Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Apart from gluing together a couple of Airfix long-wheelbase ESSO tanks wagons many years ago, I cannot claim to have made any. My thanks to those who've just been showing us their efforts. Very good modelling indeed.

 

Speaking of good modelling............................

 

1453953887_JohnHouldenV201.jpg.941ed8657bf46542317445873a8769d5.jpg

 

Over ten years ago, in an effort to get a decent 4mm V2, John Houlden put this one together from a mixture of (much modified) DJH parts, Crownline parts, Comet parts and a fair bit of scratch-building. 

 

1226970989_JohnHouldenV202.jpg.569844f2c69c86039b667e01a1a06a2d.jpg

 

He painted it, and it ran on Gamston Bank. 

 

When that layout was burnt, John graduated to O Gauge and I found new homes for much of his 4mm stock (with a substantial donation going to CRUK).

 

The unique V2 was not among the items sold. Instead, it was placed on long-term loan on Retford, along with many carriages, where Roy Jackson built an EM chassis for it and 'EMed' those carriages. 

 

With Roy's death, the carriages came up for sale, and all have now gone to loving homes. 

 

What of the V2?

 

258252783_JohnHouldenV203.jpg.9cd3ffc6e25557d8e6a8caa15fc47618.jpg

 

Well, it's now on Little Bytham! I've just built a Comet frame set to go underneath it, back to OO. Though this might seem heresy to the purists (and those who seek greater accuracy), but John presented it to me as a gift, and I wanted to be able to use it. When Roy built the EM chassis for it, it was with a new set of Comet (wider) frames, but retaining the original valve gear/motion. I've just done the same thing in reverse. What happened to John's original frames, I don't know, but would anyone like a Roy Jackson-built set of EM frames for a V2? 

 

 

 

Now that's what I call a v2. It'll be interesting to see in a few years what Bachmann's new version will look like.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit, some of this talk about haulage capacity on model railways, where electronics become involved is way over my head.

 

My approach is dead simple (well, I think so). I look at the maximum load the prototype of the loco I'm building would be able to take, and make mine do the same in model form. In the case of, say, that V2 just illustrated, some 20 coaches or so. 

 

Today, three friends from the East Riding came to visit and run LB. One of them brought a Hornby Q6. It ran beautifully, light engine. Out of interest, we put it on a loaded coal train comprising of almost 50 wagons, all kit-built, some out of white metal. It just slipped. Almost full power was needed to get the train started (with a little finger nudge), and all the way around the loco slipped. I stuck my near-50 year old K's O4 on the front and that just walked away with the train. It would have handled double. Very much old-school, a white metal loco packed with extra lead! 

 

I've said before, that is why RTR locos are of little use to me. I'm not making a judgement about that, just stating a fact.

 

No amount of electronic wizardry will increase haulage capacity, will it? 

 

Thanks to Adrian, Dave and Chris for a splendid day, and a most-generous donation to CRUK. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

That is fine until you want to stop it accurately on an uncoupling magnet. Having locos with different levels of inertia was a total nightmare so we took it all out and went back to a basic method of allowing the driver to decide how, where and when to stop rather than a microchip with no common sense.

But if you have an 'Activedrive' Zimo chip fitted which has a braking capability, easy peasy!

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
27 minutes ago, Chamby said:

The Deltic runs on the mainline with a fixed rake and inertia kicks in when decelerating from higher speeds.  If you’re using a loco for shunting, you’d programme in different characteristics, surely.  Horses for courses...

 

I was simply responding to Hitchin Junction’s comment about a situation where he thought inertia was desirable.

 

I wasn't that convinced with those ideas either. A deliberately weak motor? A loco that can only just haul a train? You might get away with it if you have the same loco on the same train all the time but what happens when you add a van on the back?

 

The layout in question was a 90ft run from fiddle yard to terminus. You didn't really want inertia starting up as an express crawling on scene and then accelerating away on the visible portion would be totally wrong. Then you had to judge how far out to start shutting off, which was OK and quite realistic. It caused you to cut speed down to a caution otherwise you were in trouble. It was the setting back onto the magnet that was a nightmare. You would turn the controller to 1 or 2. Wait. Nothing happened as they all started to move at different levels. Up to 3 or 4, it would start and run past the magnet. Stop the loco, run forward and repeat. Hardly realistic.

