Chuffer Davies

I can heartily recommend the HL coreless motors. I have used several of these for various projects and they have always been smooth running, quiet and powerful. The 1219 is useful for tank engines as it is short enough (most times) to fit vertically in the firebox with a Roadrunner gearbox to the rear drivers under the cab floor. The 1320 whilst small is a beast in terms of its power output. I have just installed one in a GW ROD for Pendon intended to be the back up engine for the long mineral train when the 28xx needs servicing. It would romp away with the train if it was allowed so to do. The HL J50 chassis has a gearbox included so all you need is to choose a motor. I used a 1320 in mine as there is ample room for it.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of a visiting Sandra and her truly magnificent Retford layout. I have seen it twice before but I was still taken aback by the sheer size of it. The layout has moved on significantly since my last visit which was several years ago when Roy was still alive. It is now significantly greener with many more buildings and signals installed. I took the liberty of taking some of my Clayton locos with me in the hope that I might be allowed to 'stretch their legs'. After recent comments on here with regards the challenge that the boat train has posed and finding a loco capable of handling it, I was keen to try out one of my MIT (motor-in-tender) constructed models on this train. I chose my J2, the chassis of which I showed on here a few posts back when discussing motor/gearbox combo's. I am delighted to say that it started the train on the gradient in the fiddle yard without hesitation. I know Roy had tried a similar drive system with one of his own models but without success. This revised drive using High Level gear components and a HL1320 coreless motor seems to work. Just for fun I asked Sandra if I could try my smallest MIT loco (a J7) on the long goods. This is normally hauled by a DJH 9F. I think we both felt there was little chance that it would succeed, in particular because the line climbs at the far end of the fiddle yard before entering the scenic section. In reality, and to my delight, the model took the train without hesitation. This was the first loco in which I installed an MIT drive and for this I used a 1624 coreless motor 'borrowed' from a noisy Portescap unit. My sincere thanks to Sandra for inviting me to visit Retford and for allowing me to run my models. A thoroughly enjoyable day's outing to see a remarkable layout. Frank

Hi Baz, I would caution against using a motor from a Portescap unit on a HL gearbox. It was reported on several occasions that the bearings on these motors are not designed to take the end thrusts associated with a worm drive and will fail. That is specific to these motors and not necessarily a constraint of coreless motors as a whole. Frank

Hi Martin, it could well be your browser settings. I have just tried the site on my iPhone and the drop down menus look okay. Do you have an alternate browser you could try? Frank

