Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

It's a pity my comments on gearboxes were 'swallowed up' when RMweb went down for a short time last night. If I recall, they went rather like this (with regard to DJH and High-Level ones).

 

DJH.

 

1. They come ready made-up, just drop into the frames with ease and are quick and easy to install. The only thing to watch out for is the small size of the grubscrew holding the final gear wheel on to the driven axle.

 

2. Every one I've used (over 50 now) has been super-smooth, quiet and beautifully-responsive to the controller. 

 

3. They're very powerful, especially in large locos (the equal of a Portescap). 

 

4. They're expensive (though not compared with a Portescap).

 

5. They're difficult to hide in smaller prototypes. 

 

High-Level

 

1. They have to be made-up.

 

2. If made-up properly, they're very smooth and quiet. Granted, my experience of making them is limited (I built/installed them in an A5 and L1, with super-smooth performance, though no better than a DJH equivalent). I have, however, a couple of locos fitted with them (not built by me) which are very noisy (though they've never really been run). 

 

3. The pair I've made is more than adequate for 12-wheeled, big tanks. I assume they're powerful enough for Pacifics/V2s? 

 

4. They're considerably cheaper than a DJH motor/gearbox.

 

5. Because of the multitude of variations, they're ideal for 'hiding' in small prototypes.

 

Are the above ten points fair? 

 

All the above comments are based entirely on my own experiences. Naturally, I'll recommend something I've used extensively, but that doesn't mean (by implication) that I won't recommend something I have less experience of. 

 

The debate has become a bit adversarial, which I don't think I started. It's a matter of choice. As a one-time professional loco builder, my clients insisted on quiet, smooth, sweet and powerful performance from the (usually-big) locos I made for them. I insist upon those things for my own locos. If a prime-moving product gives me that at source, is rapid to install and saves me time then it's ideal for me. Having received a loco from me (painted by Ian Rathbone or Geoff Haynes), no client ever complained about the price.

 

It's not my place to claim that my locos run to a client's satisfaction. If anyone on here has a loco built by me, fitted with a DJH motor/gearbox combination and wishes to comment, then it's up to them. 

 

Finally, as implied above, DJH does not have a monopoly on good-running gearboxes. 

 

 

[Iain.d]

4 hours ago, RodneyV said:

Hi Iain,

 

I have a few HL gearboxes coming my way next week. I hope to construct one of my kits and I was just wondering where did you source your motors from?

Rest assured, I haven't got 30 kits to build only about 8 at the most.

I am going to start with either a J69 fro SEF.

I'm in NSW hence my interest.

 

Regards

 

RodneyV

 

 

 

Hi Rodney,

 

Other than the single Mashima, the motors are all eBay purchases. Most are branded Mitsumi with 1.5mm shafts and are dimensionally about 20mm x 15mm x 12mm. I can’t remember the cost but they wouldn’t have been much individually or for a bag of 5 and the postage was probably free. The larger motors have 2mm shafts.

 

It is comments on RMWeb that caused me to buy the ones I did. Some of the larger ones (toward the back left hand side of my picture above) are very similar / the same as those that have been shown on things like Michael Edge’s thread pages – I think they’re Mabuchi.

 

I know they will all perform differently so I’ve bought a variety to try out. Hopefully I’ll be able to standardise on them. I’m not expecting them to last as long as the likes of Mashima, so I feel it would be prudent to have some spares.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Edited October 10, 2021 by Iain.d
grammar

[Compound2632]

Gearbox/motor choices: put it this way. I'm thinking of getting an LRM Coal Engine or maybe the re-introduced Nucast Partners (ex-Ks) 700 Class (on the whole I might feel more confident with an etched than a cast kit; moreover the 700 Class has the complication outside frames). As a tyro, how do I go about choosing a suitable motor/gearbox combination?

[micklner]

12 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It's a pity my comments on gearboxes were 'swallowed up' when RMweb went down for a short time last night. If I recall, they went rather like this (with regard to DJH and High-Level ones).

 

DJH.

 

1. They come ready made-up, just drop into the frames with ease and are quick and easy to install. The only thing to watch out for is the small size of the grubscrew holding the final gear wheel on to the driven axle.

 

2. Every one I've used (over 50 now) has been super-smooth, quiet and beautifully-responsive to the controller. 

 

3. They're very powerful, especially in large locos (the equal of a Portescap). 

 

4. They're expensive (though not compared with a Portescap).

 

5. They're difficult to hide in smaller prototypes. 

 

High-Level

 

1. They have to be made-up.

 

2. If made-up properly, they're very smooth and quiet. Granted, my experience of making them is limited (I built/installed them in an A5 and L1, with super-smooth performance, though no better than a DJH equivalent). I have, however, a couple of locos fitted with them (not built by me) which are very noisy (though they've never really been run). 

