Jump to content
 

Peterborough North


great northern
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, bigwordsmith said:

If anyone hasn't yet seen the fertility of Matthew's imagination this  page is well worth a visit!

 

 

It's a long term goal that should hopefully come to fruition this year between a 3D printer, a Hornby P2 and a Great British Locomotives A2, but I intend to give the version of Mons Meg a crack. It's always seemed the nicest proportioned of the lot of photoshops, and very much a look of what could have emerged had Peppercorn rebuilt the P2s with parts avaliable to him at the time, such as a Dia. 118 boiler.

Though this does leave me to wonder if I should go all out and go for it being a 'P3' with a new name and number rather than a rebuilt 'P2/4'-I've always wanted to use the name 'Will 'o the Wisp' on a loco.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
16 minutes ago, great northern said:

My guest today was Andy, The Green Howards, so not unnaturally there was much talk of train formations, cassettes and the like. We also discussed Hornby A2/2 and A2/3, and the temptation placed in our paths. I even stopped talking long enough to run two or three trains, which did not fall off too often. A very pleasant day indeed.

 

 A different angle from the bridge cuts out the floating part of Crescent Bridge, but places the main point of interest even further to the side of the composition.

 

 

1904965223_9frombridge2.JPG.7b08d3a688c5c11fc09bd796ef8fc7b0.JPG

 

No such problems when one comes back down to ground level.

 

 

1850114094_9508last.JPG.dc99f8eb1d42598a680de8a7757f1fe4.JPG

Thanks for your hospitality today Gilbert. As you said, some interesting discussion on formations and their variation from day to day and I found your description of how the cassettes work good food for thought. I need to work on getting the best out of mine.

 

I can confirm that we had two long coal trains circulating continually while we discussed a wide range of issues.

 

Andy

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Gilbert

 

You share a photo of a pretty Ivatt 0-6-0 loco, followed by what must be Gresley's ugliest loco a J50. When you think of it a J50 is only a Ivatt 0-6-0 buried under those disproportionate sized water tanks.  I have one on Exchange, it brings in the coal trains now and then for the loco sidings.

Ugly?!!!! I think you mean purposeful at worst. Nothing the great man designed could be called ugly. And compared with those ugly waddling copper clad ‘duck’ things on the railway which must not be mentioned they are positively beautiful!

  • Agree 5
  • Funny 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, great northern said:

Now comes a loco that is very much in the news at present. Its progress  was closely followed as it came in from the North.

 

 

10_700_1.JPG.b89e3ce2f50eca4f635a201bbe8cad6c.JPG

This time my new efforts to make shopping of lattices easier worked better.

 

 

193032688_117002.JPG.75855060f25660600c349079bad3be4d.JPG

Still those overlapping signals give problems from this angle, but the result is nevertheless better than before.

 

Another visitor today, who has kindly agreed to give me a tutorial.

Very enjoyable today, Gilbert,

 

Thank you for your hospitality. 

 

'Another visitor today, who has kindly agreed to give me a tutorial.'

 

Not so much a tutorial, but a recommendation to change those ghastly tension-lock couplings. They cause derailments and seem to come apart with gay abandon. 

 

I think the best course of action is to identify which cars' couplings to change, then I'll set about making replacements.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Very enjoyable today, Gilbert,

 

Thank you for your hospitality. 

 

'Another visitor today, who has kindly agreed to give me a tutorial.'

 

Not so much a tutorial, but a recommendation to change those ghastly tension-lock couplings. They cause derailments and seem to come apart with gay abandon. 

 

I think the best course of action is to identify which cars' couplings to change, then I'll set about making replacements.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 


I must agree with Tony, when I was running long trains on my Waverley to Ricardinho line, the tension locks were forever coming apart. I tried swapping to kadees, but with mixed results.

 

ive read some Tony’s articles in couplings and am just glad I didn’t go for wholesale conversion of 200+ coaches, as it looks like a big engine shed is all I’m going to have room for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bigwordsmith said:


I must agree with Tony, when I was running long trains on my Waverley to Ricardinho line, the tension locks were forever coming apart. I tried swapping to kadees, but with mixed results.

