Jump to content

ejstubbs

Members
  • Posts

    1,957
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

881 profile views

ejstubbs's Achievements

2k

Reputation

  1. Some kind of temporary spark arrester was one of the things I thought it might be, but I'd have thought that a tarp would affect the draw of the fire quite severely*, even for short periods, which is why I guessed that the loco might have been out of use at the time the photo was taken and the tarp might have been for weather protection. * Based on personal experience with a jackdaw nest in our chimney!
  2. Off topic, but I'm intrigued by that tarp or whatever it is over the top of the funnel on the saddle tank. Best explanation I can dream up is that the loco was out of use for an extended period and it was to stop rain getting in to the smokebox, but I'm sure someone will know the true answer.
  3. If this had happened in Edinburgh it would have been the tram's fault. Sincerely hope the young lassie (and her wain) recover from the injuries.
  4. I got an e-mail from Rails earlier this afternoon telling me that my pre-ordered one is on its way. Unfortunately there's no tracking info in the e-mail, and when I go on to the Rails web site the order doesn't show up in My Account or in my list of pre-orders. I'll just have to have faith and wait I guess...
  5. There is a much older "show us your control panels" thread here: It contains at least one of the control panel photos referenced by the OP (here) so I assume that's the one he meant. Perhaps the old and new threads should be combined in order to avoid unnecessary duplication. (Mods, are you listening?)
  6. In the announcement as reported here it was described as simply: "The new DCC compatible chassis for the Parallel Boiler Royal Scot Class 4-6-0". If that's all it was it's a little difficult to understand what might have been sufficiently "unfavourable" about the "present economic conditions" (this was 2018, remember). They'd already put a modern, DCC-compatible chassis under the Jubilee and Patriot (albeit there were some reservations about its accuracy, especially in the latter case), which would suggest that it wouldn't have been a monumental task to do one for the Royal Scot as well. As it was, though, anyone wanting a parallel-boilered Royal Scot with a modern chassis seems to left with two options: either kit build (which many are not competent, or simply do not want, to do), or pay current prices for a Bachmann Patriot or Jubilee, or a Hornby rebuilt Scot, plus an aging Bachmann split-chassis Royal Scot (or just the body, if such can be found), and furtle the new chassis into the old bodyshell. It does seem odd that such a significant locomotive class should be left unrepresented in modern RTR for so long.
  7. Ah, useful to know, thanks. I did think there was something that looked like a circlip on the service sheet but I couldn't see how it might attach or (more importantly when attempting disassembly) detach, even with +3.5 supplementary specs clipped on top of my normal varifocals ...
  8. Well, today I bit the bullet and disassembled it as much as I dared. I didn't fancy dismantling the valve gear: too many teensy weensy screws for my liking, and although I the spanner I have got the coupling rod screws off the front and rear drivers, it seemed to be too big to undo the screws on the centre drivers (the service sheet I have does seem to suggest that the screw for the centre drivers is different to the one for the front and rear ones) so I left it at that. With the drive gear for the centre drivers disengaged the motor ran smoothly and pretty quietly, which was nice. Having found nothing obvious that might be causing the noise, I gave everything a good clean and a judicious re-lube, and reassembled the chassis carefully. Checking it on the rolling road it seemed to run well in both directions without any nasty noises, and continued to do so with the body back on. I did notice when re-assembling it that the front screw of the two which holds the axle retainer plate on seemed a bit reluctant to engage properly with the insulating spacer between the chassis halves. This turned out to be because the axle retainer plate wasn't properly seated against the chassis at that point. It seems that you need to install the axle retainer plate at the front first, so that it fits over the cylinder assembly properly, and it then slots easily into place along its whole length and can be screwed securely in place. My theory is that the axle retainer plate hadn't been properly seated the last time the loco was apart (can't remember whether that was me, or the previous owner), so the front drivers were loose in the vertical direction. That would probably have the same effect as that described by cypherman above if the bearing surfaces were badly worn (which they definitely weren't). I'm therefore closing this case as resolved for now. Fingers crossed it stays that way!
