RMweb Premium 2996 Victor Posted January 31, 2020 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 31, 2020 On 29/01/2020 at 15:50, Nearholmer said: My favoured dirt-remover for old printed-tin is baby wipes, specifically non-scented, non-allergenic ones that I got in Waitrose. They lift dirt very effectively (good job, really!) and seem not to leave any grease/film behind, although I suspect they contain a smidgin of lanolin or synthetic equivalent. Mr Sheen, Pledge etc etc, are A Bad Idea IMO, because although they make things nice and shiny in the short term, there is a tendency for things polished with them to go very slightly sticky over time and actually accumulate dust. I think they leave behind a very thin layer of synthetic wax. What is interesting is how dirty some old tin things that look reasonably clean on first inspection actually are - pub ceiling affect. On 29/01/2020 at 18:12, Nearholmer said: In an idle moment, I googled the contents of those baby wipes: INGREDIENTS: aqua, Glycerin, Cocamidopropyl PG-Dimonium Chloride Phosphate, Sodium Benzoate, Citric Acid, Sodium Citrate, Polyquaternium-7, Sodium Chloride, Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice, Tetrasodium EDTA, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Flower Extract, Potassium Sorbate. Mostly water, a bit of sugar, some preservatives, an anti- foaming agent, and aloe and chamomile to be nice to baby’s bum. To paraphrase: Because your trains are worth it. In theory, A bit of damp kitchen towel might do almost as well, but these things do work significantly better than that. Hi @Nearholmer, many thanks for the cleaning tips - despite the other suggestions above I haven't tried anything yet! It sounds like a good old-fashioned sugar soap might do as well, but wouldn't smell as nice as even "unfragranced" baby wipes! I'll give them a go when I get round to cleaning my acquisitions. All the best, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2996 Victor Posted January 31, 2020 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 31, 2020 22 hours ago, Il Grifone said: I had forgotten this which has been doing the rounds for ages: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DIECAST-METAL-PANNIER-TANK-SOLD-AS-A-RESTORATION-PROJECT-SCROLL-DOWN-4-PHOTOS/151458812874?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 Note the wire wound around the chimney and the "staple" across the front of the tanks to keep it together - restoration project is about right! How were the halves originally joined? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2996 Victor Posted January 31, 2020 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, Nearholmer said: A slight diversion, which i trust that the OP, who appears loyal to three-rail, will forgive: Compatibility of HD 'nylon' two-rail wheels with current production (being made and sold today, typically Unifrog) Peco Code 100 points; discuss. I'm more than happy to discuss anything HD-related! Although my rolling stock preference is tinplate/lithograph and I'll most probably stay three-rail, its all interesting to me as it's a subject I'm new to. Just to muddy the waters slightly, although my planned small layout is most likely to be three-rail I'm considering using PECO track, suitably modifed, to hopefully make things more reliable..... Incidentally, I stood one of my recent three-rail acquisitions on a length of Code 75 EM gauge track (the wheel treads are wide enough that it didn't drop in between the rails!), and the HD wheels seemed happy enough running along it without bumping on the moulded chairs even when moved across so that the wheel flanges were against the rail head on one side. All the best, Mark Edited January 31, 2020 by 2996 Victor 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 There is a dark rumour that the latest Peco points have ever-so-slightly-narrower-than-previously check-rail clearances, and that they may no longer accept Dublo plastic wheels, which is the rumour that I would like to hear denied (ideally) or confirmed (better to know). I'm part way through building a small 00 layout using these new points, and would dearly love to acquire a few Dublo 2-rail things to run on it. But, I wont if they won't run on it! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D51 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 23 hours ago, Il Grifone said: I had forgotten this which has been doing the rounds for ages: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DIECAST-METAL-PANNIER-TANK-SOLD-AS-A-RESTORATION-PROJECT-SCROLL-DOWN-4-PHOTOS/151458812874?