[GWR 101 Class - Hornby R2665]

11 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

I don't seem to have a drawing for this model either on computer or paper, it was built a long time ago when David was a teenager. There is a GA drawing in Jim Russell's book on GW locos, the frames may have been cut from a tracing of this, wheels are Romford but I don't think there were any other bought parts in it. The model is in Jersey now so I can't get at it very easily.

OK, thanks for the reply

 

[GWR 101 Class - Hornby R2665]

2 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Above the frames the Hornby model is remarkably accurate, this is one rebuilt with the correct running gear, including the joy valve motion.

101 doesn't appear to have ever carried any GWR insignia.

Model by David Edge

Nice, I'd be very interested if you have documentation, parts list etc of the chassis conversion

 

 

[GWR 101 Class - Hornby R2665]

Ok. Thanks. I only bought it as it looked neat and would suit a small branch line

[GWR 101 Class - Hornby R2665]

I just picked up one of these at a sale and did a little research into it. According one source, there was only one example built and it was scrapped in 1911, my Iam Allen book from 1960 makes no mention of it. How come Hornby released it in BR green?

 

 

[Bridging a canal - a dilemma]

3 hours ago, Campaman said:

If you do a google image search for Swing Bridge at Foxton you will find one that pivots from one bank only and fold against that bank.

 

There are two though, one a footpath and the other a road bridge found on Swing Bridge Street, its the road bridge you want.

 

Its local to me.

Thank you for that, looks interesting. I have found an image of a lifting bridge and I'm in the process of adapting a kit to fit the location - I'll post the result when I get a bit further along

 

 

[Bridging a canal - a dilemma]

1 hour ago, SouthernRegionSteam said:

I was fortunate enough to take a short trip on part of the Oxford Canal back in 2016 - I've re-edited some photos to brighten the shadows in the hope that they will be useful to you!

Needless to say, the bridges are perfectly balanced on the whole - requiring little effort to lift by the canal user. They are closed by pulling on a chain dangling from the open end (you can just make it out in some photos.

 

Edit: As John says above, the canal is much narrower at each bridge to keep the bridges as short as possible. Usually there are multiple mooring posts either side (although probably not in your example with such a harsh 90 degree turn. For what it's worth, you might be better off (if there's room) doing a sort of T-junction so that a boat could turn around before it goes under the bridge after having loaded/unloaded.

Edit 2: Here's my recent video of the same trip (I never got around to editing the footage until this year) on my Twitter page.

 

Hope that helps,
Jamie

These are fantastic, thank you very much indeed. I'm attempting to modify a balsa kit of a lifting bridge with the overhead beams ( I already had it) not sure how its going to turn out yet. If it doesn't work, I'll make one of these simpler versions. 

 

I've re-checked the turn and after a little tweaking it works fine as long as I extend the roadbed on the bridge and i've found a prototype for that as well.

 

I'll post the results when I've built it, thanks everyone for the help

 

 

[Bridging a canal - a dilemma]

1 minute ago, 2ManySpams said:

Try something like this:

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/5paZdpigMFxXpTLs6

That's very interesting, I like the simplicity, thanks

 

[Bridging a canal - a dilemma]

1 hour ago, Wheatley said:

Have a look at Ainsbury Avenue near Esholt. It crosses the Leeds & Liverpool canal on a swing bridge - centre pivoted admittedly but side mounted rather than a separate pivot in the middle of the canal, it even has a basin next to it.  The one on Apperley Rd a few hundred yards south has rather fewer trees getting in the way. 

Interesting but I think it will be too large for the space limitations I have

 

[Bridging a canal - a dilemma]

1 hour ago, H2O said:

Couple of thoughts:

With the boat and dock outline shown would it be able to get round the corner to enter and exit? You could have a shorter boat or perhaps have the exit at the bottom at 45° rather than 90°.

For bridge design there are the lifting type where they rotate upwards from one side only (half a bascule bridge?).  There is also the compact Dutch type which have 2 lifting parts with a simple balance weight above, not sure if they were used in the UK or if they could cope with heavy vehicles.

Thanks for the input - it does get round the corner, especially after I shortened it  The 45 degree idea is interesting, I'll try & plan that and see if it helps.

 

I've been looking at various Dutch style lifting bridges and during my search I found this:

 

http://bridgedesign.org.uk/resources/bridgepictures/planklane.php

 

It seems to fit the bill as it has a longer deck than the model kit I found and less side supports so it might fit. More test pieces I think 

 

 

 

[Bridging a canal - a dilemma]

I have a design issue that I would like some guidance with. The track on this layout (009) was laid many years ago and I'm not about to relay a load of it. Part of the design calls for a siding to become part of a paved canal side dock area which in turn is part of a road access. This is right next to a baseboard join so my choices of bridge type are limited.