Methuselah has raised an interesting question. To provide an appropriate answer, a lot depends on what kind of performance is required and what kind of layout the models are being built to run on? A small shunting plank does not require a lot of power but the ability of the model to run slowly and smoothly is critical. In contrast a layout such as LB requires powerful motors capable of pulling heavy trains at high speeds Slow running capabilities are less relevant and a puny motor would be next to useless. My approach to motor/gearbox selection has evolved over the 40+ years that I have been building model railway locomotives. The majority of these have been for exhibition layouts where quality of operation has been paramount. A key factor in my decisioning has always been to select the largest possible motor/gearbox combination whilst ensuring that this can be completely concealed from view. In my Great Western days, primarily building models to run on our Hungerford layout, I used Portescap drive units exclusively. Sometimes it was necessary to replace the gearbox sides to obtain a gearbox configuration that would allow the unit to fit the available boiler/firebox opening. There was an article in an early edition of the MRJ which described how to make replacement gearbox sides. The original sides were used to determine where to drill holes and the size that these needed to be. MJT also marketed a range of replacement gearbox sides, but where these could not give me a configuration that would fit I made my own replacements. Whilst initially the whine of the newer Portescap units didn't bother me, I subsequently stopped buying these, even when they were still available through retailers, and purchased the earlier quiet units second hand in preference. When I started building (LNER) locomotives for the club's Clayton layout my initial expectation was that I would again use Portescap units (assuming I could get hold of them), but this decision was overturned when we realised that we would have to relocate the motors to the tenders of our models in order to get sufficient weight into our locomotives to enable them to haul prototypical length trains up the 1:50 gradient of the layout. I could not see a way of modifying the Portescap gearboxes to work with a remote drive shaft and instead (and with the help of Chris Gibbon) designed a system based around High Level gearbox components. Here again I have chose to design my own gearbox frames to optimise the position of the gearbox between the frames of the locomotive. At the same time as I was coming up with this Motor-in-Tender (MIT) design Chris Gibbon was introducing his new range of coreless motors. Standard MIT configuration installed in an LNER J2 chassis Having had the opportunity to give these motors a thorough trial I now use the High Level coreless motors exclusively as I consider their performance to be exemplary. The 1320 motor in particular is amazingly powerful for its size and will happily haul 50 wagons up a 1:50 gradient, assuming the locomotive in which it is installed has enough grip to achieve this. For small tank engines (specifically J52s) I have used the HL 1219 motor installed vertically in the firebox driving the rear axle through a standard HL Roadrunner Compact gearbox. This leaves the whole of the boiler and smokebox available for ballast. My J52s happily haul 30+ wagons up the gradient. A J52 incorporating a High Level 1219 coreless motor paired with a standard Roadrunner 40:1 gearbox If I was building a large locomotive without the need for the MIT drive system, for convenience I would almost certainly use an old Portescap unit or one of the newer DJH units that Tony recommends. Unfortunately the Queensbury Line did not benefit from such exotic locomotives and most of the models I have been building are small wheeled goods engines (0-6-0s and 0-8-0s) and the High Level motors and gears provide me with the flexibility I need to obtain a powerful drive train in the restricted spaces associated with smaller locomotives. The HL gears are virtually silent and are a major improvement audibly over the sound of the later Portescap units. For most modellers the wide range of gearbox configurations available from High Level will meet almost all requirements and they are designed to be paired with the motors available directly from High Level. The coreless motors, whilst expensive by comparison to traditional iron core motors, are powerful, smooth and silent.

And gears…. 4mm kit builders typically use 1/8th axles with 3mm being one of the RTR replacement axle diameters around at one time I seem to recall. Frank

Hi Jol, do you know what controls the height of the frame spacers? Taking material off the top of the frames wouldn’t be particularly difficult unless that then destroys any positioning slots for the spacers. Frank

Just fabulous Jerry!

That’s a remarkable overhang at the back. Looks like enough room for a pony truck. As always an amazingly clean build. I never get my builds as tidy as yours. Frank

This is the latest model to be built for our Clayton project. This is an LNER Q1 (Long Tom). These locos were relegated to the West Yorkshire area in the latter years of their working life and this particular loco was withdrawn in 1931 so only just made the 1930 cut off for our layout. As there was no existing kit available at the time, I drew up the CAD artwork and the model was then built in the main by my good friend Chris Rogers. Work on the model stopped when we realised that it needed the motor relocating to the tender in order to make room in the back of the boiler and firebox for additional lead ballast. I took over the build and made the necessary modifications before adding the remaining detail to the chassis. This model is now capable of hauling 45 or more kit built wagons up the 1:50 gradient on our layout. I have made my CAD artwork available to John Redrup and the Q1 has been added to the London Road Models range of kits. Frank

Hi Sandra, A couple of thoughts/observations if I may. Firstly does the ammeter twitch when you are running light engine? If you are testing with a load then the twitch could be in the train rather than the loco. Don’t get too hung up on the short circuit issue with DCC. All the models I’m building for Clayton are DCC fitted and yet I happily build them live to the offside rail irrespective of whether their bodies are brass or plastic and I have yet to destroy a decoder. The only thing you have to ensure to protect your decoders against damage is that neither the decoder nor the wires between the motor and decoder touch the body work. Shorts between the track and the decoder such as could be caused by errant bogies and pony trucks, whilst undesirable, cannot damage the decoder. lovely Remembrance class model by the way. Frank

Jet engines have also been used for maritime purposes. For example I seem to recall that there was a marine version of the Olympus engines used in the Concorde. Frank

Very nicely done Mr Edge!