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 Note the wire wound around the chimney and the "staple" across the front of the tanks to keep it together - restoration project is about right! How were the halves originally joined? This "object" has been on sale, as Il Grifone says, for about 3 years. It looks like a Gaiety pannier but is quite different from the Gaiety I have. This one seems to be made from two halves, probably joined by steel pins, plus a separate front casting. The detail on the casting is different, for example the main handrail is longer than on mine, and the casting is not so crisp. The Gaiety pannier is usually a one-piece casting. The detail of the model (size of safety valve, shape of pannier etc.) may not be quite right but the casting is very well made as are all the 1950s products of J V Murcott. Incidentally the firm of JVM, who made items for Gaiety, KMR and Hamblings among others, moved last year from Tamworth to Worcester. Frank 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) The Gaiety body has holes in the centre of the buffer beams, originally intended for the weird Gaiety coupling (rather like the hook of a Tri-ang Mk II mounted upside down. The chassis has presumably been drilled and tapped to take this screw and the back of the bunker has two holes to accept the 'prongs' on the back of the Tri-ang chassis. Unless a beefy file and/or saw has been taken to the chassis to chop off chunks of metal, the body will sit high on the chassis. The grey wagon would perhaps have been a better choice for Dublo. The drum supports could have done a similar job for the tractor and it could have been held down by cord through the holes in the floor. Probably there were plenty of the bauxite version in the Binns Road stores. I've just acquired a tractor and it will probably travel like this as I have plenty of the grey version less drums. The 4MT is pretty quirk free. The magnetic shunt is best wound out IMHO. She does have rather a large gap between herself and her train thanks to the long couplings. Unusually for Dublo her driving wheels are the right size and have correct bevelled tyres and spokes. unfortunately her bogie and pony wheels are the usual undersized horror necessary to swing far enough on the sharp curves. Her fully functional valve gear is set in reverse, but at least the return cranks are correctly set. Neither Hornby nor Bachmann seem capable of doing this. Edited January 31, 2020 by Il Grifone 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, 2996 Victor said: Note the wire wound around the chimney and the "staple" across the front of the tanks to keep it together - restoration project is about right! How were the halves originally joined? The two halves plug together. The original joint is probably fragile and non-repairable. Probable nothing that Araldite and reinforcement wouldn't fix but not really worthwhile. I'd have to dig mine out to look, but I'm at the airport at the moment, escaping from Brexit to the EU.... Edited January 31, 2020 by Il Grifone 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 4 hours ago, Nearholmer said: There is a dark rumour that the latest Peco points have ever-so-slightly-narrower-than-previously check-rail clearances, and that they may no longer accept Dublo plastic wheels, which is the rumour that I would like to hear denied (ideally) or confirmed (better to know). I'm part way through building a small 00 layout using these new points, and would dearly love to acquire a few Dublo 2-rail things to run on it. But, I wont if they won't run on it! I have measured Dublo nylon wheels with a back to back of 14mm. Now it may be my measurement that was faulty, but 14mm would be no problem for Dublo track but would be for scale. The wheels can always be replaced of course (mineral and open wagons might be a problem though). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) Thanks Grifone, When you say ‘I have measured’, do you mean that is the typical value, or an atypically low value, found only on odd ones? And, if the latter, what is the usual value, 14.2mm? In the mean time, I will measure the points. Results, across a sample of six Peco Code 100 points bought new in the past month, four being the latest Unifrog, one a presumably NOS older-style live frog, and the other a dead frog: dimension measured across check and wing rail adjacent the nose of the crossing ranges from 13.65 to 13.85mm, the new unifrog all being 13.76mm or above. Provided that the flange thickness at the root doesn't exceed (16.5-13.9)/2 = 1.3mm, then even at 14mm b-t-b the wheel-sets should ride through. The only drawing of the wheel profile that i can find in 'Foster's Bible', shows allowable b-t-b of 14.18 - 14.3mm (converting from decimal inches), and a flange thickness of 0.762mm (untoleranced) at the tip, but that is for the older metal wheels, which have a quite large-radius curve at the flange root. Edited January 31, 2020 by Nearholmer 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCW Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) On 01/02/2020 at 01:13, 2996 Victor said: I'm more than happy to discuss anything HD-related! Although my rolling stock preference is tinplate/lithograph and I'll most probably stay three-rail, its all interesting to me as it's a subject I'm new to. Just to muddy the waters slightly, although my planned small layout is most likely to be three-rail I'm considering using PECO track, suitably modifed, to hopefully make things more reliable..... Hello Victor Welcome to the (addictive) world of Hornby Dublo - whether collecting, modifying, restoring, running or just playing trains. I have a modest collection - accumulation really - of Hornby Dublo 3-rail, dating from my childhood in the 1950s, which I've added to over the years. But a couple of years ago, inspired by many of the contributors on this thread, I became more involved in repair, restoration and modest modification. To illustrate, I had about 8 or 9 locomotives two years ago. The number is now closer to 50, though