 

I have long believed that a loco that can haul the train behind it at any speed, with a good quality controller and an operator who can use that controller to give a good impression of how the real thing performed is not only as realistic as any electronic gubbins but also far more fun.

Edited by t-b-g
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

No amount of electronic wizardry will increase haulage capacity, will it? 

 

Actually it will, because otherwise traction control in cars wouldn't work.  It is about applying the maximum tractive force at which the wheels just slip (maximum friction is actually when the wheel is going a few percent faster than the rolling speed - creep on all UK diesels since the Mendip Rail Class 59s, works on the same principle).

 

Tony: do the RTR locos start long trains better or worse on the scenic section or on the storage roads?  I agree with some of the comments above though that wheel profiles on RTR locos will affect things.  Again, there is prototype equivalence; the Schools on the NYMR was had its wheel re-profiled because its propensity to wheel slip was attributed to a worn profile, which can result in a smaller contact patch through which the force is applied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, Leander said:

But if you have an 'Activedrive' Zimo chip fitted which has a braking capability, easy peasy!

 

60 locos, including many sound fitted ones to have their chips replaced. Even more buttons to press. Yet another function number to remember. No thanks!

 

We found that we could simulate different levels of inertia by taking it off the chips altogether and then turning the controller up or down at different rates. Radical maybe but highly effective!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

The driving characteristics you describe can be easily programmed into a DCC chip.  I have a Deltic with the inertia set so that it takes about 30 feet to draw up to a halt.  It certainly makes for different driving characteristics when pulling into a station!

 

Actually no you can't. If you were pulling up to a rake of stationary coaches, your DCC settings would instantly push them up to the meeting Deltic speed and the whole train would carry on down the rest of the  model 30 feet.  The problem is that relatively; model locos are massively more powerful than the prototype, the model cars have much more friction and they all weigh far too little. And almost the same effect happens with DC too.

 

As a test I recently increased the weight of a model 10 coach train to about 300 gm per coach. But, with just a single diesel,  I still could accelerate it from rest to a scale 90 mph in just under one coach length. Pin point bearings don't stand up to those sort of weights, so they will need to be replaced with miniature ball races. My next test is to put a max current limiting device in the motor leads to reduce the pulling torque and then see how long it takes to accelerate the same heavy train. And how smoothly it will then start.

 

I'm still using DCC, because I want to control multiple trains on the same trackage. It just doesn't have the capability to add inertia to the rest of the cars in the train.

 

Tim

Edited by Hitchin Junction
changed resistance to current limiter for correctness.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

60 locos, including many sound fitted ones to have their chips replaced. Even more buttons to press. Yet another function number to remember. No thanks!

 

We found that we could simulate different levels of inertia by taking it off the chips altogether and then turning the controller up or down at different rates. Radical maybe but highly effective!

I agree that 60 locos is impractical, but I have to say that the zimo system (I think it’s immersive drive rather than active drive) is great fun to use.  It makes the controller into a regulator and button 2 is a separate brake. Yes stopping at exactly the right spot is difficult, but if you’ve ever driven a real train you’d know that was realistic!

 

For a small shunting style layout it really makes the operation fascinating and the sound adds an extra dimension as well. Sorry Tony if I’m encouraging another DCC debate, but I really think this is a step forward for small layouts - admittedly it’s completely impractical and of little benefit for LB.

 

Andy

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

I agree that 60 locos is impractical, but I have to say that the zimo system (I think it’s immersive drive rather than active drive) is great fun to use.  It makes the controller into a regulator and button 2 is a separate brake. Yes stopping at exactly the right spot is difficult, but if you’ve ever driven a real train you’d know that was realistic!

 

For a small shunting style layout it really makes the operation fascinating and the sound adds an extra dimension as well. Sorry Tony if I’m encouraging another DCC debate, but I really think this is a step forward for small layouts - admittedly it’s completely impractical and of little benefit for LB.

 

Andy

 

I had similar types of controller on DC many years ago. One by Codar and another by a firm I think was called Digitol. They both had a coast and a brake facility.