 

3. The pair I've made is more than adequate for 12-wheeled, big tanks. I assume they're powerful enough for Pacifics/V2s? 

 

4. They're considerably cheaper than a DJH motor/gearbox.

 

5. Because of the multitude of variations, they're ideal for 'hiding' in small prototypes.

 

Are the above ten points fair? 

 

All the above comments are based entirely on my own experiences. Naturally, I'll recommend something I've used extensively, but that doesn't mean (by implication) that I won't recommend something I have less experience of. 

 

The debate has become a bit adversarial, which I don't think I started. It's a matter of choice. As a one-time professional loco builder, my clients insisted on quiet, smooth, sweet and powerful performance from the (usually-big) locos I made for them. I insist upon those things for my own locos. If a prime-moving product gives me that at source, is rapid to install and saves me time then it's ideal for me. Having received a loco from me (painted by Ian Rathbone or Geoff Haynes), no client ever complained about the price.

 

It's not my place to claim that my locos run to a client's satisfaction. If anyone on here has a loco built by me, fitted with a DJH motor/gearbox combination and wishes to comment, then it's up to them. 

 

Finally, as implied above, DJH does not have a monopoly on good-running gearboxes. 

 

 

Tony,

         Different opinions or life would be boring !! My view on some of your points are :-

 

  DJH

Point 2 . 50 or more @ current price £4500 ouch !!!

Point 4.  Sorry irrelevant as already said , Portescaps are no longer sold . They go for silly money on Ebay , I have never used one again very    limited useage.

Point 5.   Far worse that that description.

                They are simply not suitable for anything other than large Boiler Locomotives, even then they can still be seen under Boilers on some or sitting in the Cab area. Again as already said other available options, give a much better looking and running Locomotive.

 

High Level

Point 1. Easy to build.

Point 2 .  If they are noisy, something is either defective in the actual gears, or their meshing ,or the frame has been made out of square. Also check the worm is correctly positioned. I doubt if it will ever be quiet, if these are not correct .

Point 3 . Mine are fitted in to a  WD 2-8-0 , Raven A2, D20 , J25 and to the smallest a  Y7 and Y8 , you simply use the biggest motor that can fit into the body any angle from horizontal to vertical, using the correct version of the gearbox . It is that simple to use them.

 

 

Each to their own !!

 

I have no connection with High Level other a very satisfied customer.

 

cheers

 

Mick

 

[Barry Ten]

27 minutes ago, micklner said:

 

Each to their own !!

 

 

Mick

 

 

Can we remember this the next time Tony mentions DJH products?

[Atso]

I've been reading the gearbox discussion with interest although, as I model in 1:148 scale, it is of limited use to me.

 

Given that nobody makes N gauge loco or tender wheels specifically for kit/scratch building in N gauge (although spare parts from RTR can sometimes be obtained), there is also no need to manufacture gearboxes (although the 2mm Association has just released one for use in 2mm fine scale which might just fit between the frames of an N gauge locomotive).

 

I purchased a milling machine a little while back and have been slowly learning how to use it. I'm recovering from another bout of the 'Black Dog' at the moment so concentrating has been difficult. However, I did manage to spend a few hours each day hacking brass bar about and came up with this - middle of the (poor) photo.

 

 

This is a tender drive for a GNR type tender and the difference in size to the LNER GST can be seen from the Farish J39 tender to the right. On the left is one of my class B tenders for an Atlantic. The tender drive in the center is machined from brass and uses spare Peco Collett tender wheels and a Tramfabriek 7mm coreless motor driving a 20:1 reduction. As the motor is so low, I've had to make the chassis 7mm wide, rather than the usual 6-6.5mm used for N gauge. That means that clearances and side play are right on the limits of what will go around an 11" radius curve. Amazingly, given that only the center wheelset collects power, it runs reasonable well and this will only improve once a free running locomotive chassis is made and aiding power collection.

 

Getting the motor so low means that it should be possible to model the tender half empty, which would be a nice touch to add to my southbound locos on their last 11 miles into King's Cross. This particular tender drive will likely end up powering a ex-GNR D2.

[Bucoops]

For me there are a couple of reasons to use a DJH or other RTR (Ready To Install?) motor and box combination is:

 

1) The kit manufacturer recommends it - because the kit is either designed to fit, or it has been tested and confirmed to be a good choice.

2) If you are paying someone whatever the going rate is for building a kit for you, it may well work out cost effective to use instead of paying for a box to be built, tested and installed. 

