Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,262 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

582 profile views
  1. It is now! The packaging has Kitmaster on it. Kitmaster these days is just a name that Dapol uses for the range of kits they acquired from Airfix. In that sense it's similar to Hornby's RailRoad range (although that range has rather more diverse origins). As kevinlms says, the scenic items in Dapol's Kitmaster range were not part of the original Rosebud Kitmaster products acquired by (and largely discarded/damaged/lost by) Airfix: http://www.kitmaster.org.uk/StockList.htm I do remember building the Airfix version of the Ariel Arrow kit way back in the 1970s...
  2. I've always understood "nominal radius" to mean the radius of the circle you'd get if you connected a bunch of them together one after the other. Much as Chimer said, in fact. It is useful for planning purposes - however, I don't think the computer-based planning packagaes can necessarily be relied upon to have the figures precisely correct. To be fair, I do get a similar result with AnyRail as Chimer did with XtraCAD, giving a nominal radius of ~1050mm for both the three-way and the medium right-hand turnout. Oddly, though, 15 of the three-way gives me fractionally more than a full semi-circle, while 15 of the right-hand turnout gives we almost exactly the same fraction less than 180°. Go figure...
  3. Correct, I am (per the thread title, in fact). Unfortunately Peco themselves seem to be confused between the code 100 and the code 75. This was their answer when I posed the question to them by e-mail: Due to the design of this turnout, the left hand route would be a nominal 24" radius, with the right hand route of a slightly larger nominal radius being nearer to 36".
  4. The Peco web site describes the SL-99/SL-E99 as "3 Way Turnout, Medium Radius". However, in the technical specification section it says that the nominal radius is 610mm, which is the same as the small radius left and right turnouts, and the small radius Y. Putting to one side issues about varying actual radii within a turnout, does this sound right, or has Peco made a mistake in this case?
  5. For the avoidance of confusion: I wasn't trying to suggest that Peco had deliberately been shipping duds simply to meet orders. I had in mind more that pressure to meet higher than normal production volumes might have exposed some unforeseen weaknesses in their QC processes. Even in the best run company such things do occasionally happen. At least it's only model railways we're talking about, not (for example) medical equipment...
  6. Yes, but it requires more than just fitting those jumper wires: as I said in my previous post, you also have to energise the frog externally via a switch that selects the correct polarity depending on the setting of the points. In electrofrog points as they come from the factory (assuming they are not faulty) that is achieved by using the moving rails of the point to switch the correct polarity of current to the frog, via the factory-fitted jumper wires that bridge the rail gap. Remove or cut those jumper wires and there's no frog polarity switching via the point rails, so you have to add an external switch and additional wiring. That's a lot more complicated than just fixing the manufacturing fault with a single drop of solder. The jumper wires in the screenshot I posted are pretty much of a red herring in respect of that manufacturing fault: they actually have nothing to do with switching the frog polarity - people fit them to avoid having to rely on electrical contact between the moving point rails and the stock rails, which can be poor if the contact areas get dirty or contaminated e.g. with loose bits of ballast. So it's about improving the reliability of the points in long-term use rather than providing the basic functionality of the point. If you do choose to fit those jumper wires then you must cut/remove the factory-fitted jumper wires - otherwise you will have a permanent short circuit - and you have to switch the frog polarity externally. It's that palaver vs re-soldering one joint. Your choice. Or just take the faulty ones back and get them replaced - they have a manufacturing fault which makes them "not fit for purpose" and you have every right to reject them. Roxley Models aren't being 'nice' about offering to take them back: they are legally obliged to make sure that you either get properly working points, or your money back.
  7. If you mean soldering jumper wires between the stock rails and the switch rails, as the fellow is pointing to here: then no, that won't solve your problem because the electrical discontinuity is beyond there, at the rail gap to the left of where he's pointing. If, on the other hand, you mean going the whole hog and switching the frog using the dropper wire provided by Peco (making sure that the factory-fitted jumper wires are cut/removed, as it says in the video) then that would indeed solve your problem - but it would seem an unnecessarily complicated way to do it, requiring an external switch and additional wiring to energise the frog, when all that's required to bring your point in to the state in which it should have left the factory is to bond the factory-fitted jumper wire properly across the rail gap. A drop of solder should fix it. That said, there are those who will advocate strongly in favour of frog-switching anyway, as being a more robust and reliable way to deploy and use electrofrog points over the long term. But, as your experience with the other electrofrog point on your layout that is working has shown, that is not necessary to make the thing work. Just rectifying the suspected manufacturing defect identified by smokebox above should be sufficient - as confirmed by Johnster's post in the thread I linked above:
  8. See this thread: there does seem to be a batch of bad electrofrog points out there at the moment. As they are brand new my inclination would be to send them back for refund/replacement rather than attempt a repair myself. (Since they are faulty, you should be reimbursed the return postage - some retailers will provide a return label with return postage already paid.) However, you may feel it worth having a go. I wonder whether Peco have been struggling to keep up with demand recently? I know from personal experience that new OO Streamline points became very difficult to find during full lockdown; perhaps they've let a few duds through while trying to build stocks up again?