Having managed to conceal the additional lead flashing in the remaining unused space in Guy William's ROD superstructure I have today revisited Pendon for a second test of the ROD's haulage capacity. The first task this morning was to clean the wheels because I hadn't had time to do it before setting off from Yorkshire. We used lighter fuel as the solvent to clean the wheels, but when the loco was first coupled up to the train the wheels slipped even more than they had done previously without the additional ballast. After a couple of circuits of the layout any remnants of the lighter fuel had been rubbed off and at last the loco had enough grip to successfully start the train. Unfortunately the model had developed a new fault in the interim and was shorting out at one specific location right in the middle of the scenic section of The Vale. After several attempts to cure it the problem was eventually tracked down to a brake block on the tender. I should mention that the loco has to be capable of starting the train with all the couplings in tension. The automated control system at Pendon is unable to set back the train after it comes to a stop in the fiddle yard. In this video the train sets off at a fair rate of knots. This is because the computer controlling the train is configured for Guys 28xx which uses an older and larger motor requiring a higher voltage than that needed by the 1320 High Level coreless motor in the ROD. If and when the ROD is used in front of the viewing public the computer's parameters will be adjusted so that the train runs at a more appropriate speed. The loco's test has now been signed off and I can turn my attention to Guy's superstructure. The loco looks rather shabby and we have agreed that it would benefit from a repaint. This will also allow me to replace the damaged whistles (my fault) and to repair some loose handrails and handrail knobs without being concerned about causing further damage to the existing paintwork. I will also be stripping the chassis down as far as is possible, giving it a thorough clean and degrease before it too gets painted. The next time it runs on Pendon should be when it is handed back to recommence its revenue earning service. Regards, Frank

Anyone know if it is possible to get replacement brushes and brush springs for Mashima motors? I am doing some loco doctoring for a colleague and I’m fairly certain the brushes are warn out. Frank

Hi Andy, I experienced the same issue with a 1219 motor that I re-purposed to drive a worm & pinion gearbox, via a drive shaft to eliminate any longitudinal thrust on the motor’s shaft. The load was too much and caused the motor to overheat. As it got hotter the motor got weaker and came to a halt. Once cool it would set off again only to repeat the cycle. I would therefore suggest you are overloading the motor in your Klondike. If the grease in the gearbox isn’t glued up as can sometimes happen, and there is nothing else causing mechanical resistance, then I suggest you will need to think about a different motor/gearbox combo in your loco. Frank

Ah I see. I thought that was the exhibition hall you’d been exhibiting at, sorry.

Interesting venue! Was it as open to the elements as it looks? Frank

Hi Jesse, We need more information. Is the loco slipping, in which case it’s an adhesion issue, or is the motor slowing down, in which case it’s a power issue? If adhesion then check if the bogie and/or the tender is lifting the driving wheels off the track. This was a recent problem with the rear pony truck of the new Dapol GW Prairie. If power is the issue it would definitely be worth trying it without the decoder to determine whether it is the motor or the decoder where the problem lies. Best of luck, Frank,

Now that’s very pretty. I’m confident the springing will work on this model. I’ve used it on many models without issue. Frank

According to Hatton’s site this model will have upgraded tooling with modifications to the rear pony truck. So hopefully this will sort out the problem associated with the previous release of the large prairie. Frank

I’ve always felt that the RTR coaching stock for Great Western modellers has been disproportionately under represented when compared to the wide range of locomotives produced by the major manufacturers. The GWR tended to mix their coaching stock up more than the other regions and so, other than the top flight expresses, any given train might consist of a variety of coach styles and this is hard to reproduce using RTR vehicles. Why hasn’t any manufacturer produced top light coaches or a decent representation of clerestory stock? The original clerestories from Hornby were basic although their saving grace was that if you replaced the under frames and bogies you could cut and shut the bodies to produce some respectable models. Hornby’s later reliefless attempt at clerestories was an appalling attempt in my opinion. Fortunately, when we were building Hungerford, the late Mike Bradley built a significant variety of GW coaching stock which meant we had no dependency for RTR. Frank

