Wright writes.....

[stewartingram]

As I can never bear to throw anything away un-necessarily, and don't like to see others doing so, I have a suggestion. That gear already chewed on one edge - it doesn't need to grip its shaft so tightly as to transmit lsignificant amounts of torque to that shaft, unlike a final drive gear on an axle. The security offered by a grub screw is therefore not vital, you only need enough "hold" somewhere or other to prevent the gear shaft from winding itself out of the side of the gearbox. You could therefore consider placing that gear on a flat surface and filing down the boss that currently accepts to grub-screw to say two-thirds or maybe even half of its current width. It may be best not to file off the whole boss, as the longer the central hole for the shaft through that gear, the better the likelihood of it sitting square and true on its shaft. It might then be possible to slide the gear back onto its shaft, centralise the two items correctly beneath the worm gear, then put just a small drop of Loctite retainer of a mild grade (not superglue) into the empty grub-screw recess to stick the gear to the shaft, without sticking the shaft into its bearings. Give it time to set before you do any more.

 

You then ought to re-check that the teeth of the brass gear and steel worm are sufficiently deeply engaged - almost as deep as they can go but without dragging / binding / tightening up, at any point in the whole of the rotation of the brass gear. You should be able to tell by manual rotation of the motor shaft that the gears are free all the way through that rotation. The right setting is often created if you slacken the motor mounting screws and put a piece of smooth tissue paper (the kind used for packing, not the sort for wiping various things) into the gap between the gears as they are pressed back together by re-tightening the screws. If the paper is trapped solid and the motor is stiff to turn the gear mesh is too tight. If the paper is really loose then the mesh isn't tight enough. If you can wind the paper out of the gap by turning the motor shaft, against some drag but without feeling great tightness, there is hope that the gear mesh may be about right. You may have to put a very thin washer or packing piece between the motor body and the gearbox itself, at one of the screw-holes, in order to tilt the motor by the necessary small amount to obtain the correct meshing of the gears.

 

Just to add that many years ago at work, before Loctite (*) became available, we used ordinary varnish as a thread locker. Paint will also suffice.

 

(*) Loctite is a brand name that covers a number of products, including also superglue. Don't confuse them.

 

Stewart

[Headstock]

There are two cogs below the worm cog, the small top one and then the larger one is over the centre axel of the loco. It cannot be seen in the photos. The axel would go through where I have laid the larger cog on the side.

 

Here is a quick diagram to show how the gears fit together. Reading further there are spacer washers that can be used to centre the top cog more, after filing as GR King suggests.

 

The axel drive cog is larger than the other one, but I couldn't get it the right size and aligned in the diagram.

 

I am also concerned about how much play there is in the Mashima motor, the central shaft has almost 1/2mm of play end to end which doesn’t work well with a worm drive in my past experience.

 

What is the gearbox you have shown by the way, as it looks exactly like what I want, and especially how the top cog is centrally mounted to the corm cog?

 

I will speak with High Level on Monday as I suspect from what I have read around RMweb, they are worth trying before other options. I will always have this as a spare gearbox then for future projects.

 

Jamie

 

It's a Comet GB5 gearbox.

 

http://www.cometmodels.co.uk/data/Catalog/pdf/GB5%20steel%20worm.pdf

 

I thiyour gearbox?

 

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/locomotive/gb8_15/

Edited July 14, 2018 by Headstock

[Jamiel]

It's a Comet GB5 gearbox.

 

http://www.cometmodels.co.uk/data/Catalog/pdf/GB5%20steel%20worm.pdf

 

I thiyour gearbox?

 

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/locomotive/gb8_15/

Thanks Headstock, the gearbox I have is the BG1 50:1 which was supplied in the kit. Not sure if it is an option you can change with the kit, but I asked for the standard version I think.

 

I will speak with High Level, but will keep the Comet GB5 as an option as well as it looks really like what I want.

