Jump to content
 

Peterborough North


great northern
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
28 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 think that Bloodnok hit the nail on the head earlier. The cam-type close couplings (Hornby as well as Bachmann) only work properly if there is a rigid connection between them. That's what lets them self-centre when they come back on to the straight. The ability of most autocouplers to waggle stops this self-centring from happening. Thinking out loud, it might be possible to fit Kadees and lock them up solid so that the coupler head couldn't swing relative to the fixing but I don't know of anyone who has tried that. 3ft radius curves should not, of themselves, be a problem.

Edited by St Enodoc
Edited to eliminate an errant apostrophe
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I've bought quite a few 3D printed couplings from this guy (no connection other than as a customer) which slot ino NEM pockets.

 

https://www.shapeways.com/shops/jamestrainparts

 

There's quite a range of coupling lengths and I've found them very useful within fixed and not so fixed rakes. 

Edited by Metr0Land
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 minutes ago, Metr0Land said:

I've bought quite a few 3D printed couplings from this guy (no connection other than as a customer) which slot ino NEM pockets.

 

https://www.shapeways.com/shops/jamestrainparts

 

There's quite a range of coupling lengths and I've found them very useful within fixed and not so fixed rakes. 

The dummy Kadees might work, if you could get a normal Kadee to couple to them. A lot cheaper than a working NEM Kadee too, especially if you're going to glue it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
15 minutes ago, Metr0Land said:

I've bought quite a few 3D printed couplings from this guy (no connection other than as a customer) which slot ino NEM pockets.

 

https://www.shapeways.com/shops/jamestrainparts

 

There's quite a range of coupling lengths and I've found them very useful within fixed and not so fixed rakes. 

I’ve also used these couplings on my goods wagons and I find them excellent. But they’re not really necessary or suitable for coaches. They would do the same job as Bachmann pipes but less realistically. 

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

  • RMweb Premium
27 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

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. 

 

 

Tony,

 

I agree the points could be laid out more sympathetically for smooth running, but to do so would massively compromise storage space and I don’t think they’re the main problem. The main problems seem to be the curve into and out of the fiddle yard on the inner circuit. There’s little that can be done to sort this now - I know Tim has helped a bit, but that’s probably the limit of what can be done. I think we have to work on finding a coupling method which works despite the constraints and to this effect I agree that it would be worth experimenting with your couplings on one rake, but I’d suggest trying another NEM based solution (Bachmann ‘pipes’ or Hornby ‘Roco’) on another rake and comparing the results. 

 

Andy

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

The dummy Kadees might work, if you could get a normal Kadee to couple to them. A lot cheaper than a working NEM Kadee too, especially if you're going to glue it up.

 

At £1.00 per coupling those look like jolly good value, and I like the idea of being able to try different separations. Sadly I'll not be able to try it in practice, although a I do have an awful lot of unused and boxed Mk 1 and other former LNER coaches to dispose of!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off-topic....

 

A quick note to readers of this thread who may well be attending the CMRA show in Stevenage this weekend.  I've been invited back to do a weathering demo there, which will include one or two "in progress" items for PN as part of the display.  I'll have my tablet with me too, with photographs of various locos which have already appeared in the thread taken in natural light (before delivery!) running as a slideshow.

 

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it...  (Over and out!)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours 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.

 

When you say that you "looked it up", where was that? The figures given in Peco's literature are "nominal radius" whatever that means. It certainly does not relate to real world Euclidean geometry. I don't know the real radius figure for the 3-way but I doubt that it is 3ft. The "nominal" 5ft of the large radius points is, in reality, 3'8".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
28 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

When you say that you "looked it up", where was that? The figures given in Peco's literature are "nominal radius" whatever that means. It certainly does not relate to real world Euclidean geometry. I don't know the real radius figure for the 3-way but I doubt that it is 3ft. The "nominal" 5ft of the large radius points is, in reality, 3'8".

