Cavalex - all new Class 56 in OO

[Roy Langridge]

59 minutes ago, Revolution Mike B said:

as a modeller, I would always prefer body mounted kinematic couplers over bogie mounted ones, as with the sprung buffer vs fixed buffer argument.

Fully agree, I too dislike bogie mounted couplings as, in my opinion, they detract from an otherwise perfect looking loco. 
 

Roy

[Southernman46]

52 minutes ago, RBE said:

Whilst I agree to a degree, our PGA kinematics are absolutely superb,

Speaking of which we could really do with a 00 re-issue especially the older Redland version please 🙏

[RBE]

1 hour ago, Roy Langridge said:

Fully agree, I too dislike bogie mounted couplings as, in my opinion, they detract from an otherwise perfect looking loco. 
 

Roy

It depends where they are fitted and whether there is an option for fit kinematic type couplers. There's very little option for a Kinematic on something like a 37 or 47 with the bogies right up behind the bufferbeam. I don't really see how the NEM pocket differs if bogie mounted or kinematic mounted tbh, its still in the same place.

[The Fatadder]

4 minutes ago, RBE said:

It depends where they are fitted and whether there is an option for fit kinematic type couplers. There's very little option for a Kinematic on something like a 37 or 47 with the bogies right up behind the bufferbeam. I don't really see how the NEM pocket differs if bogie mounted or kinematic mounted tbh, its still in the same place.

Its a lot easier to chop the awful looking thing off without visible damage when its mounted on a kinematic setup than when its part of the bogie.  Of course in the case of the 56 the combination of the sandboxes from the sides and the bash plate from the front mean that is not necessary.

[RBE]

1 hour ago, Southernman46 said:

Speaking of which we could really do with a 00 re-issue especially the older Redland version please 🙏

We are looking at another run of those.

[RBE]

30 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

Its a lot easier to chop the awful looking thing off without visible damage when its mounted on a kinematic setup than when its part of the bogie.  Of course in the case of the 56 the combination of the sandboxes from the sides and the bash plate from the front mean that is not necessary.

Well yes there is that however the majority of modellers will want to use the NEM pocket for one coupling or another so a necessary evil really. The 56 is great as the bang grid can hide it brilliantly when you are detailling the end up. That's why we also included the NEM socket bang plate in our BBAs as well.

[andyman7]

An interesting discussion that once again highlights that no matter how dedicated one is to fidelity, once you get down to 4mm scale there have to be compromises. One of the massive benefits of kinematic couplings in my opinion is their ability to allow buffer-to-buffer or corridor-to-corridor coupling when correctly configured. For me, this vastly outweighs the trade-off of the NEM box. For others, the appearance is more important. At the end of the day you have to make a choice!

[RBE]

1 minute ago, andyman7 said:

An interesting discussion that once again highlights that no matter how dedicated one is to fidelity, once you get down to 4mm scale there have to be compromises. One of the massive benefits of kinematic couplings in my opinion is their ability to allow buffer-to-buffer or corridor-to-corridor coupling when correctly configured. For me, this vastly outweighs the trade-off of the NEM box. For others, the appearance is more important. At the end of the day you have to make a choice!

Yes on coaching stock with magnetic couplers kinematics do come into their own I agree.

[owentherail]

Is there a date / time scale to when what liveries are in run 2...... as run 1 has almost sold out. 😊

[RBE]

1 hour ago, owentherail said:

Is there a date / time scale to when what liveries are in run 2...... as run 1 has almost sold out. 😊

There's time yet. 👍

[Erixtar1992]

Only problem i find with Kinematics is when double heading locos with something like tension locks ect. Round curves the coupling is forced the wrong way and causes issues.

 

the fix is to just use a solid coupling between the two.

 

otherwise i much prefer them, plus the cavalex one works plenty smoothly enough

[JN]

4 hours ago, Erixtar1992 said:

Only problem i find with Kinematics is when double heading locos with something like tension locks ect. Round curves the coupling is forced the wrong way and causes issues.

 

How do the couplings bend in the wrong direction? The couplings would go the way the coupling is supposed to: following a curve. If a curve goes to the left, the coupling goes left, pivoting at the fulcrum and returning to the alignment with the centre whether that fulcrum is on the bogie or not. Possibly a coupling does not have enough slack, but a coupling cannot have too much slack or bend away from the curve unless something odd is happening. I do not know how or why a coupling would bend away from, rather than with, a curve. Look at the two closest buffers between two cars when the cars go around the left-hand curve, the two closest buffers on each car should be on the left-hand side of the car.

[Matt]

19 minutes ago, JN said:

 

How do the couplings bend in the wrong direction? The couplings would go the way the coupling is supposed to: following a curve. If a curve goes to the left, the coupling goes left, pivoting at the fulcrum and returning to the alignment with the centre whether that fulcrum is on the bogie or not. Possibly a coupling does not have enough slack, but a coupling cannot have too much slack or bend away from the curve unless something odd is happening. I do not know how or why a coupling would bend away from, rather than with, a curve. Look at the two closest buffers between two cars when the cars go around the left-hand curve, the two closest buffers on each car should be on the left-hand side of the car.