 

Thanks for all the replies.

 

Jamie

[Headstock]

Thanks Headstock, the gearbox I have is the BG1 50:1 which was supplied in the kit. Not sure if it is an option you can change with the kit, but I asked for the standard version I think.

 

I will speak with High Level, but will keep the Comet GB5 as an option as well as it looks really like what I want.

 

Thanks for all the replies.

 

Jamie

 

Personally, I would go with the High level gearboxes, more sophisticated (in that they actually align) and cheaper.

[Tony Wright]

I hope it is OK to ask for some advice here as this thread is to a large extent what inspired me to build my first brass loco kit, together with old friends from the Leeds MRS.

 

Gearbox trouble I suspect.

 

I think part of my problem is that I got ahead of myself. I put the main connecting rods on to the wheels before running them from the motor by electrical power. All run freely by hand, and initially the motor ran the wheels OK, but then stopped. I should have paid more attention to Tony’s DVD!

 

It looks as though the worm cog/drive from the motor was only partially connecting with the top cog and has now jumped free. If you look at the photos you can see where it is shiny and is just connecting. For ease of view I have tipped the gearbox flat. I have taken the top screw fixing the motor in palce before taking the photos, I was trying to see if I could turn it the other way up to get a better purchase from the worn cog. That is the dark hole you can see at the top of the motor mount.

 

 

 

 

This is how it will be mounted when the body has been added.

 

 

What I suspect I will have to do is unsolder the connecting rods and probably build a new gearbox. I suspect I will need to buy some spare crank pins as well, but it is all part of the learning process.

 

The question I have is would people recommend a different gearbox to the Comet one for this loco? I did file back some of the outer box of the gearbox as it was very clearly visible, but I don’t think that has compromised the running of the gearbox itself.

 

Is there a gearbox with a centrally mounted top cog, rather than the side one of the Comet?

 

It is quite possible that the wheels may run well pushed by hand, but have just enough resistance when being run by the motor to have an effect on the gear box.

 

One other thing I have noticed is that the Mashima motor has some end to end play on the drive shaft which is never a good thing when running a worm cog as it can push back and lock.

 

The loco will be DCC run, I will put a chip in the smokebox. I doubt that will make any difference to the practicalities of getting the motor driving the wheels.

 

I did have to take break from building this model due to a road accident (a car knocked me off my bicycle) and wasn’t comfortable using a soldering iron until my shoulder healed, so I am picking up from my last worked on this six months ago.

 

Here are a couple of photos of the body and tender in place to show how the rest of the modelling has gone. I know it is good idea to start with an 0-6-0 loco, but as I had built pony trucks before, I felt the Black 5 was just an 0-6-0 plus a pony truck which I had enough experience with already.

 

 

EDIT. I have unscrewed the connecting rods and have got the centre wheels and gearbox out. The basic problem is that the top cog and worm cog are not close enogh. The Comet box does not have any way I can see of adjusting the closeness of the motor mount. A wider top cog would possibly work. A new gearbox I suspect is the answer, but would people recomend one different to the Comet one?

 

Any advice would be gratefully received.

 

Jamie

Jamie,

 

You don't need a new gearbox. 

 

Once you've got it out of the frames, open out the holes for the screws holding it to the motor (use a broach or mouse-tail file). Then check that the worm is a tight fit against the gear wheel by pressing the motor front down and tightening the screws. This will be too tight, but undo the screws (slightly), and place a piece of fag paper or other very thin paper between the worm and the gear. This will give you clearance. Tighten up the screws again (not too tight) and twist the paper out. If it's still too tight, use two thicknesses of paper. Or, place fibre washers between the gearbox and the motor's frontplate (where it's screwed to the gearbox). One at the top will ease the mesh, or one at the bottom will tighten it. It's wise not to use the grubscrew for fixing the middle gear to its shaft. If tightened, it can become eccentric (just a tiny bit) and produces the dreaded whirr-whirr as it goes along. Just solder some thin brass strips to the outsides of the gearbox, trapping the layshaft, and preventing it moving from side to side. Using washers to centre it (or as near as you can), the intermediate gear is then free to rotate on the shaft, without a grubscrew. 