 

However, the cost and flexibility of the HL range is great for my needs. I did try using a Markits box for a 7mm loco but just could not get it to run quietly (no doubt user error).

[gr.king]

Each to his own preference regarding gear systems, and each to his own opinion too on the question of what simply amounts to the giving of information about availability of products plus comment on their characteristics, as opposed to what goes so far as to steer people's choices - appropriately or otherwise. We'll never all agree, I'm sure.

Given the evidence of the recent discussion (and previous ones) I certainly won't waste time and space by showing or describing any of my loco drive arrangements on here as I would then probably be tempted to waste further time responding to those who saw no need to arrange the drive that way, or no sense in doing things that way, or who considered that something else would be far better. I'm equally sure that my responses would be largely a waste of time too, and it would still be thought by some that I'd done it the "wrong" way - but my arrangements all work.

[Tony Wright]

57 minutes ago, micklner said:

Tony,

         Different opinions or life would be boring !! My view on some of your points are :-

 

  DJH

Point 2 . 50 or more @ current price £4500 ouch !!!

Point 4.  Sorry irrelevant as already said , Portescaps are no longer sold . They go for silly money on Ebay , I have never used one again very    limited useage.

Point 5.   Far worse that that description.

                They are simply not suitable for anything other than large Boiler Locomotives, even then they can still be seen under Boilers on some or sitting in the Cab area. Again as already said other available options, give a much better looking and running Locomotive.

 

High Level

Point 1. Easy to build.

Point 2 .  If they are noisy, something is either defective in the actual gears, or their meshing ,or the frame has been made out of square. Also check the worm is correctly positioned. I doubt if it will ever be quiet, if these are not correct .

Point 3 . Mine are fitted in to a  WD 2-8-0 , Raven A2, D20 , J25 and to the smallest a  Y7 and Y8 , you simply use the biggest motor that can fit into the body any angle from horizontal to vertical, using the correct version of the gearbox . It is that simple to use them.

 

 

Each to their own !!

 

I have no connection with High Level other a very satisfied customer.

 

cheers

 

Mick

 

Points taken Mick,

 

Thinking about it, it's probably over 100 locos I've built into which I've fitted a DJH drive. An even bigger 'ouch!'.

 

It would appear you have nothing at all to say which is good about DJH 'boxes, yet I've praised the High-Level ones.

 

As you say, each to their own.

 

As far as I'm concerned, I'll comment no further at this time; until someone else brings along a DJH motor/gearbox -fitted locomotive which runs superbly. Then, I'll praise it; just as I would one powered by a High-Level combo. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited October 10, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[2750Papyrus]

19 minutes ago, gr.king said:

Given the evidence of the recent discussion (and previous ones) I certainly won't waste time and space by showing or describing any of my loco drive arrangements on here 

That makes me a bit sad that those of us of more limited experience are prevented from learning by the negativity of others' responses.

[Dunsignalling]

Given that comparable performance is obtainable by all the routes cited, it surely comes down to whether a DJH motor/gearbox unit fulfils one or both of the following criteria:

 

1. It saves the purchaser an amount of time that he/she values more than the price-difference between it and a cheaper alternative.

 

2. It avoids the purchaser having to perform a task that he/she finds tedious (TW has implied he feels this way in earlier posts).

 

I'm interested as my few efforts at chassis-building/refurbishment began with (possibly because of) the advent of the Branchlines MultiBox. For comparison, IIRC my first one took 20-25 minutes to assemble, though that won't have included thinking/studying-the-bits time before commencing. Experience hasn't significantly speeded me up!

 

My initial test-bed was an already-built Millholme SR Z tank, bought (cheaply) with "running issues". The reduction chosen was either 53:1 or 67:1 (it was a long time ago...) and the new box was mated to a 1626 Mashima can + flywheel. I get the impression that the coupling rods would bend before its haulage limit were reached (no added lead) and it still runs as well (if not slightly better) than the day I first placed it back on the track.  

 

I have a High Level unit and extender in stock for an anticipated project which would (in my judgement) require a bit more "modification" of a Multibox than I consider prudent.

 

I have a DJH Britannia in the queue containing a Portescap with gummed up gears. If that proves beyond rescue, I might go the DJH route out of curiosity (if I don't already have a suitable MultiBox in the cupboard). I'm unlikely to deal with anything else big enough to accommodate a DJH unit....

 

John

Edited October 10, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[micklner]

18 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Points taken Mick,

 

Thinking about it, it's probably over 100 locos I've built into which I've fitted a DJH drive. An even bigger 'ouch!'.