I have rarely paid over 50 pounds for any of them, and often very much less. A couple of comments on the matters raised on this thread. Running Quality I have found controllability of Hornby Dublo engines to be quite acceptable, provided that: (1) the locomotive is in good mechanical condition (adequate magnetic force; bearings in reasonable condition and lubricated; axles and running gear clean and oiled; slight end-float on the armature; (important) commutator slots cleaned of carbon build up; and brushes clean where they bear on the commutator (no fluff or that grunge made up of graphite, grease and household dirt). Re the bearings, make sure that the tiny steel ball thrust bearing is in situ at each end of the armature. (2) you use a quality modern controller with plenty of amps available, The original Dublo resistance controllers are nice period pieces but won't give as smooth running as modern electronic controllers, and might even be dangerous if rubber insulated cords on units with integral transformers have degraded. I use a U.S. made controller I bought when living in the States in the 1980s. It was a state of the art "transistorised" controller at the time, with momentum and braking features which I don't use, but is rated for 2.5 amps. Track I have found (with one exception noted below) that Hornby Dublo three-rail engines and stock run well on older Peco Code 100 "Universal" track, which is readily and cheaply available second-hand. (They may run well through modern Code 100 Peco Streamline. I simply haven't any on hand to run a trial.) With the exception of the flat tread on Dublo wheels (no coning) they were fine scale for the time, They may well have been to the old BRMSB standard but I stand to be corrected. I have made a test track out of Peco Code 100 and a couple of old points (one electrofrog and one insulfrog), using lengths of Code 100 track for the third rail. The third rail on the plain track is simply soldered to copper-clad sleepers inserted at intervals to replace the plastic sleepers. The third rail in the turnouts is soldered to miniature stationery staples inserted in holes pre-drilled in the sleepers - a bit of a faff but once into the swing of things it all went together well. One complication is that the housing for the over-centre locking spring for the point blades sits high on these old Peco points. I ground off sufficient of the underside of the third rail to clear the housing. Almost all my locomotives ran well through the points but two or three were a fraction of a millimetre on the tight side and just scraped either the wing or check rails. They went through but with very slight hesitation. A quick check with my NMRA standards gage (sic) showed that these wheelsets, which were on early 1950s engines, were fractionally tight in gauge, probably within Hornby Dublo standards of the time but narrow in gauge by the standards (such as they are) of more recent "00" stock. A careful bang on the axle ends with a spring loaded centre punch and all was well. My view is that a simple layout, using Peco Code 100 Universal track, with a third rail added as above, would be a very viable option. Have you seen Garry Hall's layout? He ran a lot of restored and modified Hornby Dublo on Peco and Hornby Track before switching to TT. A link is below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzUuFUyZFec&t=254s Finally, there is a lot of useful material on Hornby Dublo repair and modification on two other RMWeb threads in the Collectable/Vintage section: Hornby Dublo and Playing With Hornby Dublo Again. You can sit up and happily "binge" for a couple of hours - as I confess I once did. Best of luck Mike Edited February 1, 2020 by MikeCW Grammar. Clarification. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 First welcome to the independent state of the (dis)United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I fled Brexit yesterday and am currently in Sardinia (and buried in kittens, which makes typing difficult). Can I apologise to the rest of the world for the embarrassing display of certain of my countrypersons in the European Parliament. The 'normal' B2B for Dublo wheels is 14.2 which was adopted by Tri-ang/Hornby and continued up to about the turn of the century, when (by now) Hornby released their scale metal at the bargain price of just under £3 for 10 wheelsets. These were to BRMSB standards - 2.5mm thick of which 0.5mm was flange. I can't speak for the B2B as I never measured it because I converted them to EM which I still had the intention of building a layout.