Updating 'Nellie'

[melmerby]

There's also the steeple cab electric that used the same chassis (just in front of the ships).

Didn't some of those non steam-outline locos have the motor bogie from the diesel/electric locos under them?

 

Keith

 

EDIT Answered my own question with this:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=riang+R253+black+0-4-0+Dock+Authority+Shunter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=x4sYWOfIJqWF8Qek94DQAw

Edited November 1, 2016 by melmerby

[melmerby]

 The motor is salvage from a commuter disk drive, I don't know what voltage it is? It gets a bit frantic at the right hand end of the control knob.

 

The motor could be rated as low as 3 volts, depending exactly what it was for.

 

Keith

[Il Grifone]

Agreed, but it is also true that Triang locos were regarded as "hack-and-bash" fodder right from the outset.

 

From the RM January 1961, announcing Nellie: "...... an almost certain candidate for modifications by branch line, industrial, and light railway modellers." (They also said it was based on a B4 tank!).

 

Even at junior school age, self and pals knew that the locos were poor representations, and I think I first took a hacksaw to a Jinty when I was about nine years old ........ it was a jumble-sale bargain, and the result was doubtless truly horrifying, but my point is that if a nine year old knew it was a dodgy model, then an adult modeller wouldn't be interested in it at all.

 

The M7? Even the RM review of it when it was released came pretty close to calling it terrible; damned by faint praise is, I think, the phrase.

 

My reading is that Triang's offerings were under-shooting what the market really wanted as early as, say, 1965.

 

Kevin

 

Tri-ang's first offering (the ex Rovex Princess) was rather horrible, but then they gradually improved (ignoring the truly awful diesel shunter), only to slip back with their Hall, M7, etc. in the mid/late sixties. (They had successfully broken their competition by then - the first sign being a general increase in price, followed by a cra inferior product,)

[Il Grifone]

Didn't some of those non steam-outline locos have the motor bogie from the diesel/electric locos under them?

 

Keith

 

EDIT Answered my own question with this:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=riang+R253+black+0-4-0+Dock+Authority+Shunter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=x4sYWOfIJqWF8Qek94DQAw

 

These are almost as cute as Nellie and I suspect will go even faster.

Nellie is based on an LSWR C14 and there was a slightly larger S14. Being inadequate for their intended task, most were unloaded onto the government during WW I.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSWR_C14_class

 

Incidentally the K's model referred to earlier represents an autocoach rebuilt from a steam railmotor, though here the 'works' was concealed within the bodywork and used a vertical boiler mounted on a 'motor bogie' with outside cylinders and Walschaerts valve gear.

 

Talking of 'toy' trains, Hornby's ubiquitous GWR 101 should have Joy valve gear (good luck modelling that...). Otherwise it's not too bad a model. I have a feeling that dating from 1905 (as modelled) she should have Indian red frames and full lining (about the only livery Hornby haven't dressed her in...) Photos indicate that she bore no sign of ownership - as a Swindon shunter, she would have had no need of it.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Il Grifone

[kevinlms]

 

Talking of 'toy' trains, Hornby's ubiquitous GWR 101 should have Joy valve gear (good luck modelling that...). Otherwise it's not too bad a model. I have a feeling that dating from 1905 (as modelled) she should have Indian red frames and full lining (about the only livery Hornby haven't dressed her in...) Photos indicate that she bore no sign of ownership - as a Swindon shunter, she would have had no need of it.

Why, any visitors seeing her might have thought they were at Darlington Works or somewhere!

[BG John]

Photos indicate that she bore no sign of ownership - as a Swindon shunter, she would have had no need of it.

Tank engines didn't, until the 1906 livery came in. I've got three bodies, so it's tempting to use one for building a proper No 101.

[Edwardian]

If anyone finds themselves with a spare Nellie body, or a 'dead' Nellie, do let me know; I have a strange aversion to hacking up a 'live' example, and I won't touch my childhood one!