 

 

This should show what I mean about the strips of brass. I don't normally use flywheels, but this motor was second-hand and had one fitted. 

 

 

And, continuing the spirit of making things, I've done some more with regard to building the London Road Models D3 mentioned a few months back. What a lovely kit; a joy to build, unusual, and in a 'sea' of plastic RTR (topical?), something just that little bit different. 

 

Edited because Graeme King has suggested much the same solution. The worm does not have to be dead centre above the intermediate gear wheel, but it must engage sufficiently. 

 

I have used dozens of Comet 'boxes, and found them excellent. 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Tony Wright

[jrg1]

I hope it is OK to ask for some advice here as this thread is to a large extent what inspired me to build my first brass loco kit, together with old friends from the Leeds MRS.

 

Gearbox trouble I suspect.

 

I think part of my problem is that I got ahead of myself. I put the main connecting rods on to the wheels before running them from the motor by electrical power. All run freely by hand, and initially the motor ran the wheels OK, but then stopped. I should have paid more attention to Tony’s DVD!

 

It looks as though the worm cog/drive from the motor was only partially connecting with the top cog and has now jumped free. If you look at the photos you can see where it is shiny and is just connecting. For ease of view I have tipped the gearbox flat. I have taken the top screw fixing the motor in palce before taking the photos, I was trying to see if I could turn it the other way up to get a better purchase from the worn cog. That is the dark hole you can see at the top of the motor mount.

 

 

 

 

This is how it will be mounted when the body has been added.

 

 

What I suspect I will have to do is unsolder the connecting rods and probably build a new gearbox. I suspect I will need to buy some spare crank pins as well, but it is all part of the learning process.

 

The question I have is would people recommend a different gearbox to the Comet one for this loco? I did file back some of the outer box of the gearbox as it was very clearly visible, but I don’t think that has compromised the running of the gearbox itself.

 

Is there a gearbox with a centrally mounted top cog, rather than the side one of the Comet?

 

It is quite possible that the wheels may run well pushed by hand, but have just enough resistance when being run by the motor to have an effect on the gear box.

 

One other thing I have noticed is that the Mashima motor has some end to end play on the drive shaft which is never a good thing when running a worm cog as it can push back and lock.

 

The loco will be DCC run, I will put a chip in the smokebox. I doubt that will make any difference to the practicalities of getting the motor driving the wheels.

 

I did have to take break from building this model due to a road accident (a car knocked me off my bicycle) and wasn’t comfortable using a soldering iron until my shoulder healed, so I am picking up from my last worked on this six months ago.

 

Here are a couple of photos of the body and tender in place to show how the rest of the modelling has gone. I know it is good idea to start with an 0-6-0 loco, but as I had built pony trucks before, I felt the Black 5 was just an 0-6-0 plus a pony truck which I had enough experience with already.

 

 

EDIT. I have unscrewed the connecting rods and have got the centre wheels and gearbox out. The basic problem is that the top cog and worm cog are not close enogh. The Comet box does not have any way I can see of adjusting the closeness of the motor mount. A wider top cog would possibly work. A new gearbox I suspect is the answer, but would people recomend one different to the Comet one?

 

Any advice would be gratefully received.

 

Jamie

It is very easy when building fold-up gearboxes to end up with misalignmentand poor meshing.  Comet boxes are similar, and each stage of the build should be checked for accuracy.  I would image if you dismantled the gearbox and rebuilt it, you should be able to rectify the problem.  Looking at the images, perhaps the gearbox screw and shaft location for the Mashima may need to be adjusted (Eased with a file).

Good luck with the build.

