Jump to content
 

MODEL RAIL No. 237 August 2017


dibber25
 Share

Recommended Posts

Re the Kadee article there are 4 not 3 versions of the NEM coupling, the one missed is the extra long no.20. Also not convinced that the Kadee is at the right height in photo 13 - looks to be on the high side. There is a simpler, cruder, way of fitting Kadees to such a wagon demonstrated many years ago by Chris Ellis in issues 23 and 24 of Model Trains International and the articles are available on-line at http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/other/mti_article.php

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.

I still don't understand the 95% score for the Dapol product, poor reviewing.

The floor is just so bad that to be only 5% off perfect is just !

The IRM product score is just crazy low.

Gareth

It's not poor reviewing. I doubt you'll find anyone keener than me to have a perfect 121/122 railcar. If you read the review carefully, you'll find that I actually mentioned (I don't have the exact words in front of me) that there's a trade-off for the excellent chassis. That trade-off is the raised floor. As I've already tried to explain, the grading of 95% is merely an aggregate of the other marks. In those categories there isn't actually anywhere that 'thickness of floor' can really be graded. There is also personal judgement involved in reviewing models and my personal judgement is that I don't find the floor thickness overly off-putting. I'd rather have the Dapol chassis and high floor than the Lima pancake motor, deep flanges and a less thick floor (which is still inevitably thicker than it should be, because that's the nature of plastic mouldings. I appreciate that compromises of that sort are complete anathema to some modellers. That's why I both mentioned and illustrated it. The essence of reviewing is not to pass judgements, but to describe, explain and illustrate the product so that the purchaser can make an informed choice. That's actually GOOD reviewing and I've had plenty of practice. I've been reviewing models since 1964. 

Chassis designs for DMUs vary widely. I await the Realtrack/Rapido 156 with interest and wonder whether the chassis will be based on Rapido's Budd RDC design with full underfloor equipment and the correct height floor. Of course, there's a trade-off. The Rapido Budd car comes with dire warnings not to haul anything - no dummy cars - with it, under any circumstances. The Dapol 122 took 9 coaches up a 1 in 30.

I didn't review the IRM models - in fact I haven't even seen them - so in comparing reviews of two completely different products by two different reviewers and judging on the basis of a scoring system which is flawed is a complete nonsense and certainly not justification for calling my work 'poor reviewing' to which I take great exception. (CJL)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the Kadee article there are 4 not 3 versions of the NEM coupling, the one missed is the extra long no.20. Also not convinced that the Kadee is at the right height in photo 13 - looks to be on the high side. There is a simpler, cruder, way of fitting Kadees to such a wagon demonstrated many years ago by Chris Ellis in issues 23 and 24 of Model Trains International and the articles are available on-line at http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/other/mti_article.php

They are all at the same height, and they all work. Don't have the article in front of me so I don't know which model is illustrated in Step 13. (CJL)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

 

There is something I think you could have mentioned in your useful Kadee article, the Kadee pliers for adjusting the droppers. I use Kadees on US, German and UK stock and find the tool invaluable.

 

https://kadee.com/htmbord/page237.htm

 

steve

 

Good point. I don't actually possess those pliers, despite using Kadees for the past several decades. One of those tools that I've always thought I OUGHT to buy but never have! (CJL)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not poor reviewing. I doubt you'll find anyone keener than me to have a perfect 121/122 railcar. If you read the review carefully, you'll find that I actually mentioned (I don't have the exact words in front of me) that there's a trade-off for the excellent chassis. That trade-off is the raised floor. As I've already tried to explain, the grading of 95% is merely an aggregate of the other marks. In those categories there isn't actually anywhere that 'thickness of floor' can really be graded. There is also personal judgement involved in reviewing models and my personal judgement is that I don't find the floor thickness overly off-putting. I'd rather have the Dapol chassis and high floor than the Lima pancake motor, deep flanges and a less thick floor (which is still inevitably thicker than it should be, because that's the nature of plastic mouldings. I appreciate that compromises of that sort are complete anathema to some modellers. That's why I both mentioned and illustrated it. The essence of reviewing is not to pass judgements, but to describe, explain and illustrate the product so that the purchaser can make an informed choice. That's actually GOOD reviewing and I've had plenty of practice. I've been reviewing models since 1964. 

