Jump to content

thegreenhowards

Members
  • Posts

    2,487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by thegreenhowards

  1. 2 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

    Try grinding the rivet off, the heat generated often shifts the solder as well - but why is it soldered if it is riveted? One or the other surely.

    Mike,

     

    The soldering was my attempt to add metal point rodding to the arms of the crank. Sorry, I didn’t explain very well. I can free the rivet up by applying heat but it seizes solid again as soon as it cools down.

     

    Andy

  2. 1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

    Me again,

     

    I didn't know that it was a riveted joint (why a rivet and solder?). 

     

    If you can, snip off the head of the rivet and file it flush. Then apply low-melt, dismantle the parts, then start again.....................

     

    Why do you need working point rodding, anyway? It can look just as good whether it works or not.................

     

    Regards,

     

    Tony. 

    Thanks Tony,

     

    I probably didn’t explain myself properly. The crank comes preassembled from DCC concepts. I was soldering on the rodding to the crank ends. 

     

    I used 145 I think although some were done with electrical solder because I forgot my 145 when I went to the club. By low melt, I assume you mean 70C or similar? Will this destroy the bond on the 145?

     

    As for why use working point rodding. I think the movement of the rodding will look good at an exhibition and the tactile feel for operating the points will give the operators another dimension. Or the alternative answer may be similar to the Everest answer - ‘because it’s there’.

     

    Andy

    • Like 3
  3. Thanks for your suggestions. I can see that the chemical blackening would help before I attempt any soldering. Although I find that if I remember to oil the joint well beforehand this works well as well. The issues I had are mainly when I forgot to oil the joint before soldering. 
     

    If I understand correctly, the advice is to completely disassemble the joint by applying lots of heat, then chemically blacken the pivot points, then reassemble. However the joint is made with a rivet, so I would need to force that apart and then replace it - perhaps with a brass pin soldered underneath?

     

    Andy

    • Agree 1
  4. I have a soldering problem and where better to ask than on this thread!

     

    By way of context, we are trying to construct working point rodding for our club 0 gauge layout using the DCC concepts products. These are designed for 00, but are rather overscale and, to my eyes, look quite good for 0 gauge. The sales pitch suggests using them with a point motor to give an impression of point rodding moving as the point changes but also suggests that it may be possible to actually control the point using the kit and I can’t resist a challenge! So we are using the DCC Concepts cranks with gem levers, 0.7mm wire and home 3D printed stools (by @woko) and it seems to work as we have three points working smoothly so far.

     

    My problem is that I’ve managed to solder some of the cranks solid and I’m trying to rescue them. I’ve tried using desoldering braid with plenty of flux but I can’t get them to move. I’ve tried adding oil as I do the braid ‘sucking’ but to no avail. I attach a picture of the crank which is soldered solid on the right hand side with my finger for scale. I would ideally like to get rid of all the solder and get it rotating freely again. If that’s not possible then I may drill it out and use a brass dressmakers pin as a pivot. Any suggestions on how to approach it would be much appreciated.

     

    F3D89B70-9E04-4D9E-80E6-0391D6234AD3.jpeg.1d25b0bd66e76b212c8bd8c891553bd2.jpeg

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Craftsmanship/clever 1
    • Friendly/supportive 3
  5. Brian/ Gilbert,

     

    my votes are as follows:

    11. A1/1. This is now a huge missing link for an GNML 1950s layout and is probably my no1 vote of any of your polls (although some pre grouping coaches would have been higher if allowed!).

    7. B2. I have one kit built version but would like Royal Sovereign as that was a regular on the beer trains.

    5. I would struggle to justify a K2 but they’re rather nice and I think they must have worked through to KX in the early ‘59s on occasion so I’d probably justify one. 
    3. D3.  I could justify no.2000 on its directors saloon duties in the early fifties, so I’d go for that. None of the other D2 or D3s would be suitable for my layout.

    4. I think a decorative valence D16/3 would have worked on the Cambridge beer trains in the early fifties so I’d go for one of them - they’re rather attractive after all.

