NZmodeller
-
Posts
94 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by NZmodeller
-
-
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 Crepello,
Yes I am, both flat glazed and curved glazed cabs.
Whether I would want to though is another question.
Certainly at this stage I have the next tranche of models to be announced in July, so I'm not saying much at this stage.
Cheers
Dave
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
-
Just curious but who is the source of spare Warship wheelsets - or for that matter, wheelsets for any of the more recent Farish diesels (e.g. 24, 37)? I haven't noticed them offered by Bob Russell at BR Lines. Perhaps Peter's Spares?
Thanks,
Matt
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
-
2
-
-
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
-
2
-
-
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
-
2
-
-
Dave, for it's next trick, program the "Kadee Shuffle" into the Zimo and a single function key press will perform the backup and pull forwards to uncouple move for the Dapol couplings.
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
-
I bought one of the blue Cl.20s at TINGS, and can only agree with everyone else that it is a fantastic model, but that the lights are certainly too bright (whether or not the colours are accurate).
As I'll be fitting it with a DCC decoder (when funds allow) I was wondering whether there are any 6-pin decoders that can sufficiently dim the brightness of built-in LEDs? The Bachmann discount decoders, and the cheap Digitrax DZ125 ones I've used so far don't seem to have this ability, but I have a feeling the CT electronik one I put in a Class 03 claimed to (but that loco doesn't have lights, so haven't had the chance to try it!).
Or would it be a case of soldering on an extra resistor somewhere on the PCB?
Justin
Hi Justin,
If you use a Lenz silver you will be able to adjust the lights to whatever level you need to.
Peter
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
GIve the guy a break
-
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
-
Got a pair of couplings and the magnets this morning. The couplings themselves are excellent, but I echo the calls for shorter versions. My main concern today has been with the magnets and the positioning of them. Bare in mind I have been using Kato Unitrack and those using Peco may not encounter the following issues.
If the magnets are placed flush with the top of the rails, they have a tendency to pull the coupling's trip pin down so that they scrape along the surface of the magnet. They do work as intended in this position, but it doesn't help smooth running.
However, if you lower the magnets so that the trip pin cannot reach them, this risks the magnets not being strong enough to allow the "easy-shunt" technique. They will uncouple, but the couplers aren't pushed far enough wide so that they overlap.
Hence today I have been very carefully positioning the magnets so that they are just the right height. Very fiddly, but once completed I have found their operation to be flawless.
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
-
I may have found a use for those little wooden tubs that Camenbert is sold in. I've not put a gauge on it, but the wood is pretty thin, and might well end up as fake sleeper segments on the top of an uncoupling magnet.
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
-
Hey
A brilliant and exciting development indeed! I'm very happy to hear there will be a 5 pack at a better rate. (is there a market for a 10 or 20 pack at an even better rate???? )
My only quarrel will be the position of the magnet. No way am I going to go to such length to get realism in my scene to lump a magnet in between the rails. I couldn't really hide it as a barrow crossing or the like as i'd need one beside my platform, and it would be just silly.
I understand the underboard solution not viable with this product (my foam board is over an inch thick so I wouldn't even consider!) but what about just under the track? surely the 2 or 3mm depth wouldn't render the magnet useless????
In all other aspects, this product is sound, but I fear I'll have to wait and see it applied before I take the dive!
Well done Dapol for getting this to market first!!
Regards
Lee
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
-
Hi Everyone,
Wellington New Zealand here modelling north of England 1970s N gauge DCC (with some "preserved" items)
Peter
-
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
Dapol Easi-shunt magnetic couplings in N
in Dapol
Posted
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