 

I thought they were an interesting gimmick and used them in that way for a while but I found that reproducing realistic movement was more fun done just by turning the knob on the controller at different rates. So although they did get tried, I always preferred them in "Direct Drive" mode.

 

I am not suggesting that everybody should do things the way I do, just that is how I like to drive my trains. Getting a lovely gentle acceleration on an express takes so much more than just setting a speed and letting the microprocessor do the rest. Gently knocking off the speed as you approach the platform, drifting along and then the final turn down to zero, with the uncoupling magnet right under the back of the loco is very satisfying to me. I have no wish to remove these experiences from running trains.

 

Nowadays I just like a nice panel mounted controller for running main line trains with perhaps a hand held one for shunting. I like the panel one to have a nice lever rather than a knob to turn. It is a very touchy-feely sort of thing and very difficult to explain why I like it. I just do!

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

I had similar types of controller on DC many years ago. One by Codar and another by a firm I think was called Digitol. They both had a coast and a brake facility.

 

I thought they were an interesting gimmick and used them in that way for a while but I found that reproducing realistic movement was more fun done just by turning the knob on the controller at different rates. So although they did get tried, I always preferred them in "Direct Drive" mode.

That's interesting Tony. A good friend (whom TW knows) used (still uses?) Digitol controllers on his Whitchurch (Salop) layout. I always used to set the throttle to the top speed I wanted and just use the brake to control everything.

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

10 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Actually it will, because otherwise traction control in cars wouldn't work.  It is about applying the maximum tractive force at which the wheels just slip (maximum friction is actually when the wheel is going a few percent faster than the rolling speed - creep on all UK diesels since the Mendip Rail Class 59s, works on the same principle).

 

Tony: do the RTR locos start long trains better or worse on the scenic section or on the storage roads?  I agree with some of the comments above though that wheel profiles on RTR locos will affect things.  Again, there is prototype equivalence; the Schools on the NYMR was had its wheel re-profiled because its propensity to wheel slip was attributed to a worn profile, which can result in a smaller contact patch through which the force is applied.

'Tony: do the RTR locos start long trains better or worse on the scenic section or on the storage roads?'

 

It doesn't matter where they are on the layout, they just won't start them. 

 

I'm not a physicist, but I can make a few observations. All roads from the fiddle yards lead out (give or take) on to a short straight at both ends. It's slightly longer for Up trains because they have to depart over the lifting section. Say, a train is formed of 12/13 kit-built bogies (brass/white metal). A Hornby A3 or A4 will just polish the rails on trying to start such a train (common on LB). Bachmann A1s and A2s are slightly firmer of foot, but they, too, will just slip. A 'helping hand' will just about get them going, but then they're immediately on to a 180 degree curve (minimum radius 3') to get on to the scenic section. This introduces more friction, so the train needs a shove up the @rse to get it round. Once on the scenic section (which is almost straight) the RTR Pacifics can just about keep going (at full throttle, slipping all the time). This is useless as far as I'm concerned. Any of my own kit-built  Pacifics/V2s will just romp away with such trains. I know little of the make-up of the metal of their wheels, even less about their tyre profiles and always struggled to understand coefficients of friction (they're Romford/Markits drivers with nickel silver tyres running on nickel silver rails). All I know is that they're much, much heavier than their RTR equivalents, and I just put that down to their ability to haul heavy trains.

 

I state again, my 'needs' are quite specific, and many's the layout which is not big enough to run 12/13- or 14- car trains on. In that case, the limited haulage of RTR locos is not an issue. And, nowhere is it claimed by the RTR manufacturers that their locos will haul all-metal trains of considerable length.

 

From my observations, I've only found one RTR loco which can out-pull one of mine. This was Hornby's P2, which hauled 25 carriages (mainly metal) on LB. A kit-built A2/2 of mine, just about did it but struggled. One might say it was prototypical! The situation was immediately redressed by my adding more weight to 60501. 

 

Heljan's O2/3 will certainly haul any freight on LB, as will Bachmann's 9F. These, however, are exceptions. 

 

In a way, I really don't bother. I make my locos do what's asked of them. 'Weight' and see?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 7
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

'Tony: do the RTR locos start long trains better or worse on the scenic section or on the storage roads?'

