Kernow Model Rail Centre - Bulleid Diesel

[Dunsignalling]

The LMS 'twins' were used in multiple for comparisons with the two Ivatt 'Duchesses' (two diesels, one steam loco) on the WCML (the 'Royal Scot', I think). I recall an article on the trials in Steam World when I was Editor during the 1990s. I can't now remember what the outcome of the comparison trials was. (CJL)

Multiple or tandem?

 

Before or after their sojourn on the Southern Region?

 

John

Edited December 14, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[mikesndbs]

Multiple or tandem?

 

Before or after their sojourn on the Southern Region?

 

John

While 201 and 202 worked doubled headed they were not multiple fitted, as such they would have to have been worked with two crews.

[Dunsignalling]

While 201 and 202 worked doubled headed they were not multiple fitted, as such they would have to have been worked with two crews.

Yes, and I'm pretty sure the same applied to the LMS twins until some time after their return to the LMR.

 

John

[mikesndbs]

Yes, and I'm pretty sure the same applied to the LMS twins until some time after their return to the LMR.

 

John

Hi John, yes as delivered the 'twins' could work in true multiple under the control of just one driver, was a big selling point at the time.

[antrobuscp]

Sorry to drag my old post up, I received my replacement this week and have had chance to play tonight.

I now goes round the track without the front pony wheels derailing after some adjustment of the screw holding it in place (although I have to say the front pony’s consistently try to ride up the rails, typically over the fish plate joiners. however it still won’t go over a single point. The inner most axle wheels ride up on the v of the point. I know some of you have said get decent points but I will still argue the case that any modern train should be able to go over points, even the guy who did his review in this thread showed it derailing, that’s unacceptable. I’m now really debating whether I want to spend £160 on a train that can only go round and round and not go into siding etc.

I initially had the same problem that you experienced. I found that the pony wheel back-to-back measurement was a little too wide. After seeing your latest message, I ran my model through the longest "ladder" into my fiddle yard - a mixture of code 100 Streamline points including some of small radius. The loco wasn't the smoothest through them, but it didn't derail. I tried it through the most problematic points for other models - at low speed(which is all it would ever be), and it was ok. This stretch is the first I intend to re-lay when I get to refurbing the trackwork(it is 30+ years old). I do have 3 Setrack points including the curved version, and it goes through those also - again at the desired low speed.

 

I know it doesn't directly help you, but I do think it is the back-to-back being out which is causing any problems. As to the pony truck, it is sprung vertically, but I suspect a light "centering" springing would do no harm.

 

Colin

[adb968008]

Sorry to drag my old post up, I received my replacement this week and have had chance to play tonight.

I now goes round the track without the front pony wheels derailing after some adjustment of the screw holding it in place (although I have to say the front pony’s consistently try to ride up the rails, typically over the fish plate joiners. however it still won’t go over a single point. The inner most axle wheels ride up on the v of the point. I know some of you have said get decent points but I will still argue the case that any modern train should be able to go over points, even the guy who did his review in this thread showed it derailing, that’s unacceptable. I’m now really debating whether I want to spend £160 on a train that can only go round and round and not go into siding etc.

Hi Jonny,

 

Trust me, my track is no exhibition layout, on this run around video it’s going through just about every type of point Peco makes.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/101705-kernow-model-rail-centre-bulleid-diesel/?p=2944967

 

By the sounds of it, “ride up on the V of the point”, suggests the back to back of the wheels may still be out, or the trailing wheel hasn’t got play in it, to navigate.

My example has done a first radius curve without issue, so it’s definitely capable.

 

Maybe take a close up video, or slow speed and take a few pictures, there’s enough people here who can help.

[Dunsignalling]

Hi John, yes as delivered the 'twins' could work in true multiple under the control of just one driver, was a big selling point at the time.

Thanks, I'd been looking for a reference to that or photographic evidence of external jumper cables hooked up without success. The latter is to be expected given where they would have been situated, so did the necessary connections pass through the gangways?  

 

By inference, BR didn't give them a coupling code until later simply because, as the only class so equipped until the introduction of the EE Type 4 (Class 40), there was no need for one. 

 

John

[217 RIVER FLESK]

Thanks, I'd been looking for a reference to that or photographic evidence of external jumper cables hooked up without success. The latter is to be expected given where they would have been situated, so did the necessary connections pass through the gangways?  

 

By inference, BR didn't give them a coupling code until later simply because, as the only class so equipped until the introduction of the EE Type 4 (Class 40), there was no need for one. 

 

John

 

Try following the two links shown in post 285

[dibber25]

Multiple or tandem?

 

Before or after their sojourn on the Southern Region?