 

I had thought of a lifting bridge but the base area is too large to fit on the right of the canal entrance and would not work with the baseboard join on the other side. A road bridge in stone with a steep approach might be possible (like the bridge in Wroxham in Norfolk) but the slope would interfere with the paved dock area. Then I thought of a swing bridge which could pivot on the adjoining baseboard but I can't find a prototype which is not pivoting in the middle. The sort of thing I'm drawn to is Winkwell bridge on the Grand Union but mounting it entirely on the adjacent baseboard would mean the 'left' end would stick out beyond the front of the baseboard when swung to permit canal traffic.

 

Anyone know of another prototype of suitable small size or another type of bridge that would fit in with the rural nature and size of the modelled area?

 

Thanks in advance

 

[Bachmann Baldwin 10-12-D - starting issues]

As it's still under warranty, I'm going to send it to Bachmann UK (after discussing it) taking advantage of the fact my wife is going to the UK next week.

 

We'll see what they find

 

Thanks

 

[Bachmann Baldwin 10-12-D - starting issues]

46 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

I have experienced that pick-ups issue on Farish diesel shunters. Once properly adjusted they will run beautifully, but on one I bought only half the pick-ups stayed in contact with the wheels across their full range of side-to-side motion so straight out of the box it was quite poor.

What did you do to correct the problem, I'm very reluctant to mess with it but the retailer is in England and they said they couldn't see anything wrong

 

[Bachmann Baldwin 10-12-D - starting issues]

I have a brand new  Bachmann Baldwin 10-12-D fully sound fitted and have had it thoroughly checked by the supplier they find nothing wrong.

However, I am experiencing some running issues, particularly when starting off. On occasions, the loco will simply lose electrical power and refuse to move with out help from the BHS.  I can tell the electrical contact is lost as the sound stops as well.

This is being tested on a dead flat 2 meter run of brand new Peco OO9 flexi track using an NEC Power Cab for DCC control. I can run the loco back and forth and across a right hand point with no trouble but then all of a sudden it will stop and try to restart. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. I have investigated fitting a stay alive but this is next to impossible given the lack of space and I'm not sure it would solve my problems.

I have been informed by other retailers that what I am seeing can be caused by there being too much sideways play on the axles which is resulting in all pickup contact being lost - I  find this very hard to believe given the quality of this model.

 

Anyone else having similar issues and what can be done about it? Given I live in France, finding a qualified mechanic/technician is difficult, I only know of one and they will only service what they sell.

 

 

[Cutting point blades from the frog]

The confusion, as you put it, was caused by the fact that the 009 points are constructed differently to the OO and even the EM one. On those points, the moving blade rails are already electrically disconnected by isolation blocks in the frog rails leading to the blades. This means that the blades need to be bonded to their adjacent stock rail for reliable connectivity. Peco provides for this on the OO and EM points but NOT on the 009.

 

To achieve the same result it would be necessary to cut through the blade/frog rails which is just possible on the regular left/right SL-E491/2 points but almost impossible to achieve without damage on the SL-E497. Hence my original post regarding making the cuts. During the ensuing dialog it was deemed that it was unnecessary to make the cuts, leaving both blades to be the same polarity as the frog, apparently there is no danger of a short occurring between the open blade and its stock rail as there is sufficient clearance for 009 wheels.

So, that is what I have done, frog is switched by a micro switch on the servo mounts and both frog rails have IRJs where they meet the track. 

The problems I subsequently encountered with a dead short were caused by the original track layer omitting the IRJs where they were required and actually putting one in the stock rail of point A. Quite naturally when I laid the new point at A I used a regular rail joiner hence the short. This has been corrected and all works fine.

The only other thing I am doing is adding a second micro switch to the servo mount so that the appropriate blade rail is only energised as the point closes. This will prevent the possibility of a short occurring if the first blade rail is still in contact with its stock rail but the micro switch has operated.

The attached photo and extracts from Peco documentation should help clarify why certain things were done in the beginning.