Chassis designs for DMUs vary widely. I await the Realtrack/Rapido 156 with interest and wonder whether the chassis will be based on Rapido's Budd RDC design with full underfloor equipment and the correct height floor. Of course, there's a trade-off. The Rapido Budd car comes with dire warnings not to haul anything - no dummy cars - with it, under any circumstances. The Dapol 122 took 9 coaches up a 1 in 30.

I didn't review the IRM models - in fact I haven't even seen them - so in comparing reviews of two completely different products by two different reviewers and judging on the basis of a scoring system which is flawed is a complete nonsense and certainly not justification for calling my work 'poor reviewing' to which I take great exception. (CJL)

I wasn't implying that you are a poor reviewer.

Just think that if the scoring system is that flawed perhaps it's time to give it a miss!!

Also If the Railrack/Rapido Class156 gets marked down because it can't pull nine coaches that would be a shame.

Why would we want a 121/122 to pull nine coaches??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't implying that you are a poor reviewer.

Just think that if the scoring system is that flawed perhaps it's time to give it a miss!!

Also If the Railrack/Rapido Class156 gets marked down because it can't pull nine coaches that would be a shame.

Why would we want a 121/122 to pull nine coaches??

 

Heartily agree regarding the scoring system. Have never liked it but it's not up to me and it is now very tied in to the annual Britain's Model Trains, so flawed or not I expect we'll have to live with it. We wouldn't want a 121 to pull nine coaches but we might want it to pull, say, a dummy three-car unit. The point about the Budd car is that you invalidate the warranty if you pull anything at all with it. The difference is that the Dapol car has power to spare and the chassis is a fine-looking piece of engineering, too. (CJL)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask a question relating to The Baseboard Competition?

When I go to the address: www.moedl-rail.co.uk/model-rail-competition it had a competition to win a Dynamis Ultima which I believe was from last months issue. There did not seem to be a link to a competition for a baseboard or books?

The link for the competition still seems not to be working. Since the Dynamis competition ended that link just takes you to a page saying 'sorry this promotion is no longer avaliable'. I couldn't find a link from the Model Rail home page. Is this competition actually live and open to enter?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a quick scan in shop,initially not interested, but on second visit, bought a copy.

reviews don't interest me, not modelling much in OO . the Kadee article, I still wonder why so many still go on about these, on steam era models. They look terrible on a British steam loco. I know, my opinion, but it is easy to fit a simple wire loop, or hook on locos, as has been done for many years. The sticking up grass is a very efective method of uncoupling, but does mean hooks are only one end. This works for both British and Continental type couplings.

The layout plans are good, and are something I would come back to.

The two layouts with inset track. Chris knows my 3D printed version. I would not want to walk on the military model cobbles, let alone drive on it.My experience with cobbled streets is that most are actually pretty regular. In the other layout, using Wills sections, I am sure the cobbles/stone setts are the wrong way round.  Horses would not get such a good grip the way they have been done.

Now the brickwork on the military model, far too modern for industrial/railway buildings. Some war time buildings might have been built with stretcher bond, but it was only really being used for new houses(from 1904). I know it is as bad as rivet counting, but if we are getting other details done better, then maybe we need to look closer at buildings.Maybe an article about brickwork some time?

 

 

Almost forgot, small layouts, where are the wagon turntables? Essential where space was limited, and a working one adds a lot of interest, far more than just pushing/pulling wagons around. Getting wagons to balance and stay still is a real challenge.

 

Love the impressionist background on Shell Haven, although the pale green could be toned down a bit. Always difficult to photogragh, but add far more than the photo type commonly used these days. I migh tone it downa lot, as the atmosphere would be a bit thick around these types of industrial instalations.

Edited by rue_d_etropal
Link to post
Share on other sites

The link for the competition still seems not to be working. Since the Dynamis competition ended that link just takes you to a page saying 'sorry this promotion is no longer avaliable'. I couldn't find a link from the Model Rail home page. Is this competition actually live and open to enter?

