Dunoon Sidings. A beginners attempt at P4

[dhjgreen]

To convert my Bachmann DMUs to EM (we work to 18.2 mm now, and have done for some time), I slide out the driving wheels and replace the non-driven wheels with EMGS coach wheels. For the EMUs which I have converted, there is insufficient space to do this so needed finer flanges. I got mine from Branchlines who stock a large variety of wheels in all the scales. The only problem is they have no web site and you need to phone him. He is very knowledgeable and helpful though. +44 1373 822 231

[martin_wynne]

I think that's correct about the 18mm using 00 but 18.2 using finer flanges.

 

Hi Peter,

 

You have got that back to front. The gauge was widened from 18.0mm to 18.2mm to allow for thicker flanges. Both use the same 16.5mm back-to-back for the wheels.

 

But that was half a century ago. Almost no-one still uses 18.0mm.

 

For re-gauged modern RTR wheels the optimum back to back is 16.4mm for EM.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Zomboid]

If only we'd adopted 3.5mm, life would be so much simpler!

[mightbe]

I've converted a few Hornby Mk1s to P4, by pushing the wheels out

 

I hate to stop you, but the latter half of this snippet renders the former untrue. Not even EMGS wheels run properly through P4 turnouts. *backs away slowly*

 

For P4, you really do have to change the wheels if you want to run trains over anything other than plain track. 

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

I hate to stop you, but the latter half of this snippet renders the former untrue. Not even EMGS wheels run properly through P4 turnouts. *backs away slowly*

 

For P4, you really do have to change the wheels if you want to run trains over anything other than plain track. 

Well I pushed the wheels out and they run on P4 track 

I will be getting proper P4 wheels for all my stock, but for now getting something to run them on is a priority!

 

Hi Peter,

 

You have got that back to front. The gauge was widened from 18.0mm to 18.2mm to allow for thicker flanges. Both use the same 16.5mm back-to-back for the wheels.

 

But that was half a century ago. Almost no-one still uses 18.0mm.

 

For re-gauged modern RTR wheels the optimum back to back is 16.4mm for EM.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Ah ok. That makes sense now I think about it. 

To convert my Bachmann DMUs to EM (we work to 18.2 mm now, and have done for some time), I slide out the driving wheels and replace the non-driven wheels with EMGS coach wheels. For the EMUs which I have converted, there is insufficient space to do this so needed finer flanges. I got mine from Branchlines who stock a large variety of wheels in all the scales. The only problem is they have no web site and you need to phone him. He is very knowledgeable and helpful though. +44 1373 822 231

Thanks for that. All I have to do now is find suitable P4 wheels for A) the Bachmann 108 and B) the Heljan 128

 

I think the way to go (having seen a blog post by Captain Kernow - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/21/entry-11952-converting-the-Heljan-class-128-single-parcels-unit-to-p4/ ) would be to use P4 carriage wheels which are the right size, and push the existing gear on if possible.

 

Thanks all for the assistance.

 

Peter

[dhjgreen]

Branchlines have what you need. It is not exactly a website and has not been updated in many a year, but it does show they have P4 wheels for the 108 at least.

 

http://branchlines.blogspot.co.uk

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Branchlines have what you need. It is not exactly a website and has not been updated in many a year, but it does show they have P4 wheels for the 108 at least.

 

http://branchlines.blogspot.co.uk

Thanks

 

At least that helps for the 108, looks like I'll be using CKs method for the 128

 

Peter

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Well I've started converting the 128 using Hornby Mk1 wheels/axles. These will be changed to more suitable wheels later on, as they are too large. The reason I am using the Hornby wheels rather than Heljan is as the Hornby ones have a slightly finer wheel profile.

 

So far one bogie has been (temporarily) converted, and the other will be done tomorrow.

 

I will also be posting images of the track plan for my proposed P4 "starter" layout, which utilises the three baseboards which I had built intended for Dunoon. Dunoon's boards will then be built using an open-frame style baseboard rather than a close-topped style like the ones currently built.

 

Peter

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Well I now have a Gresley full brake/parcels van in my collection, with the Sleeper, second BG and Buffet car waiting to be earned.

 

I took the opportunity to set up a parcels train, using the 128, LMS parcels van, BR Mk1 BG and my Gresley BG.

 

Here are some photos

 

The 128 with its train. The consist was - 128 - LMS Parcels Van - Mk1 BG - Gresley BG

 

 

And all the stock for Dunoon, excluding 4 freight wagons, two more Mk1s, the 108, 2 disassembled A4s and a disassembled L1.