[meltonpieman]

LB Cancer Research Box in place.jpg

 

Though it's not obligatory that visitors to see Little Bytham make a donation to CRUK, the prominent position the collecting box is now in makes it hard to miss. Already, it's made over £40.00, thus taking the total this year past £1,300. 

 

Thanks to all those who have donated (and will!) so generously. 

Hi Tony

 

Great collection box ..... but maybe I am biased!

 

Dave

[davefrk]

Just be aware guys, this type of gearbox can have different sizes of gears depending on the ratio and these gearboxes ie. in this case have a 'left handed' gear to mesh with the normal right handed one which is normally the worm gear so they are not interchangeable. Personally I don't like the offset gear much, other similar gearboxes are a bit more in line. I was involved with the development of the Markits boxes in that I was testing, commenting and suggesting other configurations, some of which are still in use in my models. The gears used in those and the Comet ones are a standard British gear spec.

I do like the Highlevel gearboxes though and have a number of more recent locos running with them.

 

Dave.

[Jamiel]

Thank you to everyone for your help. I will have a go at getting this gearbox to work, filing and adding washers. I don’t think I will need the outside retaining strips as the box fits very snugly in the chassis and holds the bearing/cog axel (?) in place.

If that fails. I still have the option of getting a High Level gear box.

Hopefully I will be able to post some photos of the finished loco in the weeks to come. It has been really enjoyable to build my first brass and white metal kit loco, and I have found my interest in RTR locos has diminished hugely during this process.

 

I am also doing some kit bashing builds of a couple of DMUs at the moment, a 3 car Class 120 and a 5 or 6 car Transpennine Class 124. I will use the Replica Railways motorised chassis for both, as I did for a Class 129 last year.

 

The Class 120 is from a Craftsman kit as was the 129, and is used as a body kit, rather then adding to an old Lima or Hornby body. I will strengthen it a little, but basically use it as a brass body kit. The Transpennine is using the Replica Railways Mk1 coach body shells as the basis with DC Kits cabs from a Class 303 EMU modified. Roof and chassis will be Comet, and then a whole host of parts will make up the builds from MJT, RT, A1, Extreme Etchings, Heljan spares, more Comet and Replica parts, bogies from Trix spares and possibly Hornby and Lima.

 

It is a pity that diesels, electrics and multiple units are not as well catered for as steam in the kit world for 4mm. Getting hold of Craftsman conversion kits, not easy these days and quite expensive offers one option for builders of ‘modern traction’. Replica offer some kits as well as built models. Obviously there is also Silver Fox and whichever DC Kits Charlie still has available, though I know if has been hard for him to access stock since the fire at his warehouse. Worsley Works also offer etched sides and some ends for DMUs, which I think I will explore at some future point.

 

I should also mention Judith Edge’s kits for shunters and some unusual locos. Is Dave Alexander still producing kits? I am sure I have missed some others.

 

I know modern traction does not offer the romanticism of steam locomotives, but I find the workaday feel of DMUs in particular alongside steam and early diesels very appealing, especially lurking in bay platforms giving some variation on layouts.

 

Here is a quick photo of the Class 129 I built last year, definitely a bay lurker.

 

Thanks again for the advice.

Jamie

[Tony Wright]

Thank you to everyone for your help. I will have a go at getting this gearbox to work, filing and adding washers. I don’t think I will need the outside retaining strips as the box fits very snugly in the chassis and holds the bearing/cog axel (?) in place.

 

If that fails. I still have the option of getting a High Level gear box.

 

Hopefully I will be able to post some photos of the finished loco in the weeks to come. It has been really enjoyable to build my first brass and white metal kit loco, and I have found my interest in RTR locos has diminished hugely during this process.

 

I am also doing some kit bashing builds of a couple of DMUs at the moment, a 3 car Class 120 and a 5 or 6 car Transpennine Class 124. I will use the Replica Railways motorised chassis for both, as I did for a Class 129 last year.