I've had the same problem trying to enter the baseboard competition.

 

I was able to enter the Warwell one though. That link worked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The two layouts with inset track. .............................................(  I would not want to walk on the military model cobbles, let alone drive on it. My experience with cobbled streets is that most are actually pretty regular.)

 

In the other layout, using Wills sections, I am sure the cobbles/stone setts are the wrong way round.  Horses would not get such a good grip the way they have been done.

 

I wouldn't know if they were " the wrong way around "

.

But if they are, then it follows they must be out by 90'

.

I wouldn't have a clue if horses could or could not get a good grip - but if the setts are out by 90' then it follows the horses would then have a problem gaining purchase if they ever turned through 90' ?

.

There are far more glaring errors in the laying of my Wills setts than the direction in which they run.

.

But now I know who to ask, should I ever lay Wills setts in the future.

.

Brian R

Edited by br2975
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it depends which way your horse is going? In this scenario, if your horse is going across the dock or along the dock, surely one way is always going to be better than the other? (CJL)

Edited by dibber25
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The two layouts with inset track. Chris knows my 3D printed version. I would not want to walk on the military model cobbles, let alone drive on it.My experience with cobbled streets is that most are actually pretty regular. In the other layout, using Wills sections, I am sure the cobbles/stone setts are the wrong way round.  Horses would not get such a good grip the way they have been done.

 

 

I think you're getting muddled. Don't forget British cobbles are on the opposite side to those in Europe.

 

 

Rob.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There may not be any practical reason why cobbles are normally laid across roads, except that it is easier laying them, working along the road. Obviously at junctions there will be a conflict. My comment about cobbles between the rails is based on my never having seen them laid the other way around. If anyone has a photo showing them laid other way I would like to see it. Again, where tracks split, especially with wagon turntables ,there would be conflicts.

With tramways, when tracks crossed, cobbles would be only one way so not in normal lineup for other track. As only a short length between rails, probably no problem(assumng there had been a problem).

Odd thing is that it might have been easier laying cobbles with long side parallel to rails, as no need for half sized ones, so would expect to have seen them done that way somewhere.

 

Another benefit9not necessarily a reason) for having lines across roads and tracks, is that water would then be more likely to flow to edges.

 

Reason I make these comments, is that many things in the hobby are getting better(if we ignore the gauge!), thus making other details more obvious when they don't look quite right.

 

As a mathematician I know the difference between rotational symetry and relective symetry, and also I have noticed in France that tarmac/concrete seemed to replace cobbles earlier. Possibly because motorr vehicles(or more likely their occupants) prefered a nice flat surface to a bumpy one.

Edited by rue_d_etropal
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of old cobble®s!

 

Best road braking surface in the dry and worst in the wet.

Yep, probably 'cos they're all polished smoove by those grippy 'orses 'ooves.

 

G.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Surely cobbles are naturally occurring rounded stones.

post-14351-0-71969600-1499643226_thumb.jpg

 

The regular rectangular or square blocks of cut stone used to pave roads are setts. Either way horses have been coping with them quite well for centuries, even when they are cut and laid in more decorative patterns.

I do concede that common-usage means that a cobbled street may be either one with setts or cobbles.

post-14351-0-79927700-1499643508_thumb.jpg

Edited by phil_sutters
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stone setts or cobbles, term depends partly on where you are.A bit lazy to call them all cobbles, which I think are more often the round ones, but not certain. Being a southerner living up north, I get used to different names for common things. I used to live in Todmorden, near to where the pre canal cart route(the M62 of its day) went over the Pennines. One day I decided to have a climb up to have a look, and i was impressed by the quality of the 'road'. . Not a muddy track, but decent stone setts, and it used to be the main route for East/west transport before the canal and railway. The stones I think were laid, as I would expect, and remember, in those days wheels were solid and you would not want ruts being created in the road, and if the stones were laid the other way, this would be more likely. I am not sure if there was any cant to the surface, but there were drainage channels(one row of stones I think) crossing the track in places. I am not sure if it was actually planned /designed , but it is possible some thought was involved in the design, as they would not want the track to end up like a scene in WW1!