 

ive read some Tony’s articles in couplings and am just glad I didn’t go for wholesale conversion of 200+ coaches, as it looks like a big engine shed is all I’m going to have room for!

The problem seems to be several-fold...........

 

The derailing/splitting carriages on PN today were, with one exception, all Bachmann Mk.1s (which, one might think, should be compatible?). 

 

I've not fully-investigated the couplings  - other than immediately removing them and chucking them away off any Bachmann carriage (or any other RTR vehicle I might have), but they seem to be attached to a sprung collar around the bogie's pivot, which extends on entering curves. This (it would appear to me) restricts the bogie's free swing, causing jumping and subsequent derailing. Not only that, as the couplings extend, they appear to droop, causing them to part.

 

My advice to Gilbert is to embark on a process of my making replacement couplings (of my own design) and replacing the horrid tension-locks. It could be some time - Gilbert counted over 300 carriages today!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I've not fully-investigated the couplings  - other than immediately removing them and chucking them away off any Bachmann carriage (or any other RTR vehicle I might have), but they seem to be attached to a sprung collar around the bogie's pivot, which extends on entering curves. This (it would appear to me) restricts the bogie's free swing, causing jumping and subsequent derailing.


That's the close coupling mechanism. It's really good if used properly, but as supplied can cause problems. The intention is to close the coaches right up close on straight track so there isn't an unsightly gap between the gangways, but still let the coaches go round set-track radius curves. Unfortunately, they don't work properly with tension locks.

What actually goes wrong is with weight on the drawbar (perhaps something that doesn't run freely, or is particularly heavy, or just a long train), the coaches want to pull apart, and the springs aren't strong enough to keep the couplers in-line. With both couplers kinked to the side, the train then arrives at the next curve. There's a 50% chance the couplings are on the wrong side (compared to which side they'd go to on the curve), and when this happens you may get a derailment or decoupling.

Replace the tension locks with something that keeps the coupling in line and doesn't let it twist on the straight, and the problem goes away. Bachmann provide a fixed bar (which looks a bit like a vacuum hose) in the box -- this works really well (but obviously results in fixed sets). I am using the Hornby R8220 coupler (the one that looks like a Roco clone) -- I found this the best "easy" compromise in Bachmann Mk1s.

I didn't have great luck trying kadees -- they had the same problem, not keeping the pockets in-line.

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hornby diesels now come with a similar close coupling mechanism. Perfectly fine when pulling coaches or longer wheelbase 4w wagons like MGR hoppers. However, get a lager wagon with small bogies like a 100t tank and the coupling often pulls the bogie off on corners.

 

Again, it's due to the coupling not re centering and remaining kinked to one side.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Let's have the evening images first, before contemplating TW putting his patent couplings on in excess of 300 carriages. There's one more view of 60700.

 

 

863099802_127003.JPG.311364d1319d610079195b3f69eb8120.JPG

Now here's a train that behaved perfectly, but that was several days ago when no visitors were observing. It was followed by the 8.00am Newcastle, with 60065.

 

 

915914787_12a651.JPG.7c6118d30d4a22b3a4b7208d0fe1dd52.JPG

This one disgraced itself in front of both Andy and Tony by both derailing and parting. Tony did manage to cure one car which kept falling off, but on the next circuit two more, which had hitherto behaved, flung themselves off with gay abandon.

  • Like 13
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Right, couplings and derailments. I have tried the Roco couplings, and the Hornby version thereof. The problem is that if (when)  they part I have great difficulty getting them to couple again. Tim can do it in about five seconds flat, and occasionally I get it right, but not often enough. The Hornby ones behave perfectly with their own cars, but not with Bachmann, and I have far more of the latter.

 

I really can't contemplate asking Tony to deal with over 300, its just way above and beyond reasonable, so I'm rather stuck at the moment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've started standardizing on the Hornby close couplings but as mentioned with Bachmann Mk1's the coupling is pulled as tight as it can go. The best way I've found to couple two coaches is to turn the bogies so the coupling extends. However, as mentioned, it can be fiddly.

 

Previously, I used the bar coupling that comes with the Bachmann Mk1's and had no issues with derailments. However, my stock only get's to come out at shows and therefore coupling and uncoupling what is meant to be a more permanent coupling was troublesome and time consuming. Not ideal when it's time to pack up!