[Graham456]

If anyone finds themselves with a spare Nellie body, or a 'dead' Nellie, do let me know; I have a strange aversion to hacking up a 'live' example, and I won't touch my childhood one!

You will be lucky! Like Captain Scarlet there indestructible and even if ailing you don't need six million dollars to rebuild them

But do show what you get up to .....but your not getting your hands on any of mine....butcher!

[Il Grifone]

Why, any visitors seeing her might have thought they were at Darlington Works or somewhere!

 

The superiority of the locomotive stock would have left no doubt as to location!  

[Compound2632]

The superiority of the locomotive stock would have left no doubt as to location!  

 

Had they been at Darlington, that is...

[Corbs]

Talking of 'toy' trains, Hornby's ubiquitous GWR 101 should have Joy valve gear (good luck modelling that...). Otherwise it's not too bad a model. I have a feeling that dating from 1905 (as modelled) she should have Indian red frames and full lining (about the only livery Hornby haven't dressed her in...) Photos indicate that she bore no sign of ownership - as a Swindon shunter, she would have had no need of it.

 

I knew I had seen this before!

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/67420-Hornby-class-101-tank-engine-is-real/

[Il Grifone]

Very useful link! The photo* confirms the red framing and wheels (at least when rebuilt). The toolbox on the tank is a necessary addition - K's used to do a casting for this, but I've used all mine. It's not too difficult to make however. She also lacks the copper cap to the chimney that Hornby have adorned their model with.

 

She usually credited to James Holden as designer, but he had left for the GER in 1885. Probably this just refers to the firebox?

 

* It appears in Russell's 'bible' but is much less distinct.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Il Grifone

[Il Grifone]

Had they been at Darlington, that is...

 

I don't think Gresley shared your opinion....  

[relaxinghobby]

Inspired by this forum thread I've gotten 'round to fitting pick-ups to this chassis. I'd got as far as fiting

a piece of paxolin to the underside. I've now fitted bent wire pick-ups using 0.5 mm phosphor bronze wire. Probably from Eileen's emporium.

 

Good news, the chassis runs. Although all the control is in the first 1/5 th  of a turn of the control knob.

I can now repair and fit the body, which is a blue one. Would that be a Nellie or Poly, the name has worn off.

 

More repairs to the plastic body shell are needed. Things like some steps have broken off and I have tried to make the windows at the front into the round ones. The chassis is a little modified, so I will have to invent a new way to the body to it.

 

Is there a way to fit a resistor to the motor, maybe in series to reduce the voltage to the motor so it is more controllable on my little shunting layout. Don't mention DCC I can't afford to add that to all my locos.

 

Edited November 13, 2016 by relaxinghobby

[BernardTPM]

The blue body has had two names starting with Nellie in 1961, then changing to Connie in 1962 before reverting to Nellie again. Connie became the yellow one (though it returned in 1972 in blue) and Polly was red. The names were on self-adhesive paper.

[jcm@gwr]

I know you don't want to go down the DCC route,

but, if you fit a standard chip, it will make it more

controllable on DC. you don't have to go full DCC

to take advantage of the benefits!

[relaxinghobby]

Thanks  for the  comment icm@gwr, can you recommend a chip that would co this?

 

I was thinking of adding a potential divider using resisters as in one of the diagrams.....

 

 

 

Thanks BernardTPM for the naming info'.

So I can add any name I like using a sticker?

Edited November 14, 2016 by relaxinghobby

[jcm@gwr]

Everyone has their own favourites to use,

I would suggest any well known make that

specialise in DCC chips only, and choose

a small one!

Chip manufacturers that have a good reputation are:-

ESU

TCS

DCC Concepts

Lenz

Zemo

Digitrax

etc.

It would be worth chatting to your nearest

DCC specialist as to the best one to suit

the motor.

[Nearholmer]

Gents

 

I'm a bit confused by the claim that it is necessary to go DCC to achieve controllability.

 

As far as I'm aware, a DCC chip contains a PWM motor controller, remotely controlled by the encoded DCC signal.

