Jump to content

ejstubbs

Members
  • Posts

    1,966
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ejstubbs

  1. Agree - or alternatively, it surely couldn't hurt Bachmann to sell their 'fishtail' NEM pockets (the ones that fit in the Parkside mounts) separately i.e. without any actual couplings. Hornby spare part number X6354 is a pack of 10 fishtail NEM pockets - if you can find them in stock anywhere. They look very similar to the Bachmann ones but I don't recall ever experimenting with their interchangeability so I can't say whether they'd be a good match for the Parkside mount.
  2. It's not too surprising that folks might get confused when the Parkside product is described on the Peco web site as being for "...for 36-027 Mk2 Couplings, NEM shaft (cranked) with pocket". What's worse is that, as noted above, you quite often have to shave the 'feet' of the Parkside mounting block to get the NEM pocket at the correct height i.e. in their unmodified form they often put the NEM pocket too low for the straight couplings, so the cranked coupling is going to be even worse. Bachmann don't help matters by (for hysterical reasons) having multiple variants of what should be a straightforward NEM TLC, many of which seem to be mis-described or have a misleading photo on Bachmann's own web site - in particular 36-061 is described as "Short Straight NEM Coupling with Pocket" but the photo shows it without the pocket: https://www.Bachmann.co.uk/product/short-straight-nem-coupling-with-pocket-(x10)/36-061. Whereas Rails of Sheffield describe 36-061 as "MK2 NEM COUPLING SHORT STRAIGHT" - no mention of the NEM pocket, and indeed the listing includes a photo of a packet of the things apparently without pockets. So maybe they're right and Bachmann's description is actually wrong. It's a bit much if the only way for an unsuspecting modeller to discover the error (whatever/wherever it may be) is by coughing up £10 to buy the darned things.
  3. I think "all the birds of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire" would have been tucked up in their winter roosts at that time of night, though! Apart from the odd owl, I suppose... Thanks, that's very interesting, particularly since that's also what the company I linked to above seems to do. In fact, digging around a bit online it would appear that it's the same company - or at least the same people - originally based in Moreton-in-Marsh as you say, then later in Scotland running the now-defunct but in its time extremely popular Ingliston Sunday Market just outside Edinburgh, and later operating markets in Ayr and Cowdenbeath. There's even a bit of frequently-referenced case law dating back to 1988 arising from a case between Spook Erection and the British Railways Board, which seems strongly to suggest that the company was kicked out of its Moreton-in-Marsh base at around that date. So it looks like I wasn't as confused as I thought I was - which must be a first for me...
  4. Sometime back in the 1980s I was on a train from Paddington to Hereford. It was a dark winter night, might have been snowing or sleeting a bit, I couldn't swear to that. Anyway, I remember it being quite atmospheric. At some point in what felt, from the comfort of the train, like the middle of nowhere, but which was most likely somewhere in Oxfordshire or maybe further west, the train either stopped at or slowed down on passing through a small but interesting-looking station. I recall there was at least one siding, and I think a crane as well. The other thing I remember clearly was a business operating from what I assume was the ex-goods yard called either Ghost Erections or Spook Erections*. All a bit woolly I'll admit, but I wondered whether anyone might have any suggestions as to which station it might have been, especially given the fairly memorable name of the business occupying part of the site? * There appears to be a company in Scotland called Spook Erection so I might well be getting it confused with that, meaning that the one I saw all those years ago was most likely "Ghost".
  5. According to what seems to be a reliable report on the RailUK forum, the decision to non-stop Swindon (i.e reversing the special stop order) was taken while 1A58 was stopped at Bath Spa. According to that account, the train crew were informed but for some reason the message did not get through to the passengers. It's possible that the idea was to get Swindon-bound passengers to de-train at Bath Spa and take a later service in order to relieve the crush on 1A58, but that needed to be communicated to the passengers in order for it to work, and for some reason that didn't happen (though you'd have though the train crew might have noticed that no-one was getting off). Why on-train announcements either weren't made, or didn't get through to the passengers, isn't clear (apparently the PIS on the class 800s can't be updated once the service is under way, so it seems likely it was still showing the original timetabled stopping pattern - i.e. before the special stop orders were issued, and then later partially or fully rescinded - the whole time).
  6. Tracked down and bought a reasonably-priced LMS example from The Model Centre last week, arrived today. Have to say I think it might be the best RTR loco I've ever bought new. Runs beautifully straight out of the box, excellent low speed running, hauls four Bachmann period 1 57ft corridor coaches no problem at all and with a rather nice brief burst of wheelslip when "giving it the berries" from a standing start. No problems with the reverse curves, double slip or dodgy track joint (note to self: must get round to fixing that!) in my station throat, unlike some locomotives I could mention (cough 2-4-2T cough). The coreless motor doesn't seem to have problem with my non-feedback PWM controller set at 10kHz - no signs of overheating or any other unpleasantness. It's still running in on my rolling road just now but first impressions are extremely positive.
  7. That's fine when you're recycling waste raw material within a discrete manufacturing process. The main thrust of this thread is kerbside/mixed waste recycling, which is a different matter. Identifying and extracting a specific material to be put through a particular recycling process is probably one of the toughest issues, before you even get to the question of how you actually turn that waste material material back in to a form that manufacturers can (or, perhaps as important, will) use.
  8. I thought it was the age and consequent wear to the moulds. The material itself seems much the same as any other PS I've worked with, including the way its reacts to liquid polystyrene cement.
  9. A quick (sub 60s) search online suggests that polystyrene is rarely if ever recycled/difficult if not impossible to recycle. Ditto expanded polystyrene multiple times over, especially since it's also less straightforward to reuse than solid PS. It's not helped when guidance from local authorities (such as mine) is based in the type of item rather than the type of plastic (which generally can be determined by a lay person if you know, or can look up, the material codes which are commonly embossed on the items). My LA refers to "trays" being recyclable - but a lot of these are EPS which isn't. Another packing material that can be problematic to recycle is bubblewrap, although it can be reused if you have the need for protective packaging material. As soft plastic/film it generally can't be recycled via the kerbside bin; it might be acceptable in plastic bag recycling bins such as are often found in supermarkets, but they often have signs on them asking people not to use them for general rubbish and you might find a jobsworth telling you not to put your bubble wrap in there. A minor positive with "landfill" i.e. unrecyclable waste these days is that it can put to good use rather than being tipped in to one of the increasingly scarce holes in the ground. My LA gets a tick in this regard with its energy-from-waste plant on part of the old marshalling yard site at Millerhill: https://www.fccenvironment.co.uk/green-energy/millerhill-rerc/.
  10. 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!
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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...
  14. 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?)
  15. 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.
  16. 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 ...
  17. 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!
  18. ...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!
  19. 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.
  20. 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".)
  21. 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?
  22. 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.
  23. 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.)
  24. The OP has a four-track layout, but nevertheless...what's that on the home page of their web site, then?
  25. The issues of PWM controllers with coreless motors have been discussed on RMWeb (and places online) many times. Judicious use of online search tools should find plenty of information on the subject. Talk of frying a motor using PWM controller before fitting a DCC chip sounds a bit muddled, given that DCC chips use PWM to control the motor speed (at 16kHz by default, I believe - which I agree would probably be less injurious than PWM at mains frequency). There is a thread here in which, amongst other things, a cheap PWM DC motor controller which can be set to PWM frequencies from 1kHz to 99kHz is discussed.
×
×
  • Create New...