 

John

 

Somewhere, I may even have the official report. I'm struggling to remember much detail of it. I think it was 1949 - so when they were brand new - before they came to the Southern. I remember seeing one of them on the B. Belle at Weybridge as a very small child. That would have been 1952-ish when I'd have been five years old. From memory, the comparison was swings and roundabouts - the Ivatt produced more power but the diesels were more economical. But please don't quote me on any of that - it was over 20 years ago that the article was published (I didn't write it - things stick better in the memory if you write it rather than just reading it) and my intermediate memory isn't what it was. (CJL)

[mikesndbs]

Thanks, I'd been looking for a reference to that or photographic evidence of external jumper cables hooked up without success. The latter is to be expected given where they would have been situated, so did the necessary connections pass through the gangways?  

 

By inference, BR didn't give them a coupling code until later simply because, as the only class so equipped until the introduction of the EE Type 4 (Class 40), there was no need for one. 

 

John

 

Hi John

 

Multiple connections were either side of the couplings, imagine (but don't know) this would have included engine speed control and required electrical control.

 

Photo from  ©GEC-Alstom on the https://www.facebook.com/groups/LMS10000/ group

[jonnyuk]

Hi Jonny,

 

Trust me, my track is no exhibition layout, on this run around video it’s going through just about every type of point Peco makes.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/101705-kernow-model-rail-centre-bulleid-diesel/?p=2944967

 

By the sounds of it, “ride up on the V of the point”, suggests the back to back of the wheels may still be out, or the trailing wheel hasn’t got play in it, to navigate.

My example has done a first radius curve without issue, so it’s definitely capable.

 

Maybe take a close up video, or slow speed and take a few pictures, there’s enough people here who can help.

 

i'm going to take it to my local model shop at lunch time and see how it handles their test layout. i may also ask them to check the back to back. what should the correct back to back be?

 

i've also mocked up a picture to help illustrate whats going on. teh V marked in red is where the outer wheel on the first axle of the trailing bogie wants to ride up the V and derail. i have tried modifying the V as per forum suggestions but it made no difference.

 

 

[mikesndbs]

i'm going to take it to my local model shop at lunch time and see how it handles their test layout. i may also ask them to check the back to back. what should the correct back to back be?

 

i've also mocked up a picture to help illustrate whats going on. teh V marked in red is where the outer wheel on the first axle of the trailing bogie wants to ride up the V and derail. i have tried modifying the V as per forum suggestions but it made no difference.

 

 

Back to back should be 14.5mm

 

A bit less may help the situation, but the issue is common to 1co-co1 bogies, these points are far, far away from any real world points. I use them due to space constraints but what we are asking our scale models to do is very unrealistic. Check the back to back and see how it is, let us know.

It also might be worth extending the check rail back towards the blades in order to capture the bogies wheels and help it through the V.

Edited December 15, 2017 by mikesndbs

[The Stationmaster]

Hi John

 

Multiple connections were either side of the couplings, imagine (but don't know) this would have included engine speed control and required electrical control.

 

Photo from  ©GEC-Alstom on the https://www.facebook.com/groups/LMS10000/ group

 

There are several published photos (British Railways Fleet Survey by Brian Perren is a good source) showing what appears to be an connection socket behind each of those blanking plates.  However there is no sign in any photos I can find of any cables connected to the sockets and it would seem likely that sockets were 'female' and cables were carried separately (unless photographers always got the same end of the locos?).  It is, obviously, now over, 50 years since I last saw the LMS 'twins' and I really can't remember if the mu connection sockets were female at both ends or indeed if I actually took any notice of them when bunking Willesden shed.

[40F]

Try using a Peco Set track point, they are far better than Hornby`s

[rembrow]

Just received this weeks Kernow newsletter and they have advised that the last of the pre paid preordered Gate Stock orders have been processed and leaving Kernow today, they will now be moving priority to pre paid Bulleid diesel pre orders. So we may get before Xmas

[jonnyuk]

Back to back should be 14.5mm

 

A bit less may help the situation, but the issue is common to 1co-co1 bogies, these points are far, far away from any real world points. I use them due to space constraints but what we are asking our scale models to do is very unrealistic. Check the back to back and see how it is, let us know.

It also might be worth extending the check rail back towards the blades in order to capture the bogies wheels and help it through the V.

well took the train to my local model shop and it ran through a peco point fine. the back to back on all wheels is 14.5. they have suggested a sliver of plasta card on the guide rail which i'm going to try tonight. this may push in the rear bogie enough.

 

if this does not work i have a decision to make, sell it or replace all my points which would cost about the same as the loco its self.

[Bill]

well took the train to my local model shop and it ran through a peco point fine. the back to back on all wheels is 14.5. they have suggested a sliver of plasta card on the guide rail which i'm going to try tonight. this may push in the rear bogie enough.

 

if this does not work i have a decision to make, sell it or replace all my points which would cost about the same as the loco its self.