It was the Peco site. They claim a tad short of 3ft radius. I'm no mathematician, and don't know the significance of "nominal" radius. I have however just been up and tried a 3ft Radius Tracksetta against a couple of them, and that shows the actual radius to be only fractionally tighter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I shall not quote all the individual contributions, as this would become inordinately long, but thanks for each and every one.

 

I'll start with what I have, and the constraints caused. 25ft in length is pretty good, and much more than most modellers will be lucky enough to have, but it isn't enough to allow what counsel of perfection would advocate. Nor does 10ft width. It is what it is though, and I have to work to it.

 

I have always wanted to model the ECML, as realistically as possible. Given my capacity for getting bored quickly, it was also essential that I gave myself plenty of varied operational possibilities. That meant a location where plenty went on, and it had to include my "must have" locos. That meant compromise from the start, unless I was prepared just build something which accomodated aforesaid counsel of perfection. It was clear that if I followed best practice, the fiddle yard would not hold enough trains, or long enough ones, to allow anything like prototype operation. At that stage, of course, I hadn't considered cassettes, but even if I had, the same problems would still have been there.

 

So, it was, and always has been, make the best of what I've got. The result is that even after approaching ten years in use, I don't have any regrets, nor inclination to tear it up and do something else.

 

It is what it is, so we must go on to frustration limitation. This morning I have put together a twelve car formation from cassettes and loose stock. It started from fiddle yard 1, and was a Down train. Thus it had to negotiate, running wrong line, the curve from the south end of the station, an inside curve, in order to get to the Down side. Coming back, it had to use the inner curve of the approach that Tim has just eased. Most of the train was Bachmann Mk1s, all with tension locks, plus a Comet triplet. It ran perfectly, no derailments and no parting of couplings, with 12 cars in tension on two of the tightest radius curves I have. Does that, or could that, mean that it may have been rogue cars in the formation Andy and Tony saw?

 

I'll leave it there for now, or this post will become far too long.

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, bigwordsmith said:

 

At £1.00 per coupling those look like jolly good value, and I like the idea of being able to try different separations. Sadly I'll not be able to try it in practice, although a I do have an awful lot of unused and boxed Mk 1 and other former LNER coaches to dispose of!

Having looked at the site again, I see the dummy kadee/ knuckle couplings.  I have only used the 3 link and instanter types which are good. The kadees might be suitable for coaches. Has anyone tried them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, great northern said:

I shall not quote all the individual contributions, as this would become inordinately long, but thanks for each and every one.

 

I'll start with what I have, and the constraints caused. 25ft in length is pretty good, and much more than most modellers will be lucky enough to have, but it isn't enough to allow what counsel of perfection would advocate. Nor does 10ft width. It is what it is though, and I have to work to it.

 

I have always wanted to model the ECML, as realistically as possible. Given my capacity for getting bored quickly, it was also essential that I gave myself plenty of varied operational possibilities. That meant a location where plenty went on, and it had to include my "must have" locos. That meant compromise from the start, unless I was prepared just build something which accomodated aforesaid counsel of perfection. It was clear that if I followed best practice, the fiddle yard would not hold enough trains, or long enough ones, to allow anything like prototype operation. At that stage, of course, I hadn't considered cassettes, but even if I had, the same problems would still have been there.

 

So, it was, and always has been, make the best of what I've got. The result is that even after approaching ten years in use, I don't have any regrets, nor inclination to tear it up and do something else.

 

It is what it is, so we must go on to frustration limitation. This morning I have put together a twelve car formation from cassettes and loose stock. It started from fiddle yard 1, and was a Down train. Thus it had to negotiate, running wrong line, the curve from the south end of the station, an inside curve, in order to get to the Down side. Coming back, it had to use the inner curve of the approach that Tim has just eased. Most of the train was Bachmann Mk1s, all with tension locks, plus a Comet triplet. It ran perfectly, no derailments and no parting of couplings, with 12 cars in tension on two of the tightest radius curves I have. Does that, or could that, mean that it may have been rogue cars in the formation Andy and Tony saw?