 

It would appear you have nothing at all to say which is good about DJH 'boxes, yet I've praised the High-Level ones.

 

As you say, each to their own.

 

As far as I'm concerned, I'll comment no further at this time; until someone else brings along a DJH motor/gearbox -fitted locomotive which runs superbly. Then, I'll praise it; just as I would one powered by a High-Level combo. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

         I cannot comment on the DJH Boxes simply because I have never use any . Cost makes them impractical to me.

 

best wishes

 

Mick

[Barry Ten]

A big loco with a DJH gearbox.

 

[Denbridge]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

Tony,

         Different opinions or life would be boring !! My view on some of your points are :-

 

  DJH

Point 2 . 50 or more @ current price £4500 ouch !!!

Point 4.  Sorry irrelevant as already said , Portescaps are no longer sold . They go for silly money on Ebay , I have never used one again very    limited useage.

Point 5.   Far worse that that description.

                They are simply not suitable for anything other than large Boiler Locomotives, even then they can still be seen under Boilers on some or sitting in the Cab area. Again as already said other available options, give a much better looking and running Locomotive.

 

High Level

Point 1. Easy to build.

Point 2 .  If they are noisy, something is either defective in the actual gears, or their meshing ,or the frame has been made out of square. Also check the worm is correctly positioned. I doubt if it will ever be quiet, if these are not correct .

Point 3 . Mine are fitted in to a  WD 2-8-0 , Raven A2, D20 , J25 and to the smallest a  Y7 and Y8 , you simply use the biggest motor that can fit into the body any angle from horizontal to vertical, using the correct version of the gearbox . It is that simple to use them.

 

 

Each to their own !!

 

I have no connection with High Level other a very satisfied customer.

 

cheers

 

Mick

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, portescaps are available if one is prepared to put some work in. I would think around 40% of my stash has come from ebay or similar. By swapping the motors out of purchased locos with something else them selling off the doner, I've rarely spent much on a RG4. Does that make me worthy of your vitriol for being a user of ready made units?

I will continue to use RG4's and now DJH units were suitable, but also high level & others where required.

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Gearbox/motor choices: put it this way. I'm thinking of getting an LRM Coal Engine or maybe the re-introduced Nucast Partners (ex-Ks) 700 Class (on the whole I might feel more confident with an etched than a cast kit; moreover the 700 Class has the complication outside frames). As a tyro, how do I go about choosing a suitable motor/gearbox combination?

LRM had an etched MR 700 Class in the offing some years ago but were let down by the person that was designing the artwork after he continually failed to correct the test etch designs correctly. He had almost finished the loco body and frames but I was asked to design the tender to avoid further problems. I started on it but stopped when I realised the loco wasn't getting anywhere. If enough people nag John at LRM he might be able to get ot sorted out.

[Paul Cram]

2 hours ago, micklner said:

Tony,

         Different opinions or life would be boring !! My view on some of your points are :-

 

  DJH

Point 2 . 50 or more @ current price £4500 ouch !!!

Point 4.  Sorry irrelevant as already said , Portescaps are no longer sold . They go for silly money on Ebay , I have never used one again very    limited useage.

Point 5.   Far worse that that description.

                They are simply not suitable for anything other than large Boiler Locomotives, even then they can still be seen under Boilers on some or sitting in the Cab area. Again as already said other available options, give a much better looking and running Locomotive.

 

High Level

Point 1. Easy to build.

Point 2 .  If they are noisy, something is either defective in the actual gears, or their meshing ,or the frame has been made out of square. Also check the worm is correctly positioned. I doubt if it will ever be quiet, if these are not correct .

Point 3 . Mine are fitted in to a  WD 2-8-0 , Raven A2, D20 , J25 and to the smallest a  Y7 and Y8 , you simply use the biggest motor that can fit into the body any angle from horizontal to vertical, using the correct version of the gearbox . It is that simple to use them.

 

 

Each to their own !!

 

I have no connection with High Level other a very satisfied customer.

 

cheers

 

Mick

 

I have portescaps in a J72, N8, D17, C13 and J21. Most are modified using the MJT gearbox sides. I do have further stocks which will probably see out my loco building. Others have Branchlines. Highlevel and 52F gearboces.

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

..... I'll comment no further at this time; until someone else brings along a DJH motor/gearbox -fitted locomotive which runs superbly. Then, I'll praise it; just as I would one powered by a High-Level combo.

 

Is it really necessary to identify the drive arrangements?

 

Suffice to say that the builder has produced an excellent runner, using his / her preferred components.

 

CJI.

[Tony Wright]

27 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Is it really necessary to identify the drive arrangements?