 

The Class 120 is from a Craftsman kit as was the 129, and is used as a body kit, rather then adding to an old Lima or Hornby body. I will strengthen it a little, but basically use it as a brass body kit. The Transpennine is using the Replica Railways Mk1 coach body shells as the basis with DC Kits cabs from a Class 303 EMU modified. Roof and chassis will be Comet, and then a whole host of parts will make up the builds from MJT, RT, A1, Extreme Etchings, Heljan spares, more Comet and Replica parts, bogies from Trix spares and possibly Hornby and Lima.

 

It is a pity that diesels, electrics and multiple units are not as well catered for as steam in the kit world for 4mm. Getting hold of Craftsman conversion kits, not easy these days and quite expensive offers one option for builders of ‘modern traction’. Replica offer some kits as well as built models. Obviously there is also Silver Fox and whichever DC Kits Charlie still has available, though I know if has been hard for him to access stock since the fire at his warehouse. Worsley Works also offer etched sides and some ends for DMUs, which I think I will explore at some future point.

 

I should also mention Judith Edge’s kits for shunters and some unusual locos. Is Dave Alexander still producing kits? I am sure I have missed some others.

 

I know modern traction does not offer the romanticism of steam locomotives, but I find the workaday feel of DMUs in particular alongside steam and early diesels very appealing, especially lurking in bay platforms giving some variation on layouts.

 

Here is a quick photo of the Class 129 I built last year, definitely a bay lurker.

 

Thanks again for the advice.

 

Jamie

Nothing wrong with DMU models, Jamie,

 

If they're part of the scene, then they're needed. For my part, I'd never attempt to build a DMU (too difficult), especially as the current RTR ones in OO are so good. Of course, not every type is produced, so I can see the need to kit-build/modify if necessary. 

 

I'm lucky, DMUs were uncommon on LB, apart from in 1958 when some DMU services went between Peterborough and Lincoln, but used the main line from Barkston Junction. After the intermediate stations closed, the services via the main line ceased. 

 

I might well have shown these pictures before, but these are the Down and Up DMU services on LB. Both are detailed/weathered Bachmann items. I've yet to install the correct destination boards.

 

 

[LNERandBR]

Really like the second shot of the DMU with two vans attached. The number of people who tell me I'm wrong when I run a DMU with a van on the rear on my exhibition layout is shocking.

[micknich2003]

Really like the second shot of the DMU with two vans attached. The number of people who tell me I'm wrong when I run a DMU with a van on the rear on my exhibition layout is shocking.

The hauling of a van by a DMU is completly legitimate, the various authorised routes were set out in the former British Railways Apendix. A local example to me being Hull to Bridlington Branch.

 

[Jamiel]

On first test things seem to be much better. Simply filing down the untoothed side of the top cog and putting in two washers from the gearbox fret has centred the threads under the worm screw. It seems to be making good contact without the need to adjust the motor mounting, even with a little drag applied to the wheel. I will rely on the chassis keeping the cog axel in place.

Hopefully when fitted back into the chassis all will be well, and I will be able to work towards finishing my first kit steam locomotive.

 

Again thank you for all the advice, and I think I may well be tempted by a High Level gearbox for my next loco build.

 

Lovely photos of the DMUs at Little Bytham. Very interesting to hear Tony say that they are ‘too difficult’ to build. I presume it is the transmission from the engine to the bogies that is the biggest issue to conquer. Using the Replica Railways powered chassis is a cheat by kit building standards, but does allow for me to concentrate on the body work and underframe details. I know a lot of people like Black Beetle motors, much less obtrusive.

 

Jamie

[Clive Mortimore]

Really like the second shot of the DMU with two vans attached. The number of people who tell me I'm wrong when I run a DMU with a van on the rear on my exhibition layout is shocking.

I know vans were towed behind DMUs but I am sure the number of photos of such events is disproportional to the number of DMU journeys.

