see it flex as trains pass over. I know he frequently mentions this but it seems to me it could be a bigger factor than he lets on.

[David-1257202]

Don't disagree at all with you guys. Although Hornby won't be the first manufacturer to blame track (although his carpet is too iffy) as I found out with my Accurascale Deltic derailing (due to kinematic action coupling). Lots of increasingly heated frustrated email's from me, till I had video of it derailing on local MRC exhibition and permanent club layouts. Then they shut up and ignored me. Removed kinematic and just super glued coupling to bogie - no more derailing.

Anyway back to 9f I hadn't thought of the Big Corporate v. the Little Guy, bad press bit, and there's always bad batches in anything made. FWIW six out of my 11 Hby locos bought after 2012 have had motor failure just out of warranty, and two M7's bought from different retailers at same time had faulty motors from outset. Maybe I'm just really unlucky.

Cheers all.

[ColinB]

Well it appears my one is not suffering from torque issues. I needed to test a Hornby standard class 4 loco so uncoupled the Evening Star and attached the Standard class 4. Did it struggle with the 5 mk1 coaches that Evening Star was pulling whereas when I reattached the Evening Star it pulled away effortlessly. So I suspect Sam just got one with a duff motor. Hornby are not off the hook though, if they did a decent quality review then they should have picked it up and Sam won't have cause to complain. If you ever watch his review of the rebuilt Hush Hush he actually gives it a good review, so he is not totally biased.

Just for info I have just had to send back my dynamometer car because of a fault in the led circuit. Now as an retired electronic engineer I really want to know how you can mess up a LED circuit, subcontractors fault or not, that has got to be the easiest design to make. So it appears we all make mistakes.

[Will Hay]

Hornby aren’t going to sue Sam. He says the motor is one thing, Hornby says it’s something else. That’s the end of it.

Sam isn’t stating it as a matter of legal fact, just his opinion. Hornby would simply disagree and that’s all there would be to it

 

 

That's a very strange comment.

Hornby may not sue Sam, but if you make statements in public, and those statements affect a brand to the extent and by way of the volune that Sam elicits from his large follower count, then you will be at risk of litigation.

Your phrase 'legal fact' is completely meaningless.

This is not a case of 'he said, she said', as you are implying.

 

 

Colin,

Do you happen to know which of the hush hush versions are a safe bet?

Not the A4 types, the bulbous 10000 British Enterprise type.

Thanks.

[HornbyinNC]

I recently brought two of the latest 9F locomotives, including "Evening Star" and have to say they are both superb and worth the wait. One reason that I never brought the Bachmann one, is the fact it does not have a fully detailed cab and although it's been around a few years now, for the price, I thought that wasn't a good representation. The other reason, I already had 3-others, including the original Tri-ang and early Hornby versions in my collection, so waited for something better to come along. It did...

As for the issues of pulling power, not sure why some say this is an issue. It's certainly not with mine. With a fully realistic load of (9) KR Models Consett ore wagons (with loads in place) and a Bachmann BR standard brake van, the train tips the scales at 3.3-lbs, or 1.5-KG. On equivilant third radius turns and a slight embankment at one end of the layout the train crawls through with no power adjustment to compensate. It does slow slightly, but not objectionally and should anyone read about prototypical Consett workings it was a drivers challenge with a fully loaded train on an up-hill grade.

Other complaints Ive seen are about packaging. That has to be a situation of doesn't matter what you do, it's always wrong. The new boxes are certainly attractive and very sturdy, so what is the complaint? They're too large? This seems the trend with other manufacturers as well, with ever more fragile models and if that's what it takes to protect the contents, so be it.

As for me, if I were to write a review for these models they are among some of the best models released to date by any manufacturer.