* I have measured odd Dublo metal wheelsets and found a rather alarming variation from below 14mm to around 14.5mm. The slack in Dublo track standards takes these in its stride but scale track needs better precision. The nylon wheels also vary (different moulds? material?). Rolling stock wheels vary from pre-war - c.1950/1951? zinc alloy (pre-war very prone to 'pest'), followed by the square section sintered iron horrors and then (1958) by the nylon ones. The driving wheels are all the same apart from thinner splined sections on the axles (1954) and nickel plating (2 rail period 1959 on). Dublo standards date from 1938 (probably planned somewhat earlier) but that was the release date for the system) and predate BRMSB by 3 years. Dublo wheels set correctly to the standard will run on BRMSB track (though the 14mm check span is a bit tight - why Peco Streamline has rather large flangeways) as the all important check gauge is the same at 15mm. As regards gage/gauge, reading the NMRA specifications, I note than they can't make their mind up on this and use both. I suppose it depends on who wrote the page in question. *The room available was just too small for the 4' 6" (5 chain) curves I had in mind and I thought,"How about an interim 'Inglenook' shunting layout' in Dublo 3 rail? This forms the goods yards of the 'Topsy effect' layout seen here: 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 Well, I was able to conduct a practical test this morning. The two test pieces, an R1 tank engine and a shortie suburban coach, both late production 2-rail, swanned through the current-production Peco points beautifully. I think this seals the destiny of the little layout that I’m building - bring on the Dublo! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Retro Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 The internet (aka echo chamber of misinformation) as quoted by my dad says you shouldn't use baby wipes on (insert long list of things, including leather car seats (?)) as they are "very alkaline" to combat the acidity of urine... I can't vouch for other brands, but a strip of litmus paper shows Tesco fragrance free wipes to be somewhere beteen ph 5.5 and 6, so slightly acidic, and matching what all those fancy soap adverts used to say matched human skin. I've been using them for years decades on all sorts of things, and none of them has exploded/died/oxidised away to nothing A few pages back (?) the question of what height the centre rail should be came up ... probably a bit late but today I had the chance to use a try square on a lot of 50s track - depending on the state of wear and how much the tract had been abused in the past, height varied between exactly the same as the outer rails, up to 0.0020" lower, so I suspect it's meant to be the same height. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2996 Victor Posted February 1, 2020 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 1, 2020 Many, many thanks to @Nearholmer and @Il Grifone for the PECO track notes above - vital information for anyone, me included, thinking of using PECO rail for our planned HD layouts, in my case by converting it to 3-rail, of course. I must admit that I have no idea what PECO's "Unifrog" points are! As far I'm concerned, simplicity is king and for 3-rail a dead frog point is perfect! All the best, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sagaguy Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 hour ago, Jonny Retro said: The internet (aka echo chamber of misinformation) as quoted by my dad says you shouldn't use baby wipes on (insert long list of things, including leather car seats (?)) as they are "very alkaline" to combat the acidity of urine... I can't vouch for other brands, but a strip of litmus paper shows Tesco fragrance free wipes to be somewhere beteen ph 5.5 and 6, so slightly acidic, and matching what all those fancy soap adverts used to say matched human skin. I've been using them for years decades on all sorts of things, and none of them has exploded/died/oxidised away to nothing A few pages back (?) the question of what height the centre rail should be came up ... probably a bit late but today I had the chance to use a try square on a lot of 50s track - depending on the state of wear and how much the tract had been abused in the past, height varied between exactly the same as the outer rails, up to 0.0020" lower, so I suspect it's meant to be the same height. Yes,all level. Ray. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2996 Victor Posted February 1, 2020 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 hour ago, Jonny Retro said: The internet (aka echo chamber of misinformation) as quoted by my dad says you shouldn't use baby wipes on (insert long list of things, including leather car seats (?)) as they are "very alkaline" to combat the acidity of urine... I can't vouch for other brands, but a strip of litmus paper shows Tesco fragrance free wipes to be somewhere beteen ph 5.5 and 6, so slightly acidic, and matching what all those fancy soap adverts used to say matched human skin. I've been using them for years decades on all sorts of things, and none of them has exploded/died/oxidised away to nothing A few pages back (?) the question of what height the centre rail should be came up ... probably a bit late but today I had the chance to use a try square on a lot of 50s track - depending on the state of wear and how much the tract had been abused in the past, height varied between exactly the same as the outer rails, up to 0.0020" lower, so I suspect it's meant to be the same height. Hi @Jonny Retro, many thanks for taking the time to check the height of the central rail relative to the outer rails. As you may have gathered, I'm considering using modern 2-rail track suitably modified with a central third rail for my HD 3-rail layout, hence my question. Thanks also for the additional info on the use of baby wipes - I think I'll probably use some mild detergent but I might try wipes on a derelict wagon and see how effective they are! All the best, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 