 

 

[Cutting point blades from the frog]

Well after several hours of head scratching and experiments I found the cause, almost by accident. Having removed all the frog switching wiring and still seeing the short it had to be the track. I finally found the culprit, an original point laid many years ago (not by me) did not have an IRJ on the frog so when I installed the new point at A, I put IRJs on my frog rails but not (obviously) on the stock rail. Fortunately the old point was actually set for the loop, not the siding, otherwise the short would not have shown up until much later. Lesson learned again, always put IRJs on frog rails, you can always feed the departing tracks if necessary

[Cutting point blades from the frog]

From the above dialog it was suggested that on 009 Peco points it was unnecessary to separate the frog from the switch blades. As my efforts to make the separation had resulted in poor running, I purchased four new points and installed them on the layout. The attached diagram shows this section of the layout – the wiring has not changed just that the switch blades are now electrically connected to the frog and each other. There is no bonding between the blades and stock rails other than physical contact when the blades move. Frog polarity is set by micro switches on the servo mounts.

Following final setting of the servos, I was adjusting the micro switches and observed I had a dead short between red and black, the position of the micro switch did not alter this. I have isolated the wiring to the micro switches to the stage when nothing else other than the two switches are connected to the track wires – the relevant track wires are (temporarily) isolated from the rest of the layout. The short occurs when the switch on Point A is closed, connecting the from to the red circuit and the point blades are set the same – touching the red rail.

I have been checking all the wiring carefully and cannot see a problem, however I did observe that when I operated point B the short went away. I need to do more testing to document which combinations of straight or divert on each point create or eliminate the short as there is clearly interaction somewhere.

In the meantime, can anyone shed any light on what is happening and/or suggest a course of action?

[009 Wagon chassis kits]

5 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I was going to suggest Dundas as well - have you thought about lengthening them?

I have and it would work but would present some issues with the brake gear etc. 

[009 Wagon chassis kits]

15 hours ago, Stoker said:

In my opinion N scale stuff doesn't work well for 4mm narrow gauge, it's just a bit too small. Compare N scale wagon chassis to a proper 009 kit and the difference is quite obvious. Narrow gauge was small but it wasn't THAT small. You might be able to get away with it in 3mm scale, or 1:120, but that's about as big as I'd go with it.

I'd say your best bet would probably be to look at Dundas kits here. Their range has a number of wagon chassis, I'd wager at least one of those would be suitable.

You would lose that wager - I have one wagon which has a floor length of 58mm, largest Dundas chassis around 42mm. I found a couple of N gauge wagons and one that has a long enough wheelbase; I'll see what it looks like when I have tried it

 

 

[009 Wagon chassis kits]

38 minutes ago, 2mm Andy said:

N gauge chassis are often used for 009 wagons. Real narrow gauge wagons rarely had buffers, so they can be cut off and the springs/axleboxes are smaller on narrow gauge wagons anyway, so the difference in scale works in your favour. Some good examples here showing the use of adapted N gauge chassis under 009 wagons;

 

https://www.009dutch.nl/cdr/main/pages/estock.htm

 

Andy

Very interesting, thank you.

 

[009 Wagon chassis kits]

16 hours ago, Phil Traxson said:

Try looking for "N" gauge wagon chassis.

Wrong scale - 009 is 4mm/ft  'N' is 2mm so things like buffers, springs, axle boxes will be too small

 

[What loco is this?]

THANK YOU - it definitely is, now to find the spares dept

 

[009 Wagon chassis kits]

I have a few wagon bodies of various sizes but no chassis for them. Measuring the floor length I need a couple 45mm long, 1 52mm long and one 58mm, however all I can find with on line searching are Dundas and they seem to be much smaller (42 or 32mm). All I need are 4-wheel chassis, nothing complex.

 

Thanks

 

 

[What loco is this?]

I have discovered this little loco in a box of bits but I have no idea of who made it or what it is. I have overhauled it and the motor runs great, wheels and pick-ups are good but there is a gear wheel missing between the axles. It seems to be 5mm dia. 1.5mm shaft size and 11 teeth.  I would really like to find one - anyone any ideas?

 

 

[Dundas 009 wagon kits]

20 hours ago, Lissadell said:

How much weight have colleagues added to the basic 4 wheel chassis  to assist with running?

 

 

 

 

I asked this question recently and was given a link to an group called McKinley Railway - they use a formula of 5gm weight per cm of length measured over the buffers. I have used this formula on my 009 stock, including bogie coaches and I have to say it seems to be working just fine.

 

I found some cheap 5gm wheel weights (use to balance car wheels) on eBay, the fit in most locations. If they will not fit (say in a loco boiler area) I use Liquid Gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

[Peco 009 coaches]

14 hours ago, mozzer models said:

to remove the seating 

1st remove the windows

 then the seats will slide out there a good fit so it takes a lot of wiggling

the bogies are a push fit

Ok thanks, I'll give that a try