 

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

And I have also finalized the arrangement for my "small" P4 exhibition layout. It will utilise the three boards I had originally built for Dunoon, with the two 1.2m x 0.6m boards becoming scenic boards, and the 1.6m x 0.6m board being used for either cassettes or a traverser. 

 

Here is the plan. It is 100% ripped off from the Hornby Magazine "Operation Build It" plan, but the buildings and placing has been changed significantly, as well as it being .6m longer and being over two boards rather than one. 

 

 

The turnouts are all A6 mainly to save space. However nothing larger than a 4-6-0 will run on it so it won't be a problem. 

 

Peter

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Well I've done a bit of work on the exhibition layout.

 

I have decided on a name: Bonshaw. This is as my family comes from Bonshaw Tower in Scotland.

 

I have also started to wire up the first 3 point motors. I am using left-over Peco motors from original Dunoon. 

 

Hopefully I can have the 3 motors for the first board wired up by the end of today.

 

Peter

[Andrew P]

Looking like a very nice workable plan Peter, well done so far, have a good days wiring.

[dhjgreen]

Well I've done a bit of work on the exhibition layout.

 

I have decided on a name: Bonshaw. This is as my family comes from Bonshaw Tower in Scotland.

 

I have also started to wire up the first 3 point motors. I am using left-over Peco motors from original Dunoon. 

 

Hopefully I can have the 3 motors for the first board wired up by the end of today.

 

Peter

Aren't these solenoids? How will you make them work with hand made turnouts?

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Aren't these solenoids? How will you make them work with hand made turnouts?

Yes, they are. I'm planning to use a copper-clad sleeper for the tiebar. This way it should be able to hold up to the solenoid motors. 

 

The only reasons I'm using solenoids is because

A) I already have them so I don't need to buy new ones

B) The Cobalts I would use otherwise are $30 each so that'd set be back $180 which could buy me a new loco

C) The fast action is more realistic for point rodding/levers, whereas slow-actions would be more appropriate for later point motors.

 

I may decide to use Cobalts depending on how well the points stand up to the Peco motors - if I need to replace the tiebar or resolder it a lot then I will change it, but hopefully the solder and fibreglass tiebar will hold up to it. \

 

Didn't end up being able to get more wiring done today so tomorrow afternoon it will be get home, eat, and get to work.

 

Peter

[Andrew P]

Yes, they are. I'm planning to use a copper-clad sleeper for the tiebar. This way it should be able to hold up to the solenoid motors. 

 

The only reasons I'm using solenoids is because

A) I already have them so I don't need to buy new ones

B) The Cobalts I would use otherwise are $30 each so that'd set be back $180 which could buy me a new loco

C) The fast action is more realistic for point rodding/levers, whereas slow-actions would be more appropriate for later point motors.

 

I may decide to use Cobalts depending on how well the points stand up to the Peco motors - if I need to replace the tiebar or resolder it a lot then I will change it, but hopefully the solder and fibreglass tiebar will hold up to it. \

 

Didn't end up being able to get more wiring done today so tomorrow afternoon it will be get home, eat, and get to work.

 

Peter

I agree about NOT using Solenoids, they wont hold the Blade in place.

[dhjgreen]

Have a look at Megapoint controllers for micro servers, would be cheaper than Cobalts. Or if you are good at electronics, MERG do a self build kit.

[dhjgreen]

Or even cheaper, wire in tube using a slide switch for frog switching as here on my EM layout.  Note the omega loops to control the throw.

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Or even cheaper, wire in tube using a slide switch for frog switching as here on my EM layout.  Note the omega loops to control the throw.

It's an interesting method.

 

I think I'd rather go for point motors, at least initially because I have point motors and switches, but I may change to another method or Cobalt's later on. Luckily with the way I'm planning to get the wiring done it will be easy to swap different types of point motor, i.e. Peco can be swapped for Cobalt in a space of about 10 minutes and a screwdriver.

 

Peter

[Zomboid]

Wire in tube is operationally and functionally more realistic for mechanical signalling, not to mention cheaper and simpler. Would be my choice for a small layout or shunting plank.

If you fancy a real challenge then you could build a proper lever frame with mechanical interlocking. But I think you'd probably be insane to try that...

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Wire in tube is operationally and functionally more realistic for mechanical signalling, not to mention cheaper and simpler. Would be my choice for a small layout or shunting plank.

If you fancy a real challenge then you could build a proper lever frame with mechanical interlocking. But I think you'd probably be insane to try that...

Don't tempt me! With the coming of the DCC Concepts working point rodding, I think it will become more common. And it may even give me an excuse to test out working point rodding on the layout - go to motors or levers hidden in the signalbox, and use point rodding to allow me to have proper interlocking. Maybe even have the rodding in the box lead to strings going under the baseboard to some winding system, that way it eliminates the need for expensive levers (I would be going for Cobalt S levers if I did)

 

I'll give it a think.