    13. 60503/60504. These had different boilers/cabs to the Hornby A2/2s and would not be an easy conversion. Therefore almost as big a missing link as the A1/1.

     

    I wouldn’t vote for the others because either I’m perfectly happy with the RTR versions I have (K3, A1) or they have no credible link to the south end of the GNML in the ‘50s (P2, D2). I know the K3 has wheels which are too small but I’d never have noticed if someone hadn’t pointed it out. The bigger gap for me is the lack of front footsteps and I’ve scratch built some for mine. Anyway I have 5 (2 Bachmann, 3 SE Finecast/ Wills) and that’s probably 4 too many! I can’t see any obvious weakness in the Bachmann A1.

     

    Andy

     

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  6. 8 hours ago, sidmouth said:

    rolling back the years in the days when Hornby was uk manufacturing , Mainline and Airfix transformed models that were made in Hong Kong , that were better detailed , better proportioned , more accurate . The battle was lost, not in recent times but decades back . why Hornby were not able to create the same with a UK manufacturing operation , others may be able to explain , however the outcome was production became china . Model accuracy improved no end although quality from the above remains a question . My own response to that is I question whether we want too much . How do you stick on a myriad of separate and micro parts and expect them to stay on and never come undone ?

     

    Do we as modellers want to have our cake and eat it too much ?

    The way to get all that detail to stay on is to solder it. But that might get a bit messy with the plastic parts!

    • Like 2
    • Agree 1
  7. 2 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

    Hello Andy

     

    We are actually talking about the GE Section Quad-Arts though.:)

     

    I have always wondered why the GN types were called 'Quads' as they were designed to run as an 8-car set (barring exceptional circumstances and without passengers).

     

    I suppose that - to railwaymen - the need to run as two 'correct but different sets' was patently obvious, but it does seem to cause confusion to some modellers.

     

    And it isn't helped by the fact the North Norfolk Railway has a GN Quad which has been specially converted to run as 4-coaches!

     

    Brian

    Brian,

     

    I realise that. I was just trying to rule out the quints. 
     

    They  were called quads because four coaches were articulated together in the same way as twin arts were two coaches coupled together. The twins rarely ran on their own but nobody says that’s confusing. Admittedly the GN quads were a little different as they always ran in trains of eight coaches (sometimes plus a strengthener). It does frustrate me how often one sees a single four car quad running on exhibition layouts. It’s not as if a full 8 car set is very long - similar to five mark 1s and with a good deal more character!

     

    Andy

     

    A8F30D88-9308-4796-8DE4-159AD825CAE4.jpeg.08e14f6d6b817127e791649d60705b20.jpeg

     

    • Like 16
    • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  8. The GN quad arts had set numbers between 48 and 94 and the quints were higher numbers.

     

    So this was neither of these unless it could have been 12x in which case it was a quint art (I think).

     

    Hope that’s helpful.

     

    Andy

    • Thanks 2
  9. Long time no post! It’s amazing how progress has slowed down now that the layout has been transferred to our club rooms. We only have Monday night to work on it, but at least we have a team of 3 or 4 regulars who are doing something every week. Latest addition has been some loverly 3D printed retaining walls from club member Rob ( @woko) as shown in the picture below.

    82BAF39A-C430-4940-867B-81CFE306D26F.jpeg.7cc4554a4c45d2333e69d2d0d0127724.jpeg
     

    Our intention is to vary them along the layout to provide variety. 
     

    The other main project has been installing working point rodding using the DCC concepts 00 gauge system. This is significantly over sale for 00 gauge but seems to work well for 0 gauge. Should have photos of this soon.

     

    Andy
     

     

    • Like 3
  10. A bit of progress over the last few days. I have created some curves by making trapeziums out of the planks of 8” spruce like this.

     

    A4763B64-6BED-4E2A-8ADA-6C07E4E24ED4.jpeg.a36c1e82b879bd0605ad05f6a938be89.jpeg

     

    They are then glued together into a curved section.

