Jump to content
 

NZmodeller

Members
  • Posts

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NZmodeller

  1. 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
  2. NZmodeller

    Ask Dave

    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
  3. Hi Dave, If you did "Derby London Road" (1970s) would be a very compelling layout project. Peter
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Hi Bob has far more stuff than his site shows, best to ask him. Peter
  7. 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
  8. Hi Everyone, Anyone managed to put sound in one of these yet? Peter
  9. Hi Dave, Will you be doing dummies for 1970's WCML double headers? Peter
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Hi Justin, If you use a Lenz silver you will be able to adjust the lights to whatever level you need to. Peter
  16. Hi Everyone, The reality of economics governs the level of detail or specificity a manufacturer can offer. In theory it would be possible to deliver all the variations required and fix the percieved niggles or maybe even do a sound on board version. Perhaps those who make these demands should put together a business plan to deliver such models to the public, preferably at a price of less than a four figure sum per unit. Eagerly awaiting my blue one. Peter
  17. Hi Everyone, It's not necessary to interlock signals directly as this is not prototypical anyway, the signals operated on their own levers. If necessary you could rig a switch on the appropriate point to only supply power to the signal switch when it is set correctly thereby locking the signal. Also, as facing points required 2 levers to be pulled anyway (one for the locking) you could even incorporate the switch in the sequence of levers on your panel/frame (locking lever=power to the signal motor). Peter
  18. Hi Everyone, As they don't intend to proceed until there is sufficient commitment from buyers it could be quite a while. It's actually surprising there isn't a model of it already, it would be fascinating to watch and to hear too if anyone has an idea of how to represent how it sounded. Wrong scale/era/region for me and a completely bonkers design but a compelling subject - following with interest. Peter
  19. GIve the guy a break
  20. Hi Everyone, All mine have stayed in during normal operation but I did manage to flick one out as I was fitting it into a mk1. Trust me, they are 100 times as easy to refit as they are to find! Time for the 5 packs and a shorter version too, a short/long combination for close coupling would be the optimum and this would also minimise the "extended claw" look the current ones have. Peter
  21. Any chance you could give us a measurement of what the "right height" is in mm measured from the top of the rails and also the thickness of the megnets themswlves? Peter
  22. Hi Everyone, Real camembert is illusive in NZ so that's not an option - however... If one is very careful it is possible to slice through the sleepers on Peco code 55 rail using the bottom of the rails as a guide. Everything below rail level disappears and the central part of the sleepers remain, with chairs and very thin ties which can slide into the slot in the bottom of the rails. The resulting sleepers are between .5 and .7mm thick and if you are lucky, undamaged and perfectly spaced. There is a Utube on the Dapol facebook site of the magnets in operation on a layout with Peco setrack (rail height 4.1mm), as Peco code 55 is 3.2 mm high it would therefore follow that the magnets could be recessed with code 55 at least .9mm into the baseboard and still work perfectly well. At this point in time I have no idea how thick the magnets are but from the photos they appear to be about 2mm, Hopefiully this would be sufficient to accomodate the magnets and the sleeper wafers and still maintain the code 55 sleeper height of 1.7mm Petet
  23. Hi Everyone, It may be possible to excavate underneath sleeper level and then place the magnet at a lower level with some dummy sleepers and ballast on top. The magnets clearly work with code 80 rail so if you are on code 55 (or 40) you will have at least 25 thou to play with which may be sufficient to hide the magnet completely. I'm waiting for mine like everyone else but will be interested to know how low the magnet can be placed and still be effective. Peter
  24. Hi Everyone, Wellington New Zealand here modelling north of England 1970s N gauge DCC (with some "preserved" items) Peter
  25. NZmodeller

    Dapol HST

    Hi Everyone, Further to my last post regarding slowish running, I tried my 125 on the club layout on DC and it clocked over 150!, a change to a TCS decoder enabled comaparable running at home on DCC too therefore no operational problems here now, no complaints - well done Dapol. Peter
×
×
  • Create New...