NZmodeller

Hi Everyone, With Peco code 55 it is possible to slice the sleepers off flush with the bottom of the rail which leaves a "ladder" of sleepers about .5mm thick between the rails. Do this with a spare piece of track and make a jig to save your fingers. You then remove 7 or 8 sleepers from the track where you want the magnet to be (or 4 if you have cut it in half). it can be packed with styrene underneath to bring it to the same height as the bottom of the rails. The ladder can then be slotted into the grooves at the bottom of the rails and the track re-ballasted so the magnet is completely concealed. This works perfectly, however, any delayed uncoupling will be dependent on the approaches to the uncoupler being straight. On my layout none of the approaches are straight enough to allow reliable delayed coupling so I have abandoned it as part of normal operations. In place of this, I have just added more magnets and hidden them and this is more than satisfactory. Peter

Hi Dave, Can you shed any light on why, in the history of British N there has never been a rtr version of the 124 Trans-Pennine DMU?. I can imagine the cab end might be difficult to model and a 6 car set may need as many as 4 decoders. That apart, the units ran across the Eastern and Midland regions for 20 years, traversing 2 trans-Pennine routes which would make it a suitable item for more modellers than - well another 6 car DMU released in the last few years. Given that the units were based on the 64ft mk1 design, Farish may have the inside track for the model but this would be irrelevant if they never release one. Any thoughts? Would be an interesting sound project too, 8 engines, 1840hp. Peter

Hi Dave, If you did "Derby London Road" (1970s) would be a very compelling layout project. Peter

Hi All, Some may have interpreted my previous post as exhorting Dave to cater for sound but it was actually pointing out that those who want to do that will find a way and live with the compromises. They may decide to obscure the windows with a speaker for instance. I would suggest, Dave, that you go with your instincts here and if you can manage to see right through the cab windows that will be a major achievement. Haulage may be a problem though and every last mm3 will need to be occupied by tungsten to get the weight up to a workable level, especially if the locos need to pull "for 2" with a dummy. If you were considering traction tyres on the 23 then they may be a necessity on this loco to pull trains worthy of 1800hp. All the best with this, both the 17 and 23 will be in the don't need/wrong region/wrong era/must have category for me. If they are up to the standard of the magnificent Western, I can't wait. Peter

Hi Dave, Ironically, an empty cab will be more attractive to DCC sound advocates as it would be the most obvious place to fit a sugar cube. Another outside the square option may be to ditch the dummy range and just have all locos powered with 1 bogie drive. Lack of weight above the driving wheels may be an issue though. Uneven motors would only be an issue for those running in multiple and if the motors are particularly different. My class 20s run sufficiently evenly to put a good case against dummy locos but perhaps I have been lucky. Peter

Hi Bob has far more stuff than his site shows, best to ask him. Peter

Thanks Pete, I've been using John Guymer's sounds from You Choos with a CT SL76 in a 37, 46 and a 24 so far. The decoder isn't the issue though. I agree the cab is the best place for the speaker but I've been tempted to go the easy route and strip one loco to run as a dummy with the speaker in the void left by the motor. A speaker in each cab would be best (and really loud) but it would take some work to get a sugar cube in there so I was really interested to see if someone had managed it. 2 micro cubes might do it but the quality might not be that good. Peter

Hi Everyone, Anyone managed to put sound in one of these yet? Peter

Hi Dave, Will you be doing dummies for 1970's WCML double headers? Peter

Hi guys, There are factors that may impair the delayed action which have nothing to do with the magnet strength. Close coupled Farish Mk1s will couple and uncouple perfectly but will not go into the "opposed" position due to the spring in the close coupling mechanism. Also, your shunter, 03 , 08 or other is at the mercy of the track in how the chassis is aligned on it's approach to the magnet. If it comes off a bend it may not be straight enough to allow the coupling to open far enough. Another problem with shunting close coupled coaches on delayed action is that the centering spring in the coupling mechanism may cause derailments when pushing coaches over curves (points!). With this in mind I have experimented and moved my magnets to the effect that I have all but given up on delayed action (other than a gentle little push to get past the magnet). Although this is a shame the opportunity then arises to then mount the magnets lower and out of sight so it doesn't really matter how many you have and you can cover all your options and sidings. I haven't used rare earth magnets yet but they must be pretty easy to hide. Dapol magnets can be hidden in the following way. Note this is also an effective way of hiding the void if you remove a magnet for some reason. Take an offcut of code 55 rail slice off 8 sleepers level with the bottom of the rail, this leaves a .5mm thick "ladder" consisting of the centre section of the sleepers complete with the chairs and spacers. Remove the centre sections of 8 sleepers where you want the magnet to go on your layout and recess the magnet into the baseboard. Then slide the ladder in to place over the magnet with each side in the grooves in the bottom of the insides of the rails. You may not even even need to glue the magnet in. Re-ballast and weather down as necessary. I'm in the process of hiding my magnets now, so far I have not experienced any problems with reliability. Peter

Hi Everyone, Please ignore my comments about the short/short combination, further testing has shown that this combination will give a fully operational and satisfactory close coupling. Peter

Hi Jack Now that I have some short easi-shunt couplings I can share my experience. A combination of short/medium will work for GF MK1s but they will not couple as close as a combination of standard short/medium NEM couplings. You might have to fit the end doors on one of the coaches to bridge the gap (blu-tack them). A short;short combination looks great but the couplings are then under constant tension so will neither uncouple or couple automatically (pointless). Hope this helps Peter

Hi Jack, I have some short ones on order that I'm intending to use with GF coaches and I'm also running on 12 inch minimum radius. My guess is that it will be a combination of short/medium or short/short that will give a good close coupling, it just depends how short the short one is - and if there needs to be any modification of the buffer beam. I'm in New Zealand so you might get an answer from someone else before my couplings arrive. If not I'll let you know when I get them. Peter

I wonder how reliable this exercise is going to be with the (almost mandatory) double header. (for the record I'm currently sitting behind a Genesis P42DC 4250hp en route from Toronto to Ottawa, nice service but a slightly rough ride. I'm glad I'm wearing coffee coloured pants!) Peter

Hi Justin, If you use a Lenz silver you will be able to adjust the lights to whatever level you need to. Peter