 

What about using Kaydee couplings between the coaches that need to be parted and the Bachmann bar between those fixed rakes that never need to? 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, great northern said:

This one disgraced itself in front of both Andy and Tony by both derailing and parting. Tony did manage to cure one car which kept falling off, but on the next circuit two more, which had hitherto behaved, flung themselves off with gay abandon.

Gilbert,

 

Did Tony look at the flanges on the wheels of those two coaches? I’m convinced they were much finer scale than standard Romford and that that is part of the problem with that rake.

 

I use a mixture of tension lock, Roco, Bachmann ‘pipes’ and ‘Wright’ couplings. Basically:

- ’Wright’ couplings on stock with kit built bogies - mainly the Elizabethan and catering cores.

- Roco and Bachmann pipes on fixed rakes of RTR coaches. I find both work, but the Roco couplings  do sometimes get bent and then come apart. However when they work I think they’re the best compromise between prototypical fidelity and practicality. The Bachmann pipes work well, but are a pain when I want to take my stock to my club.

- Tension locks on all my loose stock and some of my fixed formations. They’re not the best looking, but they’re very convenient for putting stock together in different formations on a regular basis and they ’disappear’ under a corridor connector. I do get derailments if the hooks get crossed over when coupling up. Provided that is checked, then they’re pretty reliable except on some Hornby Mark1s when they sag and need glueing into their pocket.

 

I run rakes up to 14 coaches/ 50 wagons and I’ve got to the stage where derailments are quite rare - although inevitably not up to Tony’s standards. However, I don’t detect any more problems with tension locks than other couplings. The problems normally arise when I’ve just out a rake together and it takes a few runs round to iron out all of the issues. Problems are normally caused by 1) back to backs not set correctly; 2) corridor connectors getting caught up with each other; 3) some of the old Bachmann Mark 1s with NEM pockets at the wrong height when accidentally used with ‘pipes’ or straight tension locks; and 4) crossed over tension lock hooks as above. Only the last of those is a tension lock issue, and that is easily solved with care.

 

Tony’s couplings won’t always work for loose stock as you are not able to turn the coaches round so I’d be careful about going all out and replacing everything. Why not try one or two fixed rakes which are problematic and see if it solves the problem. I rather fear that your fiddle yard curves are a little too tight for the length of trains that you run, and that no amount of fiddling with couplings will fix that.

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, great northern said:

Right, couplings and derailments. I have tried the Roco couplings, and the Hornby version thereof. The problem is that if (when)  they part I have great difficulty getting them to couple again. Tim can do it in about five seconds flat, and occasionally I get it right, but not often enough. The Hornby ones behave perfectly with their own cars, but not with Bachmann, and I have far more of the latter.

 

I really can't contemplate asking Tony to deal with over 300, its just way above and beyond reasonable, so I'm rather stuck at the moment.


That's true -- they aren't as easy to couple as some other options, particularly if the coaches are to sit with the gangways touching when coupled, as there's not a lot of space under there. Other couplings that keep the pockets lined up must be available -- someone should know of one that may suit.

Any way, good luck with finding a coupling solution that works for you -- you've got a vast number of coaches, and it sounds like you've got quite a few different coupling types in use already.

Hopefully the information about how and why close coupling mechanisms can result in derailments and decouplings when used with specific coupling types that don't force the pockets to line up is helpful though -- even if not directly in this case, then at least to other readers.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading this thread for ages however have not written anything as it was covered by others. My modest OO layout had endless problems with couplings until I struck on standardising on one type which was the Bachman small type. So no Hornby small or large type is allowed. This improved my running extremely well. To the point I do swap with others the Hornby types which they have standardised on or they have gone straight Kadees. 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Bloodnok said:


That's the close coupling mechanism. It's really good if used properly, but as supplied can cause problems. The intention is to close the coaches right up close on straight track so there isn't an unsightly gap between the gangways, but still let the coaches go round set-track radius curves. Unfortunately, they don't work properly with tension locks.