 

Suffice to say that the builder has produced an excellent runner, using his / her preferred components.

 

CJI.

I believe it is John,

 

And will continue to do so. 

 

Almost invariably the question most asked by visitors to Little Bytham is 'How do you get the locos to run so well?'. 

 

I don't think the answer 'By my usual methods' would cut the mustard. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Jesse Sim]

Some of you may remember back in 2019 I started a project for my LNER Department train, some LNER Dolphin wagons, which Tony kindly photographed on LB. I am pleased to announce that they're finally finished.  Lockdown came in 2020 and I spent the majority of it doing other projects as the Dolphin wagons had been sidelined due to laziness, I had to scratchbuild the doors! Thankfully at the end of last year I was chatting to a friend @Dylan Sandersonwho works for Scale Model Scenery, we have been bartering skills for a while now and I asked if he could make them up for me using laser cut wood, in exchange I would walk him through building a whitemetal kit via video chat. All was agreed and a few months later they arrived on my doorstep, saved me a lot of time and Dylan has done a fantastic job. 

 

Due to rebuilding the layout I have been non stop baseboard building, track laying and re wiring the fiddle yard and I needed a change of pace so I decided on finishing the Dolphin wagons, which then led to finishing the whole train.  So here goes nothing.....

 

Here's the complete rake, apart from the very first wagon, which you'll see in the next photograph. Apologies, my photography isn't as legendary as our Master of this Thread. 

 

 

Starting from left to right....

 

We have an LNER Dolphin wagon, scratchbuilt using a Cambrian Sturgeon as the main structure. This one has been modelled without doors, they were often discarded at yards. This is obviously carrying lengths of rails.

 

 

The next, again another Dolphin wagon, this one has the doors, there was three rather large doors on each side. This particular wagon is carrying a small amount of ballast, sleepers, some fence posts and wire and a rolled up tarp. The tarp and fence posts were added for a bit of variety, recommended by the wagon master himself Jonathan Wealleans.  I think I might add another piece of rope to the left of the one already there...

 

 

The last of the Dolphin wagons, this one is carrying mostly ballast with some sleepers in the middle, less as exciting as the previous one. If you want to know how I made these wagons you will have to keep an eye out in BRM in the future......

 

 

Moving down the train we hit these wonderful examples of GN ballast wagons, not 100% accurate, mostly the buffers that will need changing eventually but they look the part. From left to right: I made this GN ballast wagon by using the cut and shut method on a 51L (Wizards) NER plate wagon, as I say the buffers are incorrect for now, the axles boxes as well but luckily they're covered by tarps to protect them from ballast dust. The next two wagons are Hornby, these require little altering and the paint job, again the buffers but they give the impression of the wagon I worked from in Tatlows book. 

 

 

Next we have a 51L (Wizards) NER G1 wagon as the tool van, this was the very first whitemetal kit I built.....and Tony broke off one of the W irons, woke up one morning to find him taking a soldering iron to the freshly painted wagon! luckily he's not a bad bloke and I trust him...... 

Moving on we have a 3D printed ECJS full brake as the mess van, this was a pain in the backside to paint but I think its turned out alright. It didn't like my southern end fiddlyard entrance/exit so the middle wheel has been raised every so slightly, so its essentially a four-wheeler now....don't tell anyone. 

 

 

Last but not least the brake van, I finished this on Saturday. It's a DS GN ballast brake van purchased from WM Collectables, I was surprised to snag it up as normally kits are gone before you can blink. Finished off with a tail lamp on the back, I promise Tony. 

 

 

I am quite pleased with how this train turned out, It makes me proud when I look at it as its all my own work and nothing is quite as satisfying as that. Is it perfect? No, but its mine! Now to finish the other train project...the meat train. 

 

Again, apolgies abut the photos.

[Roger Sunderland]

On Slater’s website there is a motor/gearbox combo, ready to fit, which they claim is a direct replacement for an RG4. At £84 it’s even dearer than the DJH one. Has anybody tried one of these?

[Steamport Southport]

1 minute ago, Roger Sunderland said:

On Slater’s website there is a motor/gearbox combo, ready to fit, which they claim is a direct replacement for an RG4. At £84 it’s even dearer than the DJH one. Has anybody tried one of these?

 

£94.

 

ISTR they provide them in the narrow gauge kits and when RG4s were discontinued they had to make their own as they are meant to be complete kits.