     

    9DBE7976-B198-4F39-96C6-4E823ED7F1AA.jpeg.aa9532802cf33e3344b3d81fad3690dd.jpeg

    …and braced underneath.

     

    3EF62A53-5CCB-4036-BFA1-93EEA236BF98.jpeg.897360a0fe7190abc6b9989b5cad1992.jpeg

     

    The angle at each end is 5.625 degrees meaning the joints are twice that (11.25) such that four make 45 degrees. The two I have done so far are joined in fives making a curve of just over 100 degrees, so I now have two sides of the garden covered (not quite a right angle corner). The radius depends on the length of the trapezium boards. These are 38cm on the longer side meaning a radius of c.6 ft. The other curves will be gentler. I have done some at 48 cm which will work out at 8 ft radius. I borrowed a chop saw from a friend to do the cutting. They are amazing bits of kit and make this job so much easier!

     

    F46AD877-792F-42F3-BBD9-73B63FE27A74.jpeg.09abfcb060dd3c769865924f766394fc.jpeg

     

    I have loosely pinned down some track and run a test train as shown in this video.

     

     

    • Like 1
  11. Just one vote for me - the N5.

     

    An updated N2 is overdue but I already have five (four Hornby and one scratch built bought second hand). I’ve weathered and detailed all these so would not want to throw them away and they’re good enough for me. Five is enough!

     

    An N1 would be a good bet with its wide use in the west riding as well as out of KX, but I have one - 3D printed on a N2 chassis - and they were being phased out down south by the early ‘50s.

     

    The C12 is also an elegant design and I love them but I have built a kit and one is enough given their limited workings down south.

     

    An A5 is a tempting prospect. I do want but I’m half way through building a kit which has got put in the too difficult box at present. If that fails I‘d take an A5 too but I feel I have to try to complete the kit first. Again there were only penny numbers in the KX area post war, so one is enough.

     

    I agree with the comment on updated Mk1 shorties especially if the GN specific CL and SLO could be included.

     

    Andy

     

     

    • Thanks 1
    • Informative/Useful 1
  12. On 16/07/2021 at 08:17, Chamby said:

    A vote for Kadee’s:  they also allow you to simply lift coaching stock in and out of rakes. 

     

    I find that the Hornby/Roco one’s are best for complete rakes that need to be pushed as part of their operating cycle... they have no ‘slack’ to take up when being propelled around curves, so retain better alignment.

    I meant to reply earlier to this but I forgot in the swarm of coupling posts! I agree that Kadees are great although even they don’t always want to couple on a curve. What put me off them was a combination of the price and the difficulty of fitting them to stock without NEM pockets and particularly to the Bachmann mark 1s with pockets in the wrong place.
     

    Last time I looked they were about £5 a pair compared to £1 for the magnets. I have about 200 coaches, so that amounts to a significant difference in price. Perhaps it was a false economy, but I do find the magnets very good 99% of the time. 
     

    Andy

    • Like 2
  13. 8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

    Good morning Andy,

     

    I take your points, but to me it illustrates the 'folly' of trying to represent all the trains in the actual WTT by using individual carriages/vehicles more than once. By doing so, mixing and matching, turning things round and actually handling stock too much, the final running of a train is compromised, especially because of a mixture of weird and wonderful couplings. 

     

    I do not tolerate trains separating on LB, and my coupling system allows vehicles to be both pulled and pushed, at high speed if necessary. Handling of stock is minimised (reducing the chance of accidental damage) and any vehicle will couple to any other (but, only one way round, of course).

     

    To really represent the full WTT on the ECML in the summer of 1958 I'd have to build a fiddle yard at least five times bigger than the one I've got (100+ roads, with two trains in many), increase the number of carriages/wagons/vans by at least the same factor, hope to live long enough to build them (I do have enough locos) and earn a great deal more money to fund it all. 

     

    In a word; impossible! 

     

    Regards,

     

    Tony. 