My best advice "Replace the Points" - unless you intend not to buy/build any more rolling stock.. Even so, good working points are essential to running a model railway. And the confidence that will bring should improve your model rail operating satisfaction, and enjoyment..  

[stewartingram]

I had a phonecall from Kernow this afternoon. (I had requested they do so before despatch to confirm which address to use). So my 10201 has been despatched ( or at least made ready for Royal Mail to pick up). I ordered & paid in full for it no more than a day or so after Kernow announced they were looking for pre-orders to be fully paid up front to reduce their overheads.

 

Stewart

Edited December 16, 2017 by stewartingram

[JSpencer]

well took the train to my local model shop and it ran through a peco point fine. the back to back on all wheels is 14.5. they have suggested a sliver of plasta card on the guide rail which i'm going to try tonight. this may push in the rear bogie enough.

 

if this does not work i have a decision to make, sell it or replace all my points which would cost about the same as the loco its self.

Option 3 - replace points on just one circuit and restrict the loco to just that part.

 

You can pick up new points at any point in the future, but I doubt you will be able to pick up easily another Bullied diesel. I know what I would do.

 

It is also possible you may eventually crack for 10203 or a class 40, 44, 45 or 46 at some point too so points sorted out is without doubt the best long term option.

Edited December 15, 2017 by JSpencer

[Spannerman]

10201 arrived this morning , I have to say it's a great looking model and what a weight. I can't see much stopping it. Slight problem with one set of steps in the bottom of the box but nothing a small blob of glue won't cure.

All in all very happy.

 

Nik

[jonnyuk]

Option 3 - replace points on just one circuit and restrict the loco to just that part.

 

You can pick up new points at any point in the future, but I doubt you will be able to pick up easily another Bullied diesel. I know what I would do.

 

It is also possible you may eventually crack for 10203 or a class 40, 44, 45 or 46 at some point too so points sorted out is without doubt the best long term option.

i'm sure you are all sick of of me going on about my bullied woes but i have some positive news.....i have fixed the issues with points i have tweaked. i have basically filled the V in the point making it a bit narrower and flatter. this has now stopped the wheel i showed in my picture from derailing.

 

i was then having issues with just one pony, kept derailing on curves and points, after hours and hours of playing i found that pony had to much play in it compared to the other, even when the retaining screw was fully tighten. it looked like the spring just was not strong enough and allowing the pony to bend too much. i fixed this by taking the pony apart and adding a washer directly on top of the spring, then pony. this has now fixed the derailing.

so to some up, i'm keeping the loco and in the process of buying peco st240/st241 points. when i have enough i will replace about 15 of them all in one go as they are in the same area and will be a major bit of track, so i only want to do it once. in the mean time i'll modify the rest of my points and as long as i go through them slowly seem to be just about working (hold my breathe each time though).

thanks for every ones help and advice, really appreciated.

Edited December 17, 2017 by jonnyuk

[John ks]

johnnyuk

 

 

With regards to derailing at frogs

I have had derailments at frogs, even large radius Peco points when using American stock to NMRA standards

 

When I was young & didn't know any better I butchered​ modified the pointy end of the frog in the same manner described by jonnyuk

 

I have discovered that you can shim the catch rail to get the same results

 

The exaggerated drawing shows the wheelset with the correct back to back but the catch rail(red) is to far from the running rail

This will allow the flange to ride up on the frog & derail

 

By adding a shim (green) the wheelset is guided away from the frog. 10 thou plastic strip glued to the catch rail usually works for me

 

Set track points made to accommodate older wheel standards can be troublesome with modern wheel standards which in OO are getting closer to the HO NMRA standards

 

 

John

 

 

[No Decorum]

E-mail from Kernow: they are on their way. I wonder how long they’ll take to fight their way through the Christmas post. Exciting.

 

Some people are not happy with paying in advance and I can quite understand their point of view. As it turns out, a combination of Christmas and an expensively sick car make me very happy that I paid in advance!

[Roy Langridge]

E-mail from Kernow: they are on their way. I wonder how long they’ll take to fight their way through the Christmas post. Exciting.

 

Some people are not happy with paying in advance and I can quite understand their point of view. As it turns out, a combination of Christmas and an expensively sick car make me very happy that I paid in advance!

The reality is, however, nobody was forced to pay in advance. Kernow will, when they get the remainder, have them in stock and anybody unhappy could wait until then. Yes it may cost them slightly more, but that’s the way life is.

 

And hopefully yours arrives safely before Santa :-)

 

Roy

Edited December 19, 2017 by Roy Langridge

[RFS]

Just been watching this excellent YouTube video from 1957

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he3jMIemvUY

 

At approximately 6:30 in there's a sequence of two Bulleid diesels (looks like 10201 and 10202) on the Royal Scot - with sound too! 

Edited December 19, 2017 by RFS