 

An ordinary DC track-feed PWM motor controller will achieve exactly the same controllability.

 

Where DCC might score over DC, is in terms of mildly grubby track, and resultant poor continuity, but that isn't quite the same thing.

 

Are you using a PWN controller, Relaxing, or an old-style rheostat? If that latter, you really will struggle to get the results you want from a basic three pole motor, with too-high gearing, which is what Nellies have.

 

Regarding putting resistance in series with the motor, or as a potential divider, I wouldn't expect that to make a huge difference to controllability. It will move the "set point", the place on the controller dial where the action starts, but not much else, I think.

 

A resistor in parallel with the motor won't achieve the result, and please don't feed it with AC as in your diagram 2, because you will kill the permanent magnet (but, I'm guessing that a slip of the pen!).

 

In't old days, people used to float a second, free-running, motor across the working one, which can help if using a rheostat controller, but achieves nothing useful with a PWM controller.

 

I use a good PWM controller to run my 0 gauge, and achieve very good controllability of permanent magnet three-pole motors that are equally as old as the X04 design, and have quite huge air-gaps. Some of them growl a bit, but I always know that "sticky starting" can be traced to mechanical issues, not motors (unless the magnet has died).

 

Kevin

Edited November 14, 2016 by Nearholmer

[Il Grifone]

Resistance in series with a motor is a recipe for disaster as regards slow running*. It you must, add a cheap resistive controller in series with the track wiring and fine tune with that - one controller will serve for the entire stock.

 

Really the solution is a decent controller. I use an ancient H & M Powermaster (a variable transformer with 'Vari-wave' half wave rectification). This will tame anything!

Modern electronic equivalents will work just as well. I have a couple of feedback PWM units, which give good results. Unfortunately some motors are allergic to PWM and run hot after a while, so close attention is necessary.

A Tri-ang X-04 is almost indestructible so there shouldn't be a problem with Nellie. Renaming isn't a problem - I saw someone on eBay once, offering replacement names or you could use an etched plate from one of the various suppliers.

Found these

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TRIANG-Hornby-R255-R355-R455-0-4-0T-NELLIE-CONNIE-POLLY-REFURB-SET-LHP-HD222-/160769856220?hash=item256ea152dc:g:BM0AAOxyDLZR-lnB

 

Making the front spectacle plate windows round is a bit tricky, as the sides aren't parallel (for moulding reasons). I would make a paper pattern of the hole and cut two blanks - one of clear plastic and one of white (the latter from a sheet drilled with a hole of the window diameter and then stick them into the spectacle plate - repeat for the other window.

Two rings made of brass wire then make the frames to complete the job.

 

*The theory behind this is fascinating to me as an Electrical Engineer and I will attempt to explain if requested, but I have to concede that others might find it extremely boring!

Edited November 14, 2016 by Il Grifone

[Nearholmer]

Test results.

 

c1971 Nellie, barely used, stored since about 1975.this was the first time the body had ever been off!

 

Checked over, very light lubrication with modern synthetic oil.

 

Controller was a Gaugemaster 20V output (actually it delivers 18V) PWM.

 

Loco ran at an absolute crawl at 2V mean output; very controllable over a range up to 8V mean output, beyond which I didn't want to go, because it was faster than any sensible operating speed. Current drawn was below 500mA throughout.

 

In short, highly controllable, but needed a delicate touch on the control-knob, because it is so high-geared. Of course, if it had been a 12V PWM controller, the angle of adjustment from 2V to 8V would have been greater, but the 12V controller is buried at the back of a cupboard!

 

People might query using an 18/20V PWM controller for a 12V motor, because each pulse is 18/20V peak. My view is that any insulation that breaks down at that voltage needs attention anyway, and (fingers crossed) I've never had it happen. The relatively high peak voltage probably helps overcome any stickiness, and IIRC, is what DCC uses anyway.

 

This has almost convinced me to build a Nelliebahn; I don't have a piano, but I do rather like that track-plan.