 

I'll leave it there for now, or this post will become far too long.

That sounds encouraging Gilbert. It sounds like further testing is in order before leaping to any expensive/ time consuming solution. How about replacing the two mark 1s which I thought had very finescale wheel sets out of the 60065 formation and try it again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

That sounds encouraging Gilbert. It sounds like further testing is in order before leaping to any expensive/ time consuming solution. How about replacing the two mark 1s which I thought had very finescale wheel sets out of the 60065 formation and try it again?

I can't be sure Andy without going and turning each car upside down, but I did, some years back, put Jacksons on a lot of my MK1s, so I'd be surprised if that was the problem, and Tony didn't think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tim said:

Slightly off-topic....

 

A quick note to readers of this thread who may well be attending the CMRA show in Stevenage this weekend.  I've been invited back to do a weathering demo there, which will include one or two "in progress" items for PN as part of the display.  I'll have my tablet with me too, with photographs of various locos which have already appeared in the thread taken in natural light (before delivery!) running as a slideshow.

 

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it...  (Over and out!)

 

Looking forward to it Tim. See you tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
16 minutes ago, great northern said:

I It ran perfectly, no derailments and no parting of couplings, with 12 cars in tension on two of the tightest radius curves I have. Does that, or could that, mean that it may have been rogue cars in the formation Andy and Tony saw?

 

I'll leave it there for now, or this post will become far too long.

 

Simple answer is yes.

 

Assuming you've not already done so, have you checked if the derailments at this location and any others involve the same train formation, coaches, and locomotive/s. If that isn't known make a note each time it occurs and see if there's a pattern of specific stock items that are involved eg its always a Bachby BG. Its it always the same coach in the formation, leading/second/third coach etc etc. If you remove the vehicle that's derailed and re run the train across the section, does that next vehicle derail, or if you replace the derailed vehicle with another, does that 'new' entrant derail? If there isn't a pattern of problem stock items and 'good' stock items that work, it'll point towards the track in some format.

 

If I have similar problems the offending stock is retried to see if it replicates the problem. If so its removed, and train retried less the problem item. If that works then its looking at the removed stock to see what the issue is.

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

  • RMweb Premium

Right, next up is to analyse the possibilities.

 

1. Tension locks.

      We know their deficiencies, but they are the quick and easy solution. I need to see if it is a generic problem, or whether I just have some rogue stock.

 

2. Kadees.

 

 Mine are at buffer beam height, not attached to the bogies, therefore more work involved in fitting them. If I put them in the NEM pockets on stock that is not going to be at the end of a rake, will that also cause problems?  I suspect the answer may be affirmative.

 

3. Bachmann's Mk1 fixed connectors.

 

I tried these on the loft layout. All well and good till there was a derailment, when they became a nightmare.  There were some difficult to access places on that layout, which of course is where they came off. Eventually, I removed all of them. Access now is mostly easier, so I could use them in fixed formation trains which live permanently in the fiddle yard. It is probably worth trial fitting at least one set. Having typed that, I immediately remember that I don't have many sets which are all Bachmann Mk1, so it isn't the big solution.

 

4. Roco original.

 

Look very good, run very well, but if they come apart I really struggle to reconnect them. That has become a big enough problem for me to remove the vast majority of them. What happens if one in some way fixes them permanently after installing them. A drop of superglue or some fuse wire has occurred to me. Again though, I suspect that may b***** up the function and cause even more falling off.

 

5 Hornby's Roco style.

 

These are great when attaching them to Hornby's own products, but when used with Bachmann stuff are just as difficult if they come apart. Most of my stuff is Bachmann.

 

6. TW's goalposts.

 

Apart from the time involved on his part, they aren't going to be the solution when I need to put trains together wholly or partially from loose stock, which occurs often. Again, we could limit this option to fixed rakes, which would partially alleviate the problems. Nearly all my locos have kadees at buffer beam height, so end cars would still need those.

 

7. Other products.

 

I know little or nothing about these, so can't make any constructive comment.