What actually goes wrong is with weight on the drawbar (perhaps something that doesn't run freely, or is particularly heavy, or just a long train), the coaches want to pull apart, and the springs aren't strong enough to keep the couplers in-line. With both couplers kinked to the side, the train then arrives at the next curve. There's a 50% chance the couplings are on the wrong side (compared to which side they'd go to on the curve), and when this happens you may get a derailment or decoupling.

Replace the tension locks with something that keeps the coupling in line and doesn't let it twist on the straight, and the problem goes away. Bachmann provide a fixed bar (which looks a bit like a vacuum hose) in the box -- this works really well (but obviously results in fixed sets). I am using the Hornby R8220 coupler (the one that looks like a Roco clone) -- I found this the best "easy" compromise in Bachmann Mk1s.

I didn't have great luck trying kadees -- they had the same problem, not keeping the pockets in-line.

Thanks for that. Most-helpful.

 

It was significant that the cars giving the trouble were at the head of the rake in the main. Though only 11-cars long, and all-plastic, it was a bit stiff. 

 

The derailments/uncouplings were most-prevalent on the tight fiddle yard curves, though problems did occur on the scenic section. They were also inconsistent.

 

Without being too disparaging (I hope) PN has such a jumble of different couplings that I think the only complete 'cure' will be to standardise on a non-tension-lock type for carriages - a simple hook & bar arrangement internally, and Kaydees where trains/locos need to separate.

 

Time (and it will take time!) will tell. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Gilbert,

 

Did Tony look at the flanges on the wheels of those two coaches? I’m convinced they were much finer scale than standard Romford and that that is part of the problem with that rake.

 

I use a mixture of tension lock, Roco, Bachmann ‘pipes’ and ‘Wright’ couplings. Basically:

- ’Wright’ couplings on stock with kit built bogies - mainly the Elizabethan and catering cores.

- Roco and Bachmann pipes on fixed rakes of RTR coaches. I find both work, but the Roco couplings  do sometimes get bent and then come apart. However when they work I think they’re the best compromise between prototypical fidelity and practicality. The Bachmann pipes work well, but are a pain when I want to take my stock to my club.

- Tension locks on all my loose stock and some of my fixed formations. They’re not the best looking, but they’re very convenient for putting stock together in different formations on a regular basis and they ’disappear’ under a corridor connector. I do get derailments if the hooks get crossed over when coupling up. Provided that is checked, then they’re pretty reliable except on some Hornby Mark1s when they sag and need glueing into their pocket.

 

I run rakes up to 14 coaches/ 50 wagons and I’ve got to the stage where derailments are quite rare - although inevitably not up to Tony’s standards. However, I don’t detect any more problems with tension locks than other couplings. The problems normally arise when I’ve just out a rake together and it takes a few runs round to iron out all of the issues. Problems are normally caused by 1) back to backs not set correctly; 2) corridor connectors getting caught up with each other; 3) some of the old Bachmann Mark 1s with NEM pockets at the wrong height when accidentally used with ‘pipes’ or straight tension locks; and 4) crossed over tension lock hooks as above. Only the last of those is a tension lock issue, and that is easily solved with care.

 

Tony’s couplings won’t always work for loose stock as you are not able to turn the coaches round so I’d be careful about going all out and replacing everything. Why not try one or two fixed rakes which are problematic and see if it solves the problem. I rather fear that your fiddle yard curves are a little too tight for the length of trains that you run, and that no amount of fiddling with couplings will fix that.

 

Andy

I did look at the wheels, Andy - a first port of call. 

 

They looked OK to me, and were standard Jackson/Markits 14mm disc. Finer, I admit, than Bachmann or Hornby as-supplied (which I replace immediately!), and the back-to-backs were correct. 

 

I fear one of the problems is what you allude to in your last paragraph - too-tight curves in places. A pity, on otherwise such a beautiful model railway, and impossible to fix - what's the radii of a Peco three-way point? Scale-length trains don't like too-tight curves! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, great northern said:

Right, couplings and derailments. I have tried the Roco couplings, and the Hornby version thereof. The problem is that if (when)  they part I have great difficulty getting them to couple again. Tim can do it in about five seconds flat, and occasionally I get it right, but not often enough. The Hornby ones behave perfectly with their own cars, but not with Bachmann, and I have far more of the latter.