 

One thing you do have to be careful with is that when industrial areas become tourist orientated, it is not uncommon for the stone setts to be tarted up. In towns, design became more important than practicality, so you find some very fancy patterns in the stone setts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the Kadee article there are 4 not 3 versions of the NEM coupling, the one missed is the extra long no.20. Also not convinced that the Kadee is at the right height in photo 13 - looks to be on the high side. There is a simpler, cruder, way of fitting Kadees to such a wagon demonstrated many years ago by Chris Ellis in issues 23 and 24 of Model Trains International and the articles are available on-line at http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/other/mti_article.php

 

Some of our experiences fitting NEM pockets, and kadees, to rolling stock.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/76497-sarahs-projects/?p=2780208

 

This is an ongoing project to equip models with NEM pockets, at the correct height, to enable fitting of any NEM type coupling.

 

Interestingly, Kadee has re-tooled the NEM couplings, around 2015 it seems from the © on packets....2009 was the brass wire....No.17s

 

post-12119-0-66456300-1499683907_thumb.jpg

 

post-12119-0-31511800-1499683797_thumb.jpg

 

The centering spring was a brass wire, now it is larger, and black.....and the instuction leaflet has changed as well....

 

post-12119-0-54417400-1499683738_thumb.jpg

 

post-12119-0-34629600-1499683763_thumb.jpg

 

post-12119-0-33934500-1499683941_thumb.jpg

 

post-12119-0-74038000-1499683964_thumb.jpg

 

This post was brought to you by Kadee no.s 17, 18, 19, & 20....

 

post-12119-0-94105600-1499683549_thumb.jpg

Edited by Sarahagain
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always found those Kadee instruction leaflets incredibly off-putting - pages of tiny type with measurements quoted in obscure fractions of an inch. All very old-style American. What I was trying to do was to encourage UK modelers to fit Kadees on the basis that they look so much better than a tension-lock and they actually couple and uncouple as designed without requiring lots of complex setting-up. Mine are all at the right height and they operate successfully without turning the whole exercise into an engineering project requiring a college degree and a micrometer. I like, through my magazine articles, to take the mystery and the fear out of model railways, not to make it some 'black art' that it needn't be. (CJL)

Edited by dibber25
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I have always thought it was a shame that when Triang/Rovex took over Hornby Dublo, that they did away with the Dublo/Peco style of coupling. I consider the Peco type a more discrete version of the Kaydee, with a thinner steel hook and a vertical uncoupling pin, which is nowhere near as prominent as the curved shiny steel one on the Kaydees. You could lift items of stock straight out of trains, without having to disentangle the tension lock hooks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a simpler, cruder, way of fitting Kadees to such a wagon demonstrated many years ago by Chris Ellis in issues 23 and 24 of Model Trains International and the articles are available on-line at http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/other/mti_article.php

 

Cruder is the word: the problem with the "screw a NEM Kadee on by the swallowtail" approach is that it prevents the body of the coupling from swinging side-to-side.  NEM pockets have sideways swing built in to them - exemplified by the Hornby and Bachmann "fishtail" attachment for their NEM pockets.  Non-NEM Kadees such as the whisker couplings swing side-to-side in the gear box.  Without that sideways swing you are relying on the coupling head pivoting open to accommodate all the sideways displacement that arises on curves.  This is not ideal: the coupling head is designed for longitudinal forces (that's why the coupling bodies are supposed to swing) and it's a quite delicate mechanism so exerting a force it's not designed for can compromise coupling reliability, or even in the worst case damage the mechanism.

 

I'll admit that these potential issues are less serious if the curves on one's layout aren't trainset-tight, but even then I think this non-standard application of Kadees should really be reserved only for applications where there is no reasonably practical alternative.  From memory, I only have two items of stock where I've had to resort to this approach - IIRC in both instances it's been on a loco's tender or front bogie/pony truck.  IMO it works, most of the time, but it's not ideal.

Edited by ejstubbs
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...