 

It doesn't matter where they are on the layout, they just won't start them. 

 

I'm not a physicist, but I can make a few observations. All roads from the fiddle yards lead out (give or take) on to a short straight at both ends. It's slightly longer for Up trains because they have to depart over the lifting section. Say, a train is formed of 12/13 kit-built bogies (brass/white metal). A Hornby A3 or A4 will just polish the rails on trying to start such a train (common on LB). Bachmann A1s and A2s are slightly firmer of foot, but they, too, will just slip. A 'helping hand' will just about get them going, but then they're immediately on to a 180 degree curve (minimum radius 3') to get on to the scenic section. This introduces more friction, so the train needs a shove up the @rse to get it round. Once on the scenic section (which is almost straight) the RTR Pacifics can just about keep going (at full throttle, slipping all the time). This is useless as far as I'm concerned. Any of my own kit-built  Pacifics/V2s will just romp away with such trains. I know little of the make-up of the metal of their wheels, even less about their tyre profiles and always struggled to understand coefficients of friction (they're Romford/Markits drivers with nickel silver tyres running on nickel silver rails). All I know is that they're much, much heavier than their RTR equivalents, and I just put that down to their ability to haul heavy trains.

 

I state again, my 'needs' are quite specific, and many's the layout which is not big enough to run 12/13- or 14- car trains on. In that case, the limited haulage of RTR locos is not an issue. And, nowhere is it claimed by the RTR manufacturers that their locos will haul all-metal trains of considerable length.

 

From my observations, I've only found one RTR loco which can out-pull one of mine. This was Hornby's P2, which hauled 25 carriages (mainly metal) on LB. A kit-built A2/2 of mine, just about did it but struggled. One might say it was prototypical! The situation was immediately redressed by my adding more weight to 60501. 

 

Heljan's O2/3 will certainly haul any freight on LB, as will Bachmann's 9F. These, however, are exceptions. 

 

In a way, I really don't bother. I make my locos do what's asked of them. 'Weight' and see?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony, if I may, you mention the Heljan o2’s, I’ve heard from many people that they aren’t that good, can’t recall why, but I’ve always thought mine ran perfectly well and your comment justifies that they do run well. 
 

have you heard of anything along those lines of them being not up to scratch? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jesse

I would say that the Heljan O2/3s are very good haulage wise. However, they leave a lot to be desired detail wise.

 

I'll send you a copy of my review for TCH by email as I can't remember off hand when you joined the British Railway Modellers of Australia.

 

Andrew

Link to post
Share on other sites

For model haulage what's printed on this model box sums it all up nicely - seven pounds weight, twin motors with flywheels.

 

1583405579_BOSD4011.jpg.ba9aa53a00488c5ef48d3886841d4983.jpg

 

1382521940_IMG_1250rszd.jpg.1f244030a02d9cdbd6a98f5de9ada754.jpg

 

A bruiser of a locomotive my  O scale layout wasn't quite built for - but she will pull anything and bits don't fall off  !!

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Tony, if I may, you mention the Heljan o2’s, I’ve heard from many people that they aren’t that good, can’t recall why, but I’ve always thought mine ran perfectly well and your comment justifies that they do run well. 
 

have you heard of anything along those lines of them being not up to scratch? 

Good morning Jesse,

 

Having been (partly) involved with the development of Heljan's O2, I'll try and be objective. 

 

Several 'proving' prototypes were brought over to LB for assessment and testing. At every stage, the models' performance and haulage-capacity were exemplary. I wrote a series of reports and recommendations, some of which were acted upon, others not. For instance, an Achilles' heel of the model has been the plastic handrail pillars; something which was not recommended, but fitted because of lower cost than brass (I assume). The poor chimney was commented on, though not acted upon. The curious design of the valve gear was also commented on, but it was not altered.

 

On their introduction, several were returned  from a well-known retail outlet because they 'didn't run'. Since I'd been part of the model's development, I thought I'd better 'put my money where my mouth is', so they were sent to me for inspection (some 40 individual models). There were hand-written notes with each model. These included comments such as 'ded' and 'ceased-up'. Obviously, the writers of the notes hadn't been taught the same English that I'd been! 