 

"Why waste film on a DMU.....Oh! Hang about that looks different" Click.

[Tony Wright]

On first test things seem to be much better. Simply filing down the untoothed side of the top cog and putting in two washers from the gearbox fret has centred the threads under the worm screw. It seems to be making good contact without the need to adjust the motor mounting, even with a little drag applied to the wheel. I will rely on the chassis keeping the cog axel in place.

 

Hopefully when fitted back into the chassis all will be well, and I will be able to work towards finishing my first kit steam locomotive.

 

 

 

Again thank you for all the advice, and I think I may well be tempted by a High Level gearbox for my next loco build.

 

Lovely photos of the DMUs at Little Bytham. Very interesting to hear Tony say that they are ‘too difficult’ to build. I presume it is the transmission from the engine to the bogies that is the biggest issue to conquer. Using the Replica Railways powered chassis is a cheat by kit building standards, but does allow for me to concentrate on the body work and underframe details. I know a lot of people like Black Beetle motors, much less obtrusive.

 

Jamie

Jamie,

 

Glad to hear the motor/gearbox is working.

 

When I say DMUs are too difficult, it's not the transmission, it's all that glass. 

 

I've built/modified hundreds of carriages, but none has such large windows in comparison with a DMU. Then, there's all that highly-visible interior. There's nowhere to hide blobby soldering or excess glue. 

 

As for DMUs towing vans, was there a limit to what they were allowed to tow? The Derby LW in my picture, towing two vans, is based on a picture of the same near Peterborough (on the line to Spalding and beyond). 

 

When I used to work for the Post Office prior to Christmas on Chester Station during 1960s' holidays from art school/teacher training college, DMU services to the Wirral and Manchester often towed vans - packed with mail, the guard's section being full. 

[Dazzler Fan]

Jamie,

 

Have you tried an N20 motor with a gearbox ratio about 60 rpm

with purpose designed bevel gears - the whole should sit within

the 12mm of the frames

 

See:-   /topic/132105-n20-motors-railway-modeller-april-2018/

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Dazzler Fan

[robertcwp]

Jamie,

 

Glad to hear the motor/gearbox is working.

 

When I say DMUs are too difficult, it's not the transmission, it's all that glass. 

 

I've built/modified hundreds of carriages, but none has such large windows in comparison with a DMU. Then, there's all that highly-visible interior. There's nowhere to hide blobby soldering or excess glue. 

 

As for DMUs towing vans, was there a limit to what they were allowed to tow? The Derby LW in my picture, towing two vans, is based on a picture of the same near Peterborough (on the line to Spalding and beyond). 

 

When I used to work for the Post Office prior to Christmas on Chester Station during 1960s' holidays from art school/teacher training college, DMU services to the Wirral and Manchester often towed vans - packed with mail, the guard's section being full. 

Fortunately, the DLW and 105 from Bachmann are such excellent models that there is little, if any, need to build those types. Plenty of other types that have not been done RTR to a high standard though.

[chris p bacon]

 For my part, I'd never attempt to build a DMU (too difficult), especially as the current RTR ones in OO are so good.

 

 

I'm being Devils Advocate here....surely I haven't just read that RTR DMU's are better than a kit built one on 'Wright Writes'. . .next you'll be converting them to DCC. . .

 

I built the DC kits Derby Lightweight, comes out very well and an equal to the Bachmann.

[LNER4479]

Latest progress with the Little Bytham 'retro' signals - arms now fitted and working.

 

Balance weights, bases and connecting it all up next. Two weeks to go until they get trial fitted and tested...

[Clearwater]

I'm being Devils Advocate here....surely I haven't just read that RTR DMU's are better than a kit built one on 'Wright Writes'. . .next you'll be converting them to DCC. . .

 

I built the DC kits Derby Lightweight, comes out very well and an equal to the Bachmann.