 

Peter

[mightbe]

There's an Australian firm--Modratec--who supply mechanical lever frames with custom mechanical interlocking. So that part isn't insane, just expensive. (you can't 'rebuilt'/'adapt' your design later on)

 

If you choose to implement working point rodding, I can't recommend making it 'functional'. That is to say, it would probably best if it were 'just along for the ride', being moved by the motion of the points. You can incorporate mechanical interlocking into the equation, I would just recommend using wire-in-tube or point motors to drive the points. You can even have mechanical interlocking, working point rodding, and point motors all at the same time! Just so long as the point rodding is only attached at the one end.. While it is technically possible to do what you describe, I doubt it's terribly practical. I can only think of two 4mm examples off the top of my head, one of which is for-sure mechanically interlocked. That one is the only layout I know of with actual scale functional point rodding. I think you'll find that the DCC Concepts offering will be substantially thicker.

 

The reason I suggest the 'dummy' (but moving) point rodding is because functional point rodding in 4mm is fiddly. You'd spent hours adjusting the cranks and so forth, only to have to start again every time you assemble/disassemble/move the layout. Doing it over board joints would be a recipe for endless frustration. 

 

Quentin

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

There's an Australian firm--Modratec--who supply mechanical lever frames with custom mechanical interlocking. So that part isn't insane, just expensive. (you can't 'rebuilt'/'adapt' your design later on)

 

If you choose to implement working point rodding, I can't recommend making it 'functional'. That is to say, it would probably best if it were 'just along for the ride', being moved by the motion of the points. You can incorporate mechanical interlocking into the equation, I would just recommend using wire-in-tube or point motors to drive the points. You can even have mechanical interlocking, working point rodding, and point motors all at the same time! Just so long as the point rodding is only attached at the one end.. While it is technically possible to do what you describe, I doubt it's terribly practical. I can only think of two 4mm examples off the top of my head, one of which is for-sure mechanically interlocked. That one is the only layout I know of with actual scale functional point rodding. I think you'll find that the DCC Concepts offering will be substantially thicker.

 

The reason I suggest the 'dummy' (but moving) point rodding is because functional point rodding in 4mm is fiddly. You'd spent hours adjusting the cranks and so forth, only to have to start again every time you assemble/disassemble/move the layout. Doing it over board joints would be a recipe for endless frustration. 

 

Quentin

True

 

I'll have a look at Moderatech, but from what I've heard it isn't cheap.

Right now I'm trying to save money where possible to get rolling stock and P4 wheels for them. I also have 7 Hornby Gresleys and 10 Mk1 coaches which need new bogie units to allow for P4 wheels.

 

Peter

[Gordon A]

It's an interesting method.

 

I think I'd rather go for point motors, at least initially because I have point motors and switches, but I may change to another method or Cobalt's later on. Luckily with the way I'm planning to get the wiring done it will be easy to swap different types of point motor, i.e. Peco can be swapped for Cobalt in a space of about 10 minutes and a screwdriver.

 

Peter

 

Have you considered using radio control servos to drive your points?

 

Using the correct interface the angle of throw can be adjusted and on some the speed can be adjusted.

 

Gordon A

[DougN]

On the servo control use the Burnell models printed circuit board at about $9 ea and the servos can be had from HongKong for about 2.50aud landed! (Hobbyking is a supplier I used a few years ago)

 

I prefer to use them for signal control rather than points as I have never really figured out the frog switching other than using a Micro switch!

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Have you considered using radio control servos to drive your points?

 

Using the correct interface the angle of throw can be adjusted and on some the speed can be adjusted.

 

Gordon A

 

On the servo control use the Burnell models printed circuit board at about $9 ea and the servos can be had from HongKong for about 2.50aud landed! (Hobbyking is a supplier I used a few years ago)

 

I prefer to use them for signal control rather than points as I have never really figured out the frog switching other than using a Micro switch!

I hadn't actually thought of servos. It's a good thought. How do I control the servos though, is there a switch or something? 

 

I need enough for 6 point motors and 2 signals but thinking about it I'll almost certainly use Dapol signals so don't need to worry about them, just need push-buttons for them.

 

So a couple of questions - 

How many Brunell circuit boards will I need

What would I use to control them

And how easy are they to wire

 

I'll figure out how to do frog control, maybe through polarity switches from Jaycar or ebay. There may even be a way to utilise the existing Peco ones and modify them.

 

Peter

 

EDIT: I just realised that this is the 100th post in this thread!