    Tony,

     

    I think the word ‘folly’ is a bit strong. I really enjoy the research for and putting together of each individual train and when I’m running them at home with time to fettle each rake it all works fine ( maybe on the second or third circuit) as I think the videos on my Gresley Jn thread show. 
     

    When I’m running Gresley Jn for guests I just use the trains already set up in the fiddle yard. And I generally give them all a practice run first. This generally works very well, although I do admit to having an occasional derailment. Not many, but more than one sees on LB.
     

    What clearly is folly is trying to put them together in an ‘away’ layout and expecting them to work first time. Or trying to buy and store enough stock to run the whole lot without re-using any coaches. I think that, given my interest in recreating each train, using my Mark 1s multiple times is only sensible. After all one Mark 1 SK is much like another!

     

    Andy

     

     

    • Like 4
  14. 27 minutes ago, great northern said:

    Yes, it does happen occasionally. I've been pretty successful at avoiding any more though.....so far. A D2 keeps tempting me, but I resist.

    I also fancy a D2. I’m sure we will be debating that soon on one of Brian’s polls!

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  15. 23 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

    On Retford, I have found that a small number of the magnets seem to be weaker than most and thus more prone to separation. I have replaced those with others and it seemed to deal with the issue. There are several long sets of predominantly Bachmann Mark 1 stock on Retford that have the Hunt couplings and they don't seem to be too much of a problem. I intensely dislike using the Bachmann pipe couplings as it makes it very difficult to separate and join stock, such as when it's necessary to remove a carriage for inspection or some form of alteration.  There are even a few tension locks on Retford now as the 5.00 pm Manchester London Road-Cleethorpes set (Hornby Mark 1s) has them and there is a pair of Hornby Mark 1s on the GN side with them - this was a temporary measure and as they haven't caused problems, they have been left as they are.

     

    On my own layout, I generally use small tension locks within sets. Going back 20 years, i began removing the Bachmann coupling arms as they are too floppy with tension locks and fixing couplings to the bogies. It seems to work fine, sets will shunt well and it gives flexibility in altering formations and in coupling to other types. I use the Hornby Roco-style couplings within fixed sets of Hornby stock such as Maunsell and Bulleid and have also used them on Hornby non-gangwayed stock. Other stock generally retains t/l within set but Hornby ones are replaced with shorter Bachmann ones. Ends of rakes use Sprat & Winkle, a standard I adopted 25 years ago and there is no going back now. The one train on my own layout that uses Hunt couplings is my Freightliner set, which is really handy as I need to take the last flat off to raise the lift-up section. 

     

    If I were starting now, I might well have used Hunt couplings more extensively.

    I also like the Hornby / Roco couplings in fixed sets of stock with NEM pockets - both coaches and fitted goods vans like my blue spot fish.

    • Agree 2
  16. 18 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

    My system with the card corridor connectors is to have them on one end of a carriage, with a blanking plate of 0.25mm plasticard on the other end. I don't glue things on - rather I glue a piece of I section plastic rod to the back and attach to the gangway door with black tack. That way, if you turn a carriage round, you can swap the gangways in seconds. I have deployed this system extensively on the stock on Retford as daylight between gangways is one of my pet hates, especially when you can see it from 40' away.

    That’s a really good idea. Shame I’ve already glued all mine on!

  17. 3 hours ago, robertcwp said:

    HoM changed with the winter 1957-8 timetable - photos from summer 1957 show it still with an RK (a Mark 1). 

     

    Part of the issue with my SPM RSO is that the maroon livery is not a good match in shade or lining style for the maroon RK it would be next to. Hence, it was a reject and has returned to my domestic fleet.

     

    Black tack helps keep the Hunt couplings in place but still allows removal if necessary. 

     

    I found the magnets were not strong enough to use on Bachmann stock at the head of a train which included five or six heavy, kit-built carriages further back, so I reverted to the pipe couplings in that case.

    Thanks. The black tac is an idea worth trying.