 

I really can't contemplate asking Tony to deal with over 300, its just way above and beyond reasonable, so I'm rather stuck at the moment.

Good morning Gilbert,

 

I don't think it's a question of fitting 'my' couplings to all 300 of your carriages (though I've fitted them to my over 250 on Little Bytham!). Where you've got fixed rakes in the fiddle yard (and they work), then leave well-alone. 

 

I think a course of action will be for either me to come over again, or you to come over here, and I'll make my couplings and fix them to that derailing/separating rake. One problem is, of course, that several of those cars are used in other services, so we must be careful in our selection. At the risk of sticking my neck out (supporting a 'fat head'!), I'll guarantee that you won't have any derailments or cars separating once I've chucked away those awful tension-locks.

 

 'I really can't contemplate asking Tony to deal with over 300, its just way above and beyond reasonable, so I'm rather stuck at the moment.'

 

I also don't think it's a question of your asking me, but my suggesting it. Isn't that what mates do? Help each other.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I fear one of the problems is what you allude to in your last paragraph - too-tight curves in places. A pity, on otherwise such a beautiful model railway, and impossible to fix - what's the radii of a Peco three-way point? Scale-length trains don't like too-tight curves! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 If it’s the CD100 asymmetric three way, it’s 2ft radius, and if it’s the non asymmetrical CD75 three way just under 3ft, 2ft 10” or slightly larger as I recall.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I did look at the wheels, Andy - a first port of call. 

 

They looked OK to me, and were standard Jackson/Markits 14mm disc. Finer, I admit, than Bachmann or Hornby as-supplied (which I replace immediately!), and the back-to-backs were correct. 

 

I fear one of the problems is what you allude to in your last paragraph - too-tight curves in places. A pity, on otherwise such a beautiful model railway, and impossible to fix - what's the radii of a Peco three-way point? Scale-length trains don't like too-tight curves! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I've just looked it up Tony. The radius of a  Peco three way is .2 of an inch under 3 feet. I remember Tom and I gave this a lot of the thought when we were setting out the fiddle yard, and we concluded that therefore we were just within my permitted tolerances, which is 3ft. I know we finished up with that one much tighter bit, for which Tom had no responsibility, but even that has now been eased considerably.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Gilbert,

 

I don't think it's a question of fitting 'my' couplings to all 300 of your carriages (though I've fitted them to my over 250 on Little Bytham!). Where you've got fixed rakes in the fiddle yard (and they work), then leave well-alone. 

 

I think a course of action will be for either me to come over again, or you to come over here, and I'll make my couplings and fix them to that derailing/separating rake. One problem is, of course, that several of those cars are used in other services, so we must be careful in our selection. At the risk of sticking my neck out (supporting a 'fat head'!), I'll guarantee that you won't have any derailments or cars separating once I've chucked away those awful tension-locks.

 

 'I really can't contemplate asking Tony to deal with over 300, its just way above and beyond reasonable, so I'm rather stuck at the moment.'

 

I also don't think it's a question of your asking me, but my suggesting it. Isn't that what mates do? Help each other.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Your generous suggestion Tony, but my feeling is that if I take you up on it, I am really asking too much of you. I'm now having another ponder, and will submit my further thoughts shortly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, great northern said:

I've just looked it up Tony. The radius of a  Peco three way is .2 of an inch under 3 feet. I remember Tom and I gave this a lot of the thought when we were setting out the fiddle yard, and we concluded that therefore we were just within my permitted tolerances, which is 3ft. I know we finished up with that one much tighter bit, for which Tom had no responsibility, but even that has now been eased considerably.

Thanks for that Gilbert,

 

3' should be enough (that's the absolute minimum on Little Bytham, and then only in the kick-back sidings). It's just that, where that Gresley catering car came off (which I fixed, because the bogie's swing was restricted), the point's throat was at the end of a reverse curve of at least that tight a radius. The worst of both worlds! The radius on the approach is not uniform, either. 

 

It comes down to what you and I have discussed on many occasions. Because I have an extra seven foot (at least) on Little Bytham, all the fiddle yard points (which are Peco large radius, apart from a couple of medium radius and curved points in the sidings) are approached on the straight or by the largest possible curve. To do so otherwise compromises the running, especially with scale-length trains!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...