 

On investigation, almost every one could be easily-fixed. Someone had lifted a model from its packaging using the valve gear! It was thus seized-up, but easily fixed. A 'ded' one merely needed its plug and socket connection being reconnected. A few had their chassis keeper plates tightened up too much, causing the driving axles to bind. In only one example was the motor actually dead. I replaced it. All were then returned and sold (at a reduced price, of course). 

 

In the main, the Heljan O2s are excellent haulers - far better than other RTR 2-8-0s. When introduced, their price point was higher than other equivalent RTR 2-8-0s (though did anyone pay the full retail price at the time?). Interestingly, some recent offerings (new ones?) for sale are now less than half the original asking price.

 

Whether the promised O2/2 will ever materialise, I don't know, but I did have a proving model of one for inspection. 

 

652978884_HeljanO201.jpg.e044eaa9a6e96ca59fb332bacf284412.jpg

 

742520552_HeljanO205.jpg.829951fff9affb8bcdb5078925dde418.jpg

 

206195375_HeljanO202.jpg.bbf2985e58154374987d1aacafe08907.jpg

 

390994559_HeljanO206.jpg.0f27ed45833dd46fa39456075f1dae7f.jpg

 

I was given some sprues containing a couple of the O2/2 cabs........

 

135857670_HeljanO2modifications28.jpg.f3a6c5f43f477b83cec05b6a8ff1aa69.jpg

 

Using a donor O2/3, I converted it into an O2/2, building a spare Nu-Cast GNR tender for it. 

 

654652122_O2263937.jpg.4598714fbd2e1fd26976cf37f26ed1c3.jpg

 

With 'acceptable' results? I think I should have modified the valve gear, though. 

 

59071112_HeljanO239O25secondprodsample.jpg.44036fee21b678bbea03e8277b855533.jpg


On its introduction, I think the Heljan O2 satisfied many customers. Here's an O2/4. 

 

1992324882_HeljanO2modifications22.jpg.06f541dde5da7350581c24774f5f8b83.jpg

 

By putting on the right-sized cab numerals, detailing and weathering, did it make a suitable LB loco? Obviously not suitable enough, because I've now sold this on. 

 

1886029397_HeljanO2modifications27.jpg.9cc6b5ca8fb0544e112fdfa89c672aa9.jpg

 

I have kept this re-chimneyed (is there such a word?), renumbered, detailed (and weathered, by Geoff Haynes) Heljan O2/3.

 

Whatever might be said of these models, they're prodigious haulers.

 

How are you getting on with your conversion?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
  • Like 15
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Heljan certainly found a "different" way to put a model loco together in the  case of the O2. Once you've understood the odd way it goes together you can tame it to suit your own requirements. The coupled wheel flanges seem unusually fine for RTR OO so may be a good test of your quality of track laying. I tried to alter mine to get as close as conveniently possible to O2/1, although the main section of the running plate is actually about 1mm too high for that version. What I did is covered briefly here:

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2443&start=4170

With a little more on the following page.

Since that time I've tinkered again with the valve gear to put better expansion links in place of the originals, making even more certain that they don't fall off and putting the joints between the expansion links and the eccentric rods are in the right places rather than the original wrong places. Even if you don't do that, I think that providing you've decided that you don't want the loco to go round unreasonably tight curves then it does improve the appearance greatly if you at least do what's necessary to restrict the sideplay on the leading coupled wheels and to bring the slidebars parallel with the centre-line of the loco and within a believable loading gauge. With their rear ends splayed out, as received, my loco looked like some poor afflicted person running with elbows sticking out!

I'm not sure that the prospect of the official RTR version is completely dead, but I'm not having exciting thoughts of imminent release.......

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Jesse,

 

Having been (partly) involved with the development of Heljan's O2, I'll try and be objective. 

 

Several 'proving' prototypes were brought over to LB for assessment and testing. At every stage, the models' performance and haulage-capacity were exemplary. I wrote a series of reports and recommendations, some of which were acted upon, others not. For instance, an Achilles' heel of the model has been the plastic handrail pillars; something which was not recommended, but fitted because of lower cost than brass (I assume). The poor chimney was commented on, though not acted upon. The curious design of the valve gear was also commented on, but it was not altered.