Victor Peco increasingly don't make dead or live frog points, they make 'unifrog', which have a nickel silver crossing (=frog), which is isolated by tiny bits of plastic from the adjacent rails. As they come, they are dead frog, but by adding switching and wiring to the little dropper wire fitted to the crossing assembly, they become live frog. They incorporate other features designed to help DCC users, which probably isn't many Dublo fans. They seem nicely made, except for the tack-soldering of the dropper wire to the crossing, which is awfully fragile. Kevin 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2996 Victor Posted February 1, 2020 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 1, 2020 21 hours ago, MikeCW said: Hello Victor Welcome to the (addictive) world of Hornby Dublo - whether collecting, modifying, restoring, running or just playing trains. I have a modest collection - accumulation really - of Hornby Dublo 3-rail, dating from my childhood in the 1950s, which I've added to over the years. But a couple of years ago, inspired by many of the contributors on this thread, I became more involved in repair, restoration and modest modification. To illustrate, I had about 8 or 9 locomotives two years ago. The number is now closer to 50, though I have rarely paid over 50 pounds for any of them, and often very much less. A couple of comments on the matters raised on this thread. Running Quality I have found controllability of Hornby Dublo engines to be quite acceptable, provided that: (1) the locomotive is in good mechanical condition (adequate magnetic force; bearings in reasonable condition and lubricated; axles and running gear clean and oiled; slight end-float on the armature; (important) commutator slots cleaned of carbon build up; and brushes clean where they bear on the commutator (no fluff or that grunge made up of graphite, grease and household dirt). Re the bearings, make sure that the tiny steel ball thrust bearing is in situ at each end of the armature. (2) you use a quality modern controller with plenty of amps available, The original Dublo resistance controllers are nice period pieces but won't give as smooth running as modern electronic controllers, and might even be dangerous if rubber insulated cords on units with integral transformers have degraded. I use a U.S. made controller I bought when living in the States in the 1980s. It was a state of the art "transistorised" controller at the time, with momentum and braking features which I don't use, but is rated for 2.5 amps. Track I have found (with one exception noted below) that Hornby Dublo three-rail engines and stock run well on older Peco Code 100 "Universal" track, which is readily and cheaply available second-hand. (They may run well through modern Code 100 Peco Streamline. I simply haven't any on hand to run a trial.) With the exception of the flat tread on Dublo wheels (no coning) they were fine scale for the time, They may well have been to the old BRMSB standard but I stand to be corrected. I have made a test track out of Peco Code 100 and a couple of old points (one electrofrog and one insulfrog), using lengths of Code 100 track for the third rail. The third rail on the plain track is simply soldered to copper-clad sleepers inserted at intervals to replace the plastic sleepers. The third rail in the turnouts is soldered to miniature stationery staples inserted in holes pre-drilled in the sleepers - a bit of a faff but once into the swing of things it all went together well. One complication is that the housing for the over-centre locking spring for the point blades sits high on these old Peco points. I ground off sufficient of the underside of the third rail to clear the housing. Almost all my locomotives ran well through the points but two or three were a fraction of a millimetre on the tight side and just scraped either the wing or check rails. They went through but with very slight hesitation. A quick check with my NMRA standards gage (sic) showed that these wheelsets, which were on early 1950s engines, were fractionally tight in gauge, probably within Hornby Dublo standards of the time but narrow in gauge by the standards (such as they are) of more recent "00" stock. A careful bang on the axle ends with a spring loaded centre punch and all was well. My view is that a simple layout, using Peco Code 100 Universal track, with a third rail added as above, would be a very viable option. Have you seen Garry Hall's layout? He ran a lot of restored and modified Hornby Dublo on Peco and Hornby Track before switching to TT. A link is below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzUuFUyZFec&t=254s Finally, there is a lot of useful material on Hornby Dublo repair and modification on two other RMWeb threads in the Collectable/Vintage section: Hornby Dublo and Playing With Hornby Dublo Again. You can sit up and happily "binge" for a couple of hours - as I confess I once did. Best of luck Mike Hi Mike, many thanks for your kind words of welcome! As you may have gathered, I was introduced to Dublo at an early age with what had been my Dad's set when he was a boy in the Fifties. It's a perpetual sadness to me that it was all sold in the eighties, but there it is. I can easily understand how things escalate, or snowball perhaps, as I've already got