 

That's my analysis, but I'm more than open to other suggestions or solutions.

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

Simple answer is yes.

 

Assuming you've not already done so, have you checked if the derailments at this location and any others involve the same train formation, coaches, and locomotive/s. If that isn't known make a note each time it occurs and see if there's a pattern of specific stock items that are involved eg its always a Bachby BG. Its it always the same coach in the formation, leading/second/third coach etc etc. If you remove the vehicle that's derailed and re run the train across the section, does that next vehicle derail, or if you replace the derailed vehicle with another, does that 'new' entrant derail? If there isn't a pattern of problem stock items and 'good' stock items that work, it'll point towards the track in some format.

 

If I have similar problems the offending stock is retried to see if it replicates the problem. If so its removed, and train retried less the problem item. If that works then its looking at the removed stock to see what the issue is.

 

I used to have a rake of Bachmann Mk1 Pullmans for hauling behind a Deltic. They were one of the worst rakes for splitting and there was never a pattern - somewhere around the layout the formation ( 7 Bachmann, plus a Hornby Brake at each end) would spilt. Most times it was between carriages 2/3 or 3/4. 

 

If I dropped it to a 4 coach set everything worked fine, 5 was less troublesome, but 6+ was a nightmare.

 

Perhaps there is limit to what a TL coupling can take?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon Gilbert,

 

You haven't got any of those 'step down' tension locks in the mix have you by any chance? Reason I ask is that I've recently put into service about a dozen or more Bachmann MkIs on Shap, kindly placed on loan by Iain Henderson ('92220' of this parish). I initially had coupling problems with them, only to discover what they were fitted with a surprising variety of actual couplings (to be fair to Iain, he'd bought many of them second hand and hadn't had the opportunity to do anything with them).

 

There appear to be three types: 'straight on', 'slight step down' and 'marked step down'. They can also be of different lengths - I think the shorter ones are meant for wagons.

 

If you have the odd vehicle with different types, then that won't be helping the coupling issues. 

 

Apologies if this has already been mentioned and discounted but I couldn't find reference to it above. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Gilbert,

 

Where practical I would suggest Tony’s hook and bar method. This has the advantage of using the buffer beam for taking the strain and letting the bogies only carry each coach round the layout without the added pressure of continuosly pulling the consist. Just like the real thing.

 

I have found over the years that it makes for smoother running.

 

Eric

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

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Tim said:

Slightly off-topic....

 

A quick note to readers of this thread who may well be attending the CMRA show in Stevenage this weekend.  I've been invited back to do a weathering demo there, which will include one or two "in progress" items for PN as part of the display.  I'll have my tablet with me too, with photographs of various locos which have already appeared in the thread taken in natural light (before delivery!) running as a slideshow.

 

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it...  (Over and out!)

I’ll be there on Sunday and will come and say hello.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, FoxUnpopuli said:

Has anyone used these Brassmasters 'couplers'? 

 

coupling_1.JPG

 

Screw-2.jpg

 

http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/coach_couplings.htm

 

I’ve inherited some on second hand purchases. They look great, but I’ve struggled to make them work. There doesn’t seem to be enough flexibility to get round curves.

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

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, PMP said:

 

Simple answer is yes.

 

Assuming you've not already done so, have you checked if the derailments at this location and any others involve the same train formation, coaches, and locomotive/s. If that isn't known make a note each time it occurs and see if there's a pattern of specific stock items that are involved eg its always a Bachby BG. Its it always the same coach in the formation, leading/second/third coach etc etc. If you remove the vehicle that's derailed and re run the train across the section, does that next vehicle derail, or if you replace the derailed vehicle with another, does that 'new' entrant derail? If there isn't a pattern of problem stock items and 'good' stock items that work, it'll point towards the track in some format.

 

If I have similar problems the offending stock is retried to see if it replicates the problem. If so its removed, and train retried less the problem item. If that works then its looking at the removed stock to see what the issue is.

A good step to try is sometimes just to turn the offending vehicle end-for-end.

  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1
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...