 

On their introduction, several were returned  from a well-known retail outlet because they 'didn't run'. Since I'd been part of the model's development, I thought I'd better 'put my money where my mouth is', so they were sent to me for inspection (some 40 individual models). There were hand-written notes with each model. These included comments such as 'ded' and 'ceased-up'. Obviously, the writers of the notes hadn't been taught the same English that I'd been! 

 

On investigation, almost every one could be easily-fixed. Someone had lifted a model from its packaging using the valve gear! It was thus seized-up, but easily fixed. A 'ded' one merely needed its plug and socket connection being reconnected. A few had their chassis keeper plates tightened up too much, causing the driving axles to bind. In only one example was the motor actually dead. I replaced it. All were then returned and sold (at a reduced price, of course). 

 

In the main, the Heljan O2s are excellent haulers - far better than other RTR 2-8-0s. When introduced, their price point was higher than other equivalent RTR 2-8-0s (though did anyone pay the full retail price at the time?). Interestingly, some recent offerings (new ones?) for sale are now less than half the original asking price.

 

Whether the promised O2/2 will ever materialise, I don't know, but I did have a proving model of one for inspection. 

 

652978884_HeljanO201.jpg.e044eaa9a6e96ca59fb332bacf284412.jpg

 

742520552_HeljanO205.jpg.829951fff9affb8bcdb5078925dde418.jpg

 

206195375_HeljanO202.jpg.bbf2985e58154374987d1aacafe08907.jpg

 

390994559_HeljanO206.jpg.0f27ed45833dd46fa39456075f1dae7f.jpg

 

I was given some sprues containing a couple of the O2/2 cabs........

 

135857670_HeljanO2modifications28.jpg.f3a6c5f43f477b83cec05b6a8ff1aa69.jpg

 

Using a donor O2/3, I converted it into an O2/2, building a spare Nu-Cast GNR tender for it. 

 

654652122_O2263937.jpg.4598714fbd2e1fd26976cf37f26ed1c3.jpg

 

With 'acceptable' results? I think I should have modified the valve gear, though. 

 

59071112_HeljanO239O25secondprodsample.jpg.44036fee21b678bbea03e8277b855533.jpg


On its introduction, I think the Heljan O2 satisfied many customers. Here's an O2/4. 

 

1992324882_HeljanO2modifications22.jpg.06f541dde5da7350581c24774f5f8b83.jpg

 

By putting on the right-sized cab numerals, detailing and weathering, did it make a suitable LB loco? Obviously not suitable enough, because I've now sold this on. 

 

1886029397_HeljanO2modifications27.jpg.9cc6b5ca8fb0544e112fdfa89c672aa9.jpg

 

I have kept this re-chimneyed (is there such a word?), renumbered, detailed (and weathered, by Geoff Haynes) Heljan O2/3.

 

Whatever might be said of these models, they're prodigious haulers.

 

How are you getting on with your conversion?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Good morning by the way, how rude of me, well evening for me.

 

Interesting words Tony, as always. so no doubt what I’ve heard are from people who just open the box and slap it on their track and complain when something they’ve done has gone wrong....but that’s another matter......

 

The details are easily fixed, if you want a precise model of an O2. Regards to the pricing, I’ve always stuck by; you pay cheap you get cheap!!! Look at that A2 for instance, I payed a pretty penny for her and she’s the best runner I have! 
 

well since Australia Post lost the parcel you sent me Tony nothing has been done lately. She does run on the layout minus a paint job, the correct front buffer beam, tender not complete and no buffers on the rear, but she runs like a dream, easily pulling a mixed goods train with half a dozen white metal kits. Many thanks again for helping, I do admit you did do 99.99% of the work. Perhaps I’ll find some parts for her at Warley, what are the chances? 
 

See you soon

 

Jesse 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Haulage power has to be sufficient on layouts such as LB & CF.  Whilst RTR coaches may be free running, it only takes one stiff axle to cause problems if the engine isn’t on top of it’s game.  Therefore, all my locos are heavily weighted. Mons Meg tips in at 175g and has pulled 25+ coaches.  Valour currently weighs 75g for the engine and that’s before the weighted tender sits on the back.   Overkill probably, as she’ll only need to dance along with 6-8 Pullmans.  The rules of engagement for small shunting layouts can be completely different, but mainline layouts, especially exhibition layouts, need locos with muscle.  Unfortunately, modern N gauge steam locos, whilst looking pretty, wouldn’t pull a chicken off a nest. 