Hi Simon, In the case of the ROD I've used two devices. The first is my universal solution for pony trucks and comprises a simple coil spring made from fine phosphor bronze wire wrapped around the shank of a drill to form the coil. Crude but effective. The top of the spring is soldered to a chassis spacer directly above the body of the pony truck. I then solder a brass washer to the bottom of the spring to act as a skate that presses down onto the top of the pony truck. this provides downward force only but does not have any impact on side control. In the case of the ROD I noticed that the wheels were getting very close to the front drain cocks on the cylinders and might cause a short if they touched. The loco's chassis is live to the nearside and so the offside pony truck wheel would be where the problem could occur. For this reason I have also added a side control wire acting on the back of the pony truck below the axle’s centre line to avoid any adverse tipping action when the truck deflects on a curve. Hopefully the following pictures will better illustrate this: Frank

Building a locomotive chassis to a specific brief is different to building one for yourself. The 'Brief' was to build a chassis that was capable of hauling the long mineral train on Pendon's Vale Scene. Whilst this train is normally hauled by Guy William's famous 28xx, currently Pendon has no suitable substitute loco if the 28xx needs servicing. I had tested the ROD as far as I could on both my test track at home and on the club's Clayton layout but eventually it needed to be tested on the train for which it is being built. On Tuesday morning I set off to drive the 190 miles to Pendon Museum. Fortunately the weather was kind to me, the sun was shining, the traffic on the M1 was for once moving freely, and I was able to enjoy the four hour drive to Pendon's car park in the beautiful Oxfordshire Village of Long Wittenham. After a private tour of the museum, including a look around the back of the layouts to see those areas that the public don't normally get to see, Tony Sheffield (the Pendon locomotive CME) invited me into the fiddleyard of the Vale Scene to give the ROD its long awaited test run. I was first given a demonstration of the 28xx hauling its famous train. You need good sight to see the back of the train sitting in the fiddle yard. The train is well over 20 feet long and its back stands under the scenery of Pendon Parva village. The power was applied and after a slight slip of the driving wheels the 28xx dug in and started its train. The 3 link couplings remain taught when the train comes to rest in the fiddleyard and so the 28xx doesn't have the luxury of picking up the train one wagon at a time, it starts the whole train at once. After this amazing performance by a locomotive that is now over 50 years old, Tony removed the 28xx from its train and invited me to place the ROD in its place. The controller was turned and ------ the ROD polished the track. Tony gave the train a slight helping hand and after a couple of feet the ROD dug in and away it went. It then hauled the train all the way around the Vale back to the fiddle yard only slipping momentarily as it went up the short gradient at the entrance to the fiddle yard. Tony explained that the fiddleyard has another slight gradient at its exit, just where the locomotive stands, and this is why the ROD couldn't get the train started. He then went to his work bench and returned with some offcuts of lead flashing. These were incrementally placed on the boiler of the ROD until there was sufficient additional weight to enable the ROD to start the train. This is how much additional lead is needed to allow the ROD to meet the Brief: I now have to find a way of hiding this lead in various crevices of the chassis and/or Guy's loco body. Once installed I will then return to Pendon to try once more. So close but no cigar! (yet). Many thanks to the Pendon team for their hospitality and for their kind words of encouragement. Better luck next time, hopefully. Regards, Frank

Now that is an interesting question! If I'm being totally honest I don't precisely know what the solution was. As I have already documented, the symptom I was experiencing was that, although the wheels appeared to rotate freely in their individual horn blocks, once I added the coupling rods the chassis stiffened up significantly and the wheels would no longer revolve if I pushed the chassis along the track. The stiffness was not as you would typically expect. There was no one tight spot to suggest that the crank pin holes needed opening out or the quartering adjusting. The one thing that I was certain of was that the spare set of coupling rods I'd built were now worse than the original set, so I dismantled the chassis one more time and....... Firstly, instead of the 1/8th inch reamer I'd been using, I replaced it with a 1/8th inch drill bit in my mini drill and gave the horn blocks yet another seeing too. Secondly I checked the fit of the connecting rods in the crossheads and made sure they were a nice floppy fit. Thirdly I filed the crossheads to make them a looser fit in their slide bars. I then reassembled the chassis with the original coupling rods, re-quartering the wheels by eye (as I always do), et voila it was suddenly working. Was it one specific thing I did, I don't know, but in combination the problem was at last eradicated. I normally try to keep everything as close a fit as possible when building my chassis, but in this case by loosening everything up slightly it has resolved the problem I was having. Frank