 

https://slatersplastikard.com/locos/7NGLocos.php

 

 

Jason

[Tony Wright]

47 minutes ago, Jesse Sim said:

Some of you may remember back in 2019 I started a project for my LNER Department train, some LNER Dolphin wagons, which Tony kindly photographed on LB. I am pleased to announce that they're finally finished.  Lockdown came in 2020 and I spent the majority of it doing other projects as the Dolphin wagons had been sidelined due to laziness, I had to scratchbuild the doors! Thankfully at the end of last year I was chatting to a friend @Dylan Sandersonwho works for Scale Model Scenery, we have been bartering skills for a while now and I asked if he could make them up for me using laser cut wood, in exchange I would walk him through building a whitemetal kit via video chat. All was agreed and a few months later they arrived on my doorstep, saved me a lot of time and Dylan has done a fantastic job. 

 

Due to rebuilding the layout I have been non stop baseboard building, track laying and re wiring the fiddle yard and I needed a change of pace so I decided on finishing the Dolphin wagons, which then led to finishing the whole train.  So here goes nothing.....

 

Here's the complete rake, apart from the very first wagon, which you'll see in the next photograph. Apologies, my photography isn't as legendary as our Master of this Thread. 

 

 

Starting from left to right....

 

We have an LNER Dolphin wagon, scratchbuilt using a Cambrian Sturgeon as the main structure. This one has been modelled without doors, they were often discarded at yards. This is obviously carrying lengths of rails.

 

 

The next, again another Dolphin wagon, this one has the doors, there was three rather large doors on each side. This particular wagon is carrying a small amount of ballast, sleepers, some fence posts and wire and a rolled up tarp. The tarp and fence posts were added for a bit of variety, recommended by the wagon master himself Jonathan Wealleans.  I think I might add another piece of rope to the left of the one already there...

 

 

The last of the Dolphin wagons, this one is carrying mostly ballast with some sleepers in the middle, less as exciting as the previous one. If you want to know how I made these wagons you will have to keep an eye out in BRM in the future......

 

 

Moving down the train we hit these wonderful examples of GN ballast wagons, not 100% accurate, mostly the buffers that will need changing eventually but they look the part. From left to right: I made this GN ballast wagon by using the cut and shut method on a 51L (Wizards) NER plate wagon, as I say the buffers are incorrect for now, the axles boxes as well but luckily they're covered by tarps to protect them from ballast dust. The next two wagons are Hornby, these require little altering and the paint job, again the buffers but they give the impression of the wagon I worked from in Tatlows book. 

 

 

Next we have a 51L (Wizards) NER G1 wagon as the tool van, this was the very first whitemetal kit I built.....and Tony broke off one of the W irons, woke up one morning to find him taking a soldering iron to the freshly painted wagon! luckily he's not a bad bloke and I trust him...... 

Moving on we have a 3D printed ECJS full brake as the mess van, this was a pain in the backside to paint but I think its turned out alright. It didn't like my southern end fiddlyard entrance/exit so the middle wheel has been raised every so slightly, so its essentially a four-wheeler now....don't tell anyone. 

 

 

Last but not least the brake van, I finished this on Saturday. It's a DS GN ballast brake van purchased from WM Collectables, I was surprised to snag it up as normally kits are gone before you can blink. Finished off with a tail lamp on the back, I promise Tony. 

 

 

I am quite pleased with how this train turned out, It makes me proud when I look at it as its all my own work and nothing is quite as satisfying as that. Is it perfect? No, but its mine! Now to finish the other train project...the meat train. 

 

Again, apolgies abut the photos.

Lovely stuff Jesse,

 

Thanks for showing us. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Given that comparable performance is obtainable by all the routes cited, it surely comes down to whether a DJH motor/gearbox unit fulfils one or both of the following criteria:

 

1. It saves the purchaser an amount of time that he/she values more than the price-difference between it and a cheaper alternative.

 

2. It avoids the purchaser having to perform a task that he/she finds tedious (TW has implied he feels this way in earlier posts).

 

I'm interested as my few efforts at chassis-building/refurbishment began with (possibly because of) the advent of the Branchlines MultiBox. For comparison, IIRC my first one took 20-25 minutes to assemble, though that won't have included thinking/studying-the-bits time before commencing. Experience hasn't significantly speeded me up!

 

My initial test-bed was an already-built Millholme SR Z tank, bought (cheaply) with "running issues". The reduction chosen was either 53:1 or 67:1 (it was a long time ago...) and the new box was mated to a 1626 Mashima can + flywheel. I get the impression that the coupling rods would bend before its haulage limit were reached (no added lead) and it still runs as well (if not slightly better) than the day I first placed it back on the track.  

 

I have a High Level unit and extender in stock for an anticipated project for which would (in my judgement) require a bit more "modification" of a Multibox than I consider prudent.