some more wagons on the way..... I really would like to get to a few swapmeets soon, though, and be able to seek out some nice items in the flesh, so-to-speak. Your comments on running quality are very interesting, as that is something I need to consider soon - I'm planning/building for several small layouts including EM standard gauge and 009, all will be DC control as I like (need!) to keep the electrics as simple as I can, and a controller that I can use for all would be my ideal goal. Any suggestions would be gratefully received! Your take on adding the central third rail to PECO track is also very helpful - my soldering skills are "not great" but I think that's something I could make a reasonable job of! Have you made a sort of track gauge to ensure that the central rail is central (points notwithstanding, of course!)? Have you also contrived some sort of end ramp effect where the central rail breaks for the points? Unfortunately, I've only got one length of PECO Streamline Flexitrack , so I'll need to invest in a few points and some more plain - something I never thought I'd be doing again until very recently! I'll have to make sure of the back-to-back dimensions of any stock I acquire - the general consensus seems to be that it would have been a nominal 14.2mm. Have you got any plans to make your test track into a layout? I'll check out the link to Garry Hall's layout - any inspiration is gratefully received. Thanks again for your thoughts and suggestions - they are more helpful than I can say! With very best regards, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 If modifying 2 rail track, it is essential to remember that the point closure rails require to be dead i.e. not connected to the other running rails, so that there is no possibility of a short circuit when the pickup shoes (or skate) pass over it. Some modification of the point wiring may be necessary as this is not necessary with 2 rail and they may be linked to the stock rails or the crossing (frog). Similarly the 'diamond' of a diamond crossing requires to be dead (this is made from Bakelite in Dublo trackwork. If buying Dublo track, check this as it is often warped slightly (in manufacture? Bakelite is a thermosetting plastic and tends to break rather than bend) and there si a slight bump where the plastic meets the metal. As the wheels run on their flanges at this point a smooth passage is necessary. The point crossing flangeways are partially filled in for the same reason. Dublo flange depth is a critical dimension and, while other makes will run on Dublo track, bumping at crossings is likely. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCW Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 43 minutes ago, 2996 Victor said: Your take on adding the central third rail to PECO track is also very helpful - my soldering skills are "not great" but I think that's something I could make a reasonable job of! Have you made a sort of track gauge to ensure that the central rail is central (points notwithstanding, of course!)? Have you also contrived some sort of end ramp effect where the central rail breaks for the points? Unfortunately, I've only got one length of PECO Streamline Flexitrack , so I'll need to invest in a few points and some more plain - something I never thought I'd be doing again until very recently! I'll have to make sure of the back-to-back dimensions of any stock I acquire - the general consensus seems to be that it would have been a nominal 14.2mm. Have you got any plans to make your test track into a layout? I'll check out the link to Garry Hall's layout - any inspiration is gratefully received. Hello again Mark I made a couple of very crude gauges out of 3mm MDF to keep the third rail central. I went out to the shed a few minutes ago to look for one to photograph but, having had a tidy up out there recently, typically couldn't find them. A sketch is attached. A trick is to cut and file the central slot first until it is a snug fit on Peco Code 100 rail, and then mark the centre-line and make the cut-outs for the 16.5mm track gauge. When I did it the other way round, I always seemed to get the third rail slot slightly off centre. That said, Hornby Dublo 3-rail pick-up shoes and plungers are very forgiving and a half mm off centre won't really matter. On my test track I didn't bother with fishplates. (I don't think I had any Code 100 ones in stock when I threw it together one weekend). In fact, you'll often want gaps in the third rail as that is the primary control for section switches, isolating sections and the like. Where I wanted continuity in the third rail I just soldered feeds to each section. Where there was a gap in the third rail between one section of track and the next (or where the collector was to slide over closure and switch rails in pointwork) I smoothed off the end of the third rail with a file to give a nicely rounded surface to be kind to the collector. Incidentally, when wiring up the test piece, I was reminded just how simple third rail wiring is. and how reliable and forgiving third rail electrical pick up can be. I've just picked up Il Grifone's helpful comment about points and crossings. The picture below may illustrate the point (sorry). The drunken blue arrow indicates insulating gaps in the running rails. The rails which are wired with