Jump to content

philsandy

Members
  • Content Count

    561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

86 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Location
    Manchester
  • Interests
    EM modeller. Steam era BR(M) early 60's

Recent Profile Visitors

298 profile views
  1. I use a small clump of scenic grass at the side of the track, but on the ballast.
  2. Jim, I was using the programming track and had just cleaned the wheels. The only thing I can change is the short and long addresses. The manufacturer code which should be 151 is also reading 255, and the motor polarity has reversed, ie. running forwards when displaying REV, I'm assuming that is because the value of CV29 is now an odd number.
  3. I was trying to alter some CV' s on a loco that I've had a few years and found I could not change any of the CV values ,they all read 255 no matter what value I enter. Decoder is a ESU Loksound V4 and throttle is a Powercab. Have tried other locos and there is no problem. The loco does run OK, and I've tried a decoder reset, CV8 = 8, but it keeps reading 255. Is the decoder kaput?
  4. Harold, thanks for your reply. I ended up with the following values: CV57 = 68, and CV58 = 36. The example given in the manual makes no sense at all, I can only assume it's a typo. Also with the start voltage CV2 = 1, although the loco ran superbly at step 1, a very smooth slow crawl, but the chuffs did not come in until step 3, so increased CV2 = 2.
  5. Have done this many times but with V4 decoders, ie. number of seconds for one wheel rev. at speed step 1, divide by 0.128 and enter that value in CV57. The instructions for the V3.5 differ: I don't really follow the example given in the last para: 0.9 seconds, for 1 rev at step1 ? and 14 - 5 = value 9? Why is 5 subtracted from the value, there is no explanation in the instructions for this. The loco I'm working on, a Hornby Black 5 sound on board model, takes 16.5 seconds for 1 rev, divided by 0.064 = 258. The range for CV57 is 0-127. Please could someone explain, thanks.
  6. I bought 2 of these: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Interlink-Furniture-99800800-Display-Collecty/dp/B002PHLZJQ/ref=sr_1_5?crid=1UD1HKONKZ595&keywords=wall+display+cabinets&qid=1570560061&sprefix=wall+display+cabinets%2Caps%2C377&sr=8-5 I wanted something slim as it's a small room, they are 95mm deep, and when fixed to the wall they only protrude 100mm. They do look good, and go together very easy. Only gripe is the shelves need support in the middle as they sag with a bit of weight on them eg. 4 locos. So I put a screw through the back panel into the edge of each shelf at the middle for extra support. I actually bought the teak versions, but these have now increased in price somewhat since.
  7. I measured the Scale Link wheel thickness at 2.55mm. The thread on the Romford axle protruded very slightly, so just filed approx. 0.2mm from the ends to make them flush with the wheel hub.
  8. Ordered and received 2 Scale Link wheels and 3mm EM Romford axle the other day. First thing I did was check the wheels for being concentric, they were spot on. Never used Romford axles before, and was surprised how short the square section was, can't have been much more than 1mm in length, and could only get them to stay in the wheel hub once the nuts were tightened. The B2B measurement was only 16.25mm, so had to make 2 shim washers, with a square hole, from 0.006" brass shim. This did the job, the B2B was now 16.55 mm and the wheels were bang on square to the axle.
  9. Apologies for resurrecting this old thread but I found it whilst doing a search for Scale Link wheels. I have never used them or Romford wheels before, but I would have thought that although quartering is made easier, using an axle with square ends to fit into the wheel increases the chances of the wheel not running concentric. With a conventional round bore wheel and axle, if the wheel itself is concentric then there is no problem. But with a square ended axle you are relying on both the wheel and the axle to be right.
  10. Thanks Rex, got it now. I was mistaken, the 21mm 17 spoke wheels I was looking at are Scale Link and not Romford, I misread it ie. they use a Romford axle. I did a search on here, and people have had an issue with them, not concentric etc. some have had no problem with them, but no one else seems to make that size with 17 spokes. I'll take a chance an order 2, can send them back if there not right. By the way do you know if the Romford EM axle is 3mm or 1/8" diameter? as it does not specify on Scale Link website.
  11. Thanks for your reply Rex. Will the Romford not give the additional clearance because of the the crankpin arrangement, are they not as narrow as Gibsons? This method you describe, what wheel is being used? I don't quite follow, what is holding the coupling rod in place on the front wheel, please can you elaborate. Ultrascale do not do a 17 spoke wheel, and the Gibson conversion set are 16 spoke.
  12. I have a Bachmann BR 3MT tank which I converted to EM using the original Bachmann wheels with reduced flange thickness. However there is not enough clearance between the front crank pins and the valve gear. I've come across this problem before a couple of times, and replaced the front wheels with Alan Gibson wheels, which gives 0.6mm more clearance, but there are no 21mm dia. 17 spoke wheels in their catalogue. The only source I can find are Romford wheels which use a different axle and crank pin set up. Does anyone know of any other source for these wheels.
  13. Thanks for all your replies. I tried running one loco on DC and the difference was very noticeable, it ran very smoothly. So then spent a considerable time adjusting (again!) CV's 53, 54, 55, and eventually got it running much better. However I think one loco does have a mechanical problem, ie. it's an EM conversion, and I think there may be just not enough clearance between front driving wheel crank pins and the valve gear.
  14. I have a couple of Bachmann steam locos with Loksound V4, that don't run quite as smooth in reverse as when going forward. It's hardly noticeable really, and quite difficult to pin point what the difference is. It is not apparent at very slow speeds , only when they reach step 20 upwards. The only way I can describe it is when going forward it is a very consistent smooth flowing motion of wheels and valve gear, in reverse although it does not jerk or even have a slight tight spot, it just does not look as smooth on the eye. Is this something that could be eliminated by altering CV values eg. 54, 55? which I have experimented with. Or is it just that some models/motors do have this characteristic?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.