  9. I was about to make the same suggestion that I now see Il Grifone made above. If it helps, the turnout in question is highlighted below: Replace that with a RH turnout and you can ditch the curve that follows it, connecting it straight on to the double slip which will then be 8 inches or so further from the station buffer stops. That gives you a greater length of straight track for platform 2, and (again, as Il Grifone noted) eliminate one of the reverse curves from the RH fiddle road into platform 2. EDIT: This is what I think it would look like in AnyRail (assuming medium radius points): Note that the platform 3 road also ends up with more distance between the double slip and the bufferstop this way.
  10. Approximately zero years: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bumblebees-cant-fly/ Nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulsion, and specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulsion#In_food (Oh, and by no means every chef on the planet adds oil to the water when cooking pasta. In fact it's generally regarded as unnecessary. For example: https://www.nigella.com/ask/oil-for-pasta-water.) None of which means that graphite isn't effective at improving the performance of model trains. But regurgitating pseudo-scientific myths isn't a particularly effective way to proving that it is.
  11. I've used canopy glue with some success to bond plastics that aren't susceptible to solvent-type cements. For example, glueing Kadee whisker coupling gear boxes in to modified Airfix coach bogies (which I think are made of a similar sort of plastic to the Hornby underframes you describe:
  12. I wasn't aware that Peco had an upgrade programme under way. What form does the upgrade usually take? Note also the comment reported in one of the links I provided above, from Peco Technical Support stating that there isn't room to put gaps in the switch rails. The short Y is a pretty compact turnout compared to every other Streamline turnout bar the trap points (which don't really count, and which certainly aren't relevant to this discussion) and I suspect there's a fairly delicate balance between features & reliability/robustness that can't quite be met within such a limited amount of 'real estate', so some features had to be sacrificed.
  13. Correct, they are not provided on this particular turnout. Neither are the gaps in the switch rails, which is what the jumper wires you refer to are provided to bridge. And nor is a frog polarity wire provided. (As far as I can tell from your photo you have the code 100 version of this turnout; the code 75 version does have the frog polarity wire provided "out of the box" but still doesn't have the rail gaps or jumper wires.) I think it's generally understood that Peco don't provide the jumpered rail gaps in the short Y turnouts because it would leave a short length of each switch rail supported only by two plastic "chairs", which could be potential weak point mechanically. If you want to go ahead and modify these points then you will have to gap the switch rails and attach a frog polarity wire yourself. And probably devise some form of mitigation for the mechanical weak points introduced by the rail gaps. This subject has been discussed a number of time in the past on RMWeb, e.g: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/112573-peco-electrofrog-y-points-misleading-instructions/ https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/142493-peco-small-radius-wye-e197-wiring-help/ https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131217-small-radius-y-point-sl-e197-code-75-electrofrog-point/ (note in this thread the statement: Peco Technical Help say "Due to the short closure rails it is not possible to cut these rails") https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/114509-peco-electrofrog-code-100-small-radius-point-wiring/ https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102251-peco-short-y-point/ (Note that the discussions about the code 75 versions of the turnout are generally equally applicable to the code 100 version since, apart from the fact that frog polarity wire is provided "out of the box" on the code 75 version, the issues are essentially the same.)
  14. I can tell you that he pronounced "minoress" incorrectly. The OED is very clear that the "i" should be long, as in "miner", or indeed "minor". I suspect that, rather than being a corruption of the English name of the Order of St Clare, the pronunciation of the street name is actually derived from the Latin name for the order: sorores minores. If we assume that pronunciation of medieval Latin was similar to modern Italian, the pronunciation of the second word of that phrase would have been quite similar to that of "Minories" today, and not very like "minoress" at all. This topic was previously discussed on this thread as recently as June this year: I note that a number of comments under that YouTube video mention the Minories place name in other English cities and towns, all of which appear to be pronounced the same as the street in London.
  15. The part that applied to them. As so often seems to be the case.
  • 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.