 

And, Grifone, I would enjoy your explanation, because, to be frank, While I agree that rheostatic control is pretty hopeless with these tiny PM motors, I don't think that sticking a fixed resistance in circuit when using a PWM Controller will do any harm to controllability (or any good).

 

Kevin

Edited November 14, 2016 by Nearholmer

[BG John]

This has almost convinced me to build a Nelliebahn; I don't have a piano, but I do rather like that track-plan.

My Nellie chassis may well end up under an O-16.5 loco on my planned piano line, but at 9ft x 2ft it won't fit on a real piano!

[Poor Old Bruce]

I know you don't want to go down the DCC route, but, if you fit a standard chip, it will make it more controllable on DC. you don't have to go full DCC to take advantage of the benefits!

 

My experience with chipped locos on DC is that they tend to take more voltage to get started but them they run away to the sort of speed they would have achieved without the chip. That makes them more dificult to control. Different chips may give different results.

[relaxinghobby]

 

Nellie couplings.

 

Smaller wheels means the buffers are lowered to the correct height, but by the same process the coupling lands are too low. So I'm having to grind them away to get the couplings back to the correct height. The original screw holes can be used.

 

 

 

This is a similar process of bodging surgery and mangling that my original childhood Nellie was subject to. The chassis ended up under another body as a 2-4-0t and the body got chopped down even smaller. I wonder if I've still got it?

 

P 183b 186a

[Il Grifone]

omis

 

And, Grifone, I would enjoy your explanation, because, to be frank, While I agree that rheostatic control is pretty hopeless with these tiny PM motors, I don't think that sticking a fixed resistance in circuit when using a PWM Controller will do any harm to controllability (or any good).

 

Kevin

 

Hi Kevin,

 

It won't make any if the PWM controller is a feedback device, which would correct for it at least in part. (It is possible with these to overcorrect and make the motor increase speed with increasing load - positive feedback is not a good idea!)

,

I'll try and keep it simple, so I'll ignore AC effects involving inductance and capacitance and pedantry like 'angular velocity' rather than 'speed'.

Basically (and simplifying) an electric motor's speed is proportional to applied voltage and the current drawn depends on the loading. Let's take a typical power supply, which consists of a (hypothetical) perfect voltage source, which holds the same voltage irrespective of current drawn, in series with the internal resistance (normally the winding resistance of the transformer) and to this must be added the resistance of the wiring to the motor. The result of this resistance is to reduce the voltage applied to the motor and slow it down in the case of increased load and vice versa in the case of decreased load. A simple resistance controller adds a variable resistance into the circuit to vary the speed.

The superiority of the variable transformer over the resistance type is that the series resistance is very low so the motor speed variations are also low in the former whereas, above all at low speed when precise control is needed, the series resistance is high and cause large speed variations in the latter.

A decent electronic controller can provide almost the pure DC at low source resistance necessary for coreless motors, but the normal iron cored type are more reluctant to start than these and usually benefit from a rougher supply - half wave (or part half wave - Vari-Wave) or a PWM supply which gives a square wave output of varying duty cycle. These pulses are 'ironed out' by the flywheel effect of the motor to give smooth motion.

Any extra resistance in the circuit will still cause speed variations, because the voltage across the motor will still reduce. It doesn't matter whether the voltage is continuous or pulsed.

However it is possible to 'supercharge' a PWM supply thanks to the phenomenon of 'back EMF' (to cut a long story short the voltage generated by the dynamo effect of the motor and again proportional to speed). During the off cycles of the supply this EMF can be sampled and used to regulate the supply. The art being to get the right amount - too little doesn't work and too much causes the motor to accelerate rapidly to full speed (cf the 'howl round' of a microphone, amplifier, speaker combination).

 

I hope that's clear (condensed from hours of lectures*....), but I'll try and answer any queries.

 

* For example, transformers don't just have series resistance, but all sorts of magnetic and reactive effects, for which a text book is necessary....

 

David

Edited November 15, 2016 by Il Grifone