 

I have a DJH Britannia in the queue containing a Portescap with gummed up gears. If that proves beyond rescue, I might go the DJH route out of curiosity (if I don't already have a suitable MultiBox in the cupboard). I'm unlikely to deal with anything else big enough to accommodate a DJH unit....

 

John

Good afternoon John,

 

I don't know whether I find assembling gearboxes 'tedious'. Perhaps frustrating at times might be a better description of my feelings. I'll explain, if I may?

 

Having built scores of Comet 'boxes, oodles of Branchlines 'boxes, several Markits 'boxes and many other, fold-together types, there is always the few which refuse to run quietly. By 'quietly' I mean with nothing more than the slightest mechanical noise. I've spent hours fiddling with them, but never managed to completely eradicate that annoying whirr-whirr in some. Yes, they're visually fine, but I demand 'silence'. The two High-Level 'boxes I've built both ran very quietly with little adjustment, but one I have in a loco here (not built by me) sounds like a buzz-saw. 

 

It would seem I'm not alone in my frustration, because many 'professionally-built' locos I've had through my hands sound like a lumberjacks' outing. Many have fold-together 'boxes in them. 

 

Now, in contrast, out of all the scores of DJH ready-made gearboxes I've employed, I've never had a noisy one. All the ones I've made-up myself in the past run really quietly, too. Contrast that with the more-expensive Portescaps. Yes, I know they're no longer available new, but they proliferate in the ebay/second-hand market, frequently going for far more than a new DJH equivalent. 

 

These are my personal findings (I find it a bit rich when some posters will comment unfavourably on a product, even claiming better performance from cheaper equivalents, when they've never used the one they're being critical of). Thus, my conclusion is, I'm prepared to pay more for a motor/gearbox when I know it'll run perfectly at source and also save me a lot of time and free me from potential frustration. As to the size of DJH's 'boxes, yes, they're less suitable for smaller locos. 

 

But, where you have a loco with a 'barn' for an interior (such as the 'Britannia' you allude to), well................... 

 

 

This DJH 'Brit' has the made-up DJH AM9, fitted with a big Mashima motor (with the end of Mashimas, DJH now provide its own motors). 

 

 

This completed one (painted by Ian Rathbone) has the same combination, and the drive is completely invisible. 

 

As we all say 'horses for courses' and 'each to their own'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Dunsignalling]

Sounds as if I've just been lucky. Or perhaps my ears aren't quite as good as yours.

 

Mind you, I don't have anything like your "exposure to risk". 

 

The most drastic measure I've ever had to employ has been running with toothpaste in the gears for a while to take the edge off them. I learned that trick back in my Tri-ang days with one loco that was noticeably noisier than the rest...

 

John

Edited October 10, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[LNER4479]

10 hours ago, Iain.d said:

I think this is the third round of the great gearbox debate this year.  I find peoples attitudes to it fascinating. I didn’t comment previously but LNER4479 (I think) made mention of modellers showing their work on particular gearboxes, but there wasn’t, from memory much take up. 

 

 

5 hours ago, micklner said:

They are simply not suitable for anything other than large Boiler Locomotives, even then they can still be seen under Boilers on some or sitting in the Cab area. Again as already said other available options, give a much better looking and running Locomotive.

 

 

4 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

That makes me a bit sad that those of us of more limited experience are prevented from learning by the negativity of others' responses.

 

Well I'll rise to the bait then (just once), partly because an outrageous statement has been made which should be challenged, and also responding to the invitation to show one's work for the benefit of others.

 

Let's start with a 'large boilered locomotive' shall we? I have featured it on here before - scratchbuilt 40 years ago by my dear departed model making 'mentor', Peter Sykes. Originally powered by a X04 and in many respects crude by modern standards (eg where's the brake gear?). But of considerable sentimental value.

 

Now rejuventaed with a DJH GB1 motor / gearbox. Could have used another option - yes - but, given that the loco itself cost me nothing, I decided to splash out, partly because the loco means so much to me but also so that I could try one out for myself (rather than comment about something I've never actually had any first-hand experience of). I'm still in the post-Mashima phase of trying out different options to see what works for me.

Now before Mick (and others) jump in and cry 'foul!' I will readily concede that the gearbox is only completely hidden by the fact that the builder has added a non-prototypical skirt around the rear of the boiler (between middle and front splashers). Without that, a small section of the gearbox would be visible (although some black paint would have largely 'sorted' that) - so I'll give you that one. However, and in case you're wondering about the slightly odd orientation of the motor, this was the only orientation that would work given that I was dealing with an already built loco. There's lots of structure at the top and rear of the firebox that I would have destroyed in order to get it in any other way. Weighing it up just now, I reckon that you might just get the thing in driving on the rear axle (with the motor pointing forward). I have recently acquired a Gibson 'Scot' kit off Tony so might one day put that theory to the test.