the feed and return from the controller are indicated with red and green dots - red for the running rails; green for the third rail. The mauve dot indicates a rail which is electrically dead. You can see how the third rail collector shoe, when following the diverging road from top right to bottom left, slides across the electrically dead rail before it picks up power again from the third rail just in view at the bottom left. When the point is set for the through road across the top, the switch rail with the mauve dot will pick up power from the running rail at the bottom of the picture and become red. Its opposite number loses contact with the top running rail and becomes electrically dead (and mauve). The electrical clearances on this bodged converted turnout look tight but it all seems to work. I've no plans to turn the test track into a layout. But what I would ideally like is a simple, three-rail, continuous-run, double track, exhibition-style layout, with a gentle, sweeping curve on the visible section and storage sidings behind, so I can watch my Hornby Dublo collection roar past in a cloud of ozone in a nicely finished scenic environment. In my view Hornby Dublo deserves to be run and the quality of the engines and rolling stock, signals and lineside accessories can be appreciated in a more "scale" setting from time to time rather than restricted to tinplate track on a 6' x 4' board - though that too has a strong nostalgia pull as shown by some of the layouts on this and other threads. Incidentally I have three A4s, two in blue and one in BR green, rebuilt, repaired and repainted, resplendent and ready for the road but for nameplates and stainless steel numbers which I ordered (and paid for) from Modelmaster over three months ago. I'll post some before and after pictures when the nameplates finally arrive and are fitted. Mike 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 (edited) "I've no plans to turn the test track into a layout." That's what I thought... (see above). The 14.2mm would be 560 thou. of course! It's not essential that the centre rail is absolutely level with the running rails, as the pickup shoes/skate are sprung. Just as long as any variation in level is smooth, there will be no problem. I have an uncoupling rail in which the piece of rod that passes for a conductor rail was not soldered properly down into its 'chair'. It's due for repair.... Edited February 2, 2020 by Il Grifone 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 If anyone wants a Gaiety Pannier: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hornby-TRIANG-GWR-DIECAST-0-6-0-PANNIER-TANK-ENGINE-TRAIN-SPARES-OR-REPAIRS/324059495970?_trkparms=aid%3D1110001%26algo%3DSPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D20131003132420%26meid%3D363c510da77e4ff388cf421c23381d3a%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D5%26rkt%3D12%26mehot%3Dpf%26sd%3D324055555171%26itm%3D324059495970%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2047675&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 1 hour ago, Il Grifone said: If anyone wants a Gaiety Pannier: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hornby-TRIANG-GWR-DIECAST-0-6-0-PANNIER-TANK-ENGINE-TRAIN-SPARES-OR-REPAIRS/324059495970?_trkparms=aid%3D1110001%26algo%3DSPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D20131003132420%26meid%3D363c510da77e4ff388cf421c23381d3a%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D5%26rkt%3D12%26mehot%3Dpf%26sd%3D324055555171%26itm%3D324059495970%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2047675&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851 The chassis must be worth that, though I have no idea who's make it is 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 9 minutes ago, hayfield said: The chassis must be worth that, though I have no idea who's make it is The whole thing is Gaiety apart from the Peco couplings. The wheels are similar to Dublo, but unlike Dublo do not always run true and can even be eccentric. The original 'Duck' was a Gaiety pannier and so named for a tendency to waddle. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2996 Victor Posted February 3, 2020 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2020 On 01/02/2020 at 21:27, Nearholmer said: Victor Peco increasingly don't make dead or live frog points, they make 'unifrog', which have a nickel silver crossing (=frog), which is isolated by tiny bits of plastic from the adjacent rails. As they come, they are dead frog, but by adding switching and wiring to the little dropper wire fitted to the crossing assembly, they become live frog. They incorporate other features designed to help DCC users, which probably isn't many Dublo fans. They seem nicely made, except for the tack-soldering of the dropper wire to the crossing, which is awfully fragile. Kevin Hi Kevin, Many apologies as I seem to have missed your post! Thank you for the extra info on the PECO unifrog points - that's actually quite straightforward which is ideal for a simple soul like me! It seems to me that for the purposes of converting to 3-rail, a dead frog is the best option, although isolation of part of the wing rails to prevent short circuits, as per @ilgrifone 's post would be needed. Thanks again and best regards, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now