Tim

Edited by CF MRC
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my upgraded Heljan O2/3. This has had a significant makeover, including correcting the valve gear with a new expansion link and correct positioning of the front joint on the eccentric rod.

 

1381521366_IMG_6213ps2.jpg.bab083e02ee5e3f1522fb402cb4a5150.jpg

 

Tony in the photos of the trial version you show of the O2/2 above it appears that Heljan have used the same footplate as for the O2/3, ie that from a loco with long travel valves.

 

One of the key issues in my view is the highly malleable material used for the valve gear, certainly much softer and therefore more prone to bending on any mistreatment than other manufacturers valve gear. However, apart from the incorrect expansion ling/eccentric rod issue and the motion brackets that stick out too far the valve gear actually looks very realistic and the model can certainly be significantly improved - which is after all what we modellers should be doing isn't it! 

 

I must say it was handy that a lot of spare Heljan parts were available from Howes - I bought a full set of what was available including the O2/2 cab and GN tender frames, all of which are likely to be used somewhere along my railway modelling journey, including some when I eventually get around to converting a Nucast O2/3 kit into a Gresley O1.

 

Andrew

Edited by Woodcock29
added additional comment
  • Like 9
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

That's interesting Tony. A good friend (whom TW knows) used (still uses?) Digitol controllers on his Whitchurch (Salop) layout. I always used to set the throttle to the top speed I wanted and just use the brake to control everything.

 

I still have mine. I must check them out to see if they still work. I picked up a secondhand Scalespeed controller at a recent show just because it has a lovely arm like a regulator rather than a knob. I have quite a collection of old controllers of various types. I just like them! Old controllers, old switches, even old control panels seem to gather here. I even have part of the control panel for the original Borchester layout.

 

I like my modelling old school. 

  • Like 7
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CF MRC said:

Haulage power has to be sufficient on layouts such as LB & CF.  Whilst RTR coaches may be free running, it only takes one stiff axle to cause problems if the engine isn’t on top of it’s game.  Therefore, all my locos are heavily weighted. Mons Meg tips in at 175g and has pulled 25+ coaches.  Valour currently weighs 75g for the engine and that’s before the weighted tender sits on the back.   Overkill probably, as she’ll only need to dance along with 6-8 Pullmans.  The rules of engagement for small shunting layouts can be completely different, but mainline layouts, especially exhibition layouts, need locos with muscle.  Unfortunately, modern N gauge steam locos, whilst looking pretty, wouldn’t pull a chicken off a nest. 


Tim

I've always been a bit curious about why H0 manufacturers in continental Europe so often used traction tyres (which can be a real PIA when they need replacing) though they seem to have been far rarer in Britain. Granted that, even with a larger loading gauge, H0 models of European prototypes are generally a bit smaller than OO models of British locos I don't think it can just be weight; my Jouef driven tenders weigh a tonne.

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

18 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I've always been a bit curious about why H0 manufacturers in continental Europe so often used traction tyres (which can be a real PIA when they need replacing) though they seem to have been far rarer in Britain. Granted that, even with a larger loading gauge, H0 models of European prototypes are generally a bit smaller than OO models of British locos I don't think it can just be weight; my Jouef driven tenders weigh a tonne.

Hi David and pardon me, Tony for jumping in here!

I strongly suspect the reason for the use of traction tyres on European models is that the typical European modeller builds a (rather rabbit warren type!) layout with storage roads underneath the main scenic section and uses gradients or spirals to move from one level to another.

Due to the rather smaller houses/apartments used in so much of Europe, in the cities anyway, space is at a premium so they build up as well as along and around.

This is akin to the Americans with their multi-level layouts but they get away without traction tyres by the simple expedient of prototypically double (or triple, quadruple etc) heading their trains.

 

OR - maybe it was a hangover from earlier days when mechanisms were not so good?

Cheers,

John.

  • Like 4
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...