However, the REAL reason for showing this loco with its top off is ...

 

Given (Mick) your vociferous dislike of the product on the grounds of cost, you might not be aware - or have conveniently chosen not to mention? - that there are in fact TWO motor/gearbox combos in the DJH range, as I illustrate here. As I got on so well with the GB1 (not least because I now have a treasured loco added to the Shap / Carlisle stud), I've splashed out for a second time to see how the GB2 compares. As you can see, noticeably smaller (same price, mind - give or take!). I purchased it with the idea of this being the prime mover for the Millholme 'Patriot' I have under construction ... however, now I've seen and handled the thing I'm thinking it might actually be too small! But if your 'simply not suitable for anything other than large Boiler Locomotives' is at best contentious for the GB1 then it's simply blown out of the water for the GB2 ... as I shall now attempt to demonstrate.

 

Here's the current loco on the workbench, a PDK J20. This is a commission build (yes, despite my best efforts some folks seem to want me to build things for them).

 

Despite its large size (for a 0-6-0) - the J20 was fitted with the same boiler as the B12 and was the country's most powerful 0-6-0 until Bulleid's Q1 came along - it's tricky to completely hide the motor/gearbox, mainly because the firebox is set so far back of the middle wheelset.

 

Here's how I've gone about it (other solutions are no doubt available). To show no bias either way, what you see here is the very same Hi-level gearbox that I did a 'warts n all' assembly sequence on here a few month's ago. Mounted like so, with a squat Mashima (my customer had already purchased the motor/gearbox), it's a comfortable fit within the firebox.

 

Incidentally, I am in agreement with you Mick re hiding mechanisms. The kit designer obviously reckoned on folks driving on the middle axle so the pre-rolled boiler comes with a sizeable slot in the rear section of the boiler and no lower firebox front. As you can see here, I've added those pieces from scrap etch to complete the 'hiding' effect. Hope the customer appreciates it?(!)

 

Anyhow - it gives us an opportunity to compare. Could the GB2 be used in the same manner?

 

 

Well, I'll leave you to judge from these photos. My conclusion is that it probably could - just, especially if you regard the lower portion as being roughly where the firebox ashpan goes. However, the Hi-Level 'box undoutedly occupies less space so it's probably the better solution for this loco. But that doesn't make the GB2 'simply not suitable ...'

 

But now take a look at this. My 'Covid / lockdown' rapid build from last year. By no measure a 'big boiler locomotive'!

 

Here's what I did last year. Another Mashima (the kit had been in the build pile some years and when originally purchased, Mashimas were still freely available), married with LRM's own gearbox and extension piece, which allowed me to configure it so without any unsightly protrusions. I prefer to drive on the rear axle of 4-4-0s, in conjunction with a simple compensation beam on the front axle.

But would the GB2 have done the job?

 

Of course it would! Oodles of space.

Helped of course by the fact that the large one piece splasher hides anything below the boiler aft of the front driving wheel ... but no matter, it's a clear fit. In fact, Tony has made this kit himself and I think he might have used a GB2 himself?

 

It's only when you get down to REALLY small locos (you've already mentioned 'Y's, Mick) that the GB2 is never going to work. But we're down to the esoteric now - hardly 'many many locos'.

 

In fact, so puny is this thing that the whole kit is virtually designed around the rather contorted gearbox arrangement. As you will no doubt be aware, this is another Hi-Level product, the gearbox designed around this application. It was another beautiful piece of design and went together well, running smoothly and sweetly.

 

But, apart from things like that, I would regard the GB2 as a perfectly suitable prime mover for many small / medium size locos. Someone mentioned a J69 a little earlier and that's a good example of ample space inside many a simple whitemetal 0-6-0 tank engine body where there is no boiler envelope to worry about. Barry Ten has illustrated another example above

 

So - in conclusion - I find the statement 'simply not suitable for anything other than large Boiler Locomotives' at least as disingenuous towards the product as Tony's perhaps over promotion of them is the other way. From the comments above, there are clearly aspiring kit builders who are always looking on here for what options are available and - irrespective of cost considerations - to state that a product is NOT suitable when it clearly is - especially when that comes from someone who has not even used one (somewhat ironic when most of the pictures you post Mick are of large boiler locos (East Coast pacifics) that WOULD be ideal candidates for the GB1!) - is simply unfair to the manfacturer and their product.

 

Otherwise, hope that was of interest - maybe even useful? Now - back to Grantham preparations ...