     

    I think my main problem with the magnets is when I turn a coach round and have two corridor connectors together. This can push the magnets apart on a curve. But I’ve got to do some more testing after yesterday’s problems.

     

    At home they’re strong enough for my HOM rake which is 14 coaches including two with brass sides or, for instance, my 1735 KX-NCL/ Saltburn which load to 12 coaches including a metal triplet.

     

    Andy

     

     

    • Like 2
    • Informative/Useful 2
  18. 2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

    Good evening Andy,

     

    You only had to ask about the cyano. There's a bottle underneath the layout.

     

    I have to say, I found your mixture of couplings really frustrating. Those magnetic ones seemed a bit feeble if they're towards the front of a heavy train and how on earth can you tolerate tension-locks still? I had to squirm to the 'far side' to couple up a pair which had separated - on the straight!

     

    All good fun, though.

     

    Regards,

     

    Tony. 

    Good evening Tony,

     

    I accept your points. I was in the process of gradually replacing all the tension locks with the magnetic couplings. They have worked well at home after a few teething problems. I love the speed of coupling and the fact that they can be used either way round. But after yesterday’s poor performance I’m having second thoughts! 
     

    Your hook and goalpost couplings work well on fixed rakes and I use them on one or two of my rakes such as the Lizzie. But they don’t allow the coach to be turned round when I’m forming up different trains. So they don’t work for me in most situations. It looks like I’m back to the drawing board in terms of finding a suitable coupling. I will do some more testing with the magnets.

     

    Andy

     

     

    • Friendly/supportive 2
  19. 5 hours ago, robertcwp said:

    The HoM certainly looks the part. The one on Retford still needs an RSO. I did look at using my existing SPM one with etched sides but it looked out of place compared to Bachmann Mark 1s. I have some etched sides but they are rather basic. The train on Retford has a Thompson kitchen car but I think that was quite possible by 1957. The formation had undergone some changes by then, including the appearance of BSOs, which the representation on Retford does now have (Hornby ones). This clip was from prior to the Gresley open second being replaced by a Mark 1:

     

    https://youtu.be/bS97LvmlLhg

     

    I have used lots of Hunt couplings on Retford in place of those awful Bachmann pipe couplings and they work well most of the time. One or two have come out of the NEM boxes and a magnet came out at least once. If the train jerks suddenly they have a tendency to part but overall I think they have been OK so far. It makes it much easier to take a carriage out for attention or move stock around.

    Thanks Robert,

     

    My SP etched sides don’t match the Bachmann/ Hornbys perfectly, but I think they’re good enough. A bit of variation is prototypical isn’t it? I think Thompson kitchen cars did work the train from time to time. I seem to remember there’s a picture of one in the early fifties in the Banks and Carter book. Sometime in 1957 it change from a full kitchen car to a Thompson RF. nice video. I’m doing videos of all the trains for the article but I can’t show them on here yet.

     

    I do find that some Hunt couplings slip out of the NEM pockets and as you say the magnets come out of the 3D printed bit. but that normally happens straightaway and can be fixed with a dab of cyano. Despite having checked it all at those before I left, I had two problems yesterday:

    - some magnets came apart when the train jerked - I think this was exacerbated by the tendency for DCC locos to start suddenly when used on DC; and

    - a couple pulled out of their NEM pockets. I think this was caused by the warm weather making the 3D printed resin go soft. I could have sorted it with some cyano…if I’d remembered to take it!

     

    Andy

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Informative/Useful 1
  20. 2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

    I'll be making a list of the remaining locos by this weekend. There are not many left (despite my being 'out of touch'). Two more went today for a combined total of £420.00. 

     

    I seem to recall someone being interested in the A8, but I can't find the reference now. My apologies if I've misplaced it. If there is someone, will they kindly get back in touch, please? It's a lovely loco but it needs large-radius curves. 

    As expected my wallet went home lighter after today’s trip - I was responsible for one of these. Tudor Minstrel will be making its entrance on Gresley Junction soon.

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
    • Round of applause 1
×
×
  • Create New...