I'm willing to bet that within the not too distant future, you won't need to update destination blinds on DMUs but instead a couple of clicks on your computer, and a DCC chip, and you'll be able to reprogramme the destination to one of your choice.

 

David

[DavidB]

As for DMUs towing vans, was there a limit to what they were allowed to tow?

I remember a school visit to Lincoln depot in the early 1980s, where the depot manager told us that lightweight units (Cravens 105s and Derby 108s in this case) had LW stencilled on the cab fronts specifically because there were severe restrictions on what they could safely tow, because of their lightweight construction. Standard 64' heavyweight units were not subject to the same restrictions and it was not unusual to see them pulling GUVs, BGs or (on my local patch) unpowered class 121 driving trailers. Performance suffered accordingly, due to the lower power-to-weight ratio. On the same local patch, the gutsy Gloucester 128 parcels units were capable of pulling a number of vehicles, and indeed acted as locomotives for short ballast trains on the Cambrian for a while when the Barmouth Bridge was subject to weight restrictions.

 

David

Edited July 15, 2018 by DavidB

[Northmoor]

I know vans were towed behind DMUs but I am sure the number of photos of such events is disproportional to the number of DMU journeys.

 

"Why waste film on a DMU.....Oh! Hang about that looks different" Click.

Growing up in West Wales, most of the time I had little choice but to photograph DMUs, you often had a long wait for anything else.  Being an admirer of photographers like those of the Phoenix Railway Photographic Circle, I tried almost everything other than the standard three-quarter view and while my work is well short of the work of Les Nixon et al., I still look back with satisfaction at my teenage photos of "DMUs in the landscape".  They represent the typical rather than the exceptional.  

[PMP]

Growing up in West Wales, most of the time I had little choice but to photograph DMUs, you often had a long wait for anything else.  Being an admirer of photographers like those of the Phoenix Railway Photographic Circle, I tried almost everything other than the standard three-quarter view and while my work is well short of the work of Les Nixon et al., I still look back with satisfaction at my teenage photos of "DMUs in the landscape".  They represent the typical rather than the exceptional.

 

I’d love to see some of those images if possible, PRPC always has some excellent pictures, they are on Facebook where they put occasional images up.

 

I’d also be interested to learn more about DMU tail traffic particularly indentifying which routes it occurred on. I do it as a move on Bawdsey, and whilst no one yet has told me it’s wrong, it often raises a comment or questions.

[Tony Wright]

I'm being Devils Advocate here....surely I haven't just read that RTR DMU's are better than a kit built one on 'Wright Writes'. . .next you'll be converting them to DCC. . .

 

I built the DC kits Derby Lightweight, comes out very well and an equal to the Bachmann.

Devil's advocate, Dave,

 

You?

 

In answer to your diabolical observations, the same operating parameters do not apply with regard to a DMU as they do for a steam-outline loco; at least in my case. Apart from Bachmann's 9F and Heljan's O2, no RTR steam-outline equivalents will shift the loads I run on LB as will my heavy, kit-built locos. Powered DMUs only have to move themselves, and a trailer or two or a van or so. 

 

Did I say that an RTR DMU is better than a kit-built one?  

 

 

This is the DMU we used to run on Stoke Summit. It was built by Tony Geary from an MTK kit. Very nice, but at the cost of subsequent months in therapy for its builder! 

 

At the time there was no RTR Cravens DMU. I think, given its origins, as a 'layout set' this is comparable with Bachmann's Cravens DMU. 

 

My point was that, always being a seeker of the easiest option, I think I'd find DMUs just too difficult to build to my personal satisfaction. I admit, I've never tried building one, though my elder son has - with success. 

 

As for converting them to DCC (or anything), you'd have to be a better advocate for Beelzebub than you are for me to ever do that. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Tony Wright

[jrg1]

The class 114 DMUs would tow fish vans from Grimsby to Lincoln and beyond on evening timetables-seeing the vans sway at speed was captivating.