  9. ...but only in reverse. It's smooth as a nut going forwards. If it were any of my other locos then I'd be investigating the pickup wipers since it sounds exactly like a badly adjusted pickup wiper catching on the spokes of a driving wheel. But as it's a Bachmann split-chassis example, it can't be that - but I can't work out what is causing it. I can't see anything obvious that could be interfering with the wheels, but I've not disassembled it fully yet (it would be the first time disassembling a split-chassis for me if it does have to come to that, so I'm a trifle trepidatious). I have tried running it with the body off and it still makes the noise, so that would seem to rule out anything relating to that, such as the sanding pipes (which I've verified are where they should be in any case). Has any other forumite had a similar issue with one of the Bachmann split-chassis locos - or indeed the Royal Scot in particular - which might give me some clue as to where to look for the problem? Any suggestions would be most welcome!
  10. Can you clarify what you mean by "electrically inert"? I believe that the trip pin must be steel or some other ferromagnetic material and therefore conductive. I'd agree that the good old #5, which is metal, when attached using a metal screw, can provide a path for current through the coupling to the chassis of the vehicle. However, AFAIK (based on fitting a fair few of them to my stock) the whisker coupler gear box is all plastic, and the couplers pivot around an insulated sleeve, meaning that the coupler doesn't come in to contact with the screw* or any other conductive material, so there would be no electrical path to the chassis. It's entirely possible that I've misunderstood your statement, or that I am unaware of specific circumstances where the insulation of the whisker coupler within the gear box is inadequate, in which case I am more than happy to be further enlightened! (I would agree that for non-standard fitments, such as the old favourite/bodge on UK outline stock of simply screwing a #5 directly on to the vehicle using the tapped hole left when the TLC was removed, a non-conductive coupler might very well be required.) * Kadee do offer the #256 insulated nylon screw, and similar screws are obtainable through distributors of hardware for modelling purposes and the like.
  11. Or if the drivers of the road vehicles could manage not to be in such a darned hurry. IMO attempting to drive any distance to an inflexible schedule is a classic example of the triumph of hope over experience. (I think someone on the Driving Standards thread mentioned a bumper sticker that read something along the lines of "If you want to be in front of me, get out of bed ten minutes earlier".)
  12. We recently spent a few days in Northumberland. On one of the days we were there we ended up driving back from Keilder to Alnwick via Redesmouth and Rothley. We encountered a number of notably severe humpback bridges on that route, which later research revealed were overbridges crossing the remains of the trackbed of the Wansbeck Railway. I can't remember when I last has to negotiate such uncomfortably abrupt humpback bridges, and certainly not so many in such a short relatively short journey, Is the Wansbeck Railway known for its rather basic civil engineering - or would it be more likely that some combination of deterioration/subsidence of the surrounding land and/or modern higher traffic volumes, vehicle weights & speeds, has caused these veteran bridges to arrive at their current potentially hazardous condition?
  13. Gaugemaster still list two feedback controllers on their web site: the handheld GMC-HH and the panel mount GMF-UF. Of the two, I'd imagine that the panel mount one would be more suitable for your requirement to sit back and watch the trains go by. Gaugemaster do not recommend using these controllers with coreless motors, however, and such motors do seem to be be increasingly commonly used in certain modern RTR locos - worse, it can be difficult to know if a given loco is so fitted prior to purchase (reference this thread). The Oxford Rail Dean Goods was fitted with a conventional or a coreless motor depending on when it was made, which seems particularly unhelpful.
  14. It's not completely ubiquitous: Morley controllers use centre-off pots. Like you, I much prefer it to having to fumble for for a switch (and often forgetting!) every time I want to change direction. Maybe it's because I grew up with the old Triang P42 controllers and the old motor engrams are still too engrained. (FWIW, on controllers with a reverse switch, I much prefer a toggle switch to a slide switch.)
  15. The OP has a four-track layout, but nevertheless...what's that on the home page of their web site, then?
×
×
  • Create New...