I used to think this too but after multiple problems with another manufacturer’s kinematic system I spent hours playing with and modifying them.  The issue is if the coupling has a heavy load. As the loco enters a curve the overhang at end of body swings out outside the curve which seems to cause the coupling to extend on the outside of the curve or “the wrong way”. As progress into the curve the coupling wants to correct itself but has to pass through the centre point which means it has to shorten to do this- something it struggles to do with a heavy load on the hook. In many cases this results in derailment of leading vehicle.  I’ve found that filing down the centre of the kinematic channel on said manufacturer’s system seems to help - not totally removing but rounding the centre to remove the point and make the transition from left to right easier. Hth, M

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

1 hour ago, JN said:

 

How do the couplings bend in the wrong direction? The couplings would go the way the coupling is supposed to: following a curve. If a curve goes to the left, the coupling goes left

With double heading or pushing stock, it entirely depends on how the kinematic coupling is designed. If it’s completely free from the bogie and is very free moving, then when pushing or double heading (if the following loco is faster) the coupling gets push to the outside of the curve rather than pulled inward. However if the coupling is guided by the bogies like the accurascale 37 or a lot of coaching stock (still kinematic and not attached to the bogie, but if the bogie turns a lot, the coupler is nudged over too) then the couplers stay on the inside of the curve when being pushed and double headed as well as being pulled. That’s in my experience anyways.

[JN]

14 minutes ago, Matt said:

I used to think this too but after multiple problems with another manufacturer’s kinematic system I spent hours playing with and modifying them.  The issue is if the coupling has a heavy load. As the loco enters a curve the overhang at end of body swings out outside the curve which seems to cause the coupling to extend on the outside of the curve or “the wrong way”. As progress into the curve the coupling wants to correct itself but has to pass through the centre point which means it has to shorten to do this- something it struggles to do with a heavy load on the hook. In many cases this results in derailment of leading vehicle.  I’ve found that filing down the centre of the kinematic channel on said manufacturer’s system seems to help - not totally removing but rounding the centre to remove the point and make the transition from left to right easier. Hth, M

 

Seems an issue with slackness the way you have described the issue.

 

https://www.trains.com/trn/train-basics/ask-trains/measuring-track-curvature/

 

(See linked image).

Let me call the left-hand rail, rail a.

Let me call the right-hand rail, rail b.

 

Assume the train is moving in the direction right to left, a coupling should move towards rail a bending towards rail b. I am not sure a coupling can move (‘the wrong way’) towards b by bending towards a, in the direction given.

 

Kinematic couplings are designed to straighten out the track for the couplings to get around the curve without buckling: preventing a derailment because the chord between the wagons is extended, so the curve is less sharp. If something else is happening then something is wrong with you or your couplings because the laws of physics are constant (our knowledge of those laws changes or discovered, but the laws are constant). Perhaps the couplings are not loose enough. Other people’s couplings do not seem to be not working, so maybe you got an end/start-of-shift model.

[Tony Walker]

19 hours ago, Revolution Mike B said:

I’ll bring a Symoba up to MRS Cav 👍

 

Have to agree Mike, the Symoba couplings work really well. I've used them on most of my non kinematic fitted coaches and never had a problem. You may need to do a little carving on the chassis to fit them, but once in place they work great. Just a matter of fitting them in the right place to get super close coupling.

[RBE]

1 hour ago, Bryn_Bach_Railway said:

With double heading or pushing stock, it entirely depends on how the kinematic coupling is designed. If it’s completely free from the bogie and is very free moving, then when pushing or double heading (if the following loco is faster) the coupling gets push to the outside of the curve rather than pulled inward. However if the coupling is guided by the bogies like the accurascale 37 or a lot of coaching stock (still kinematic and not attached to the bogie, but if the bogie turns a lot, the coupler is nudged over too) then the couplers stay on the inside of the curve when being pushed and double headed as well as being pulled. That’s in my experience anyways.

The couplings aren't 'guided by the bogie' the bogie has a gap in it to simply make room for the mechanism. Ideally you don't want the kinematic anywhere near the bogie as the sideways pressure caused by the kinematic (which is a different force to that of a bogie mounted couplers) is usually what causes problems with the couplers causing derailments as it pushes the bogie to the side. This bogie gap requirement and potential for bogie contact is unavoidable if you insist on a combination of kinematics and bogies very close to the end of the vehicle.

Edited February 17 by RBE

[RBE]

11 minutes ago, Tony Walker said:

 

Have to agree Mike, the Symoba couplings work really well. I've used them on most of my non kinematic fitted coaches and never had a problem. You may need to do a little carving on the chassis to fit them, but once in place they work great. Just a matter of fitting them in the right place to get super close coupling.

The symoba couplings very much benefit from a very shallow pull out, it's more like a slightly improved draft box and is the way to go I think. 

[JN]

40 minutes ago, Bryn_Bach_Railway said:

With double heading or pushing stock, it entirely depends on how the kinematic coupling is designed. If it’s completely free from the bogie and is very free moving, then when pushing or double heading (if the following loco is faster) the coupling gets push to the outside of the curve rather than pulled inward. However if the coupling is guided by the bogies like the accurascale 37 or a lot of coaching stock (still kinematic and not attached to the bogie, but if the bogie turns a lot, the coupler is nudged over too) then the couplers stay on the inside of the curve when being pushed and double headed as well as being pulled. That’s in my experience anyways.

 

I get the buckling problem now with double heading AND the locos are not speed-matched. What do I do in that situation? Speed-match the locomotives. The same from pushing, but derailments can happen from pushing anyway. Perhaps use non-kinematic coupled stock for shunting. I would prefer the chains if I could get them in and had a straight layout (or a space so large the curves would be barely noticeable). Shunting would be done by buffer bash (for pushing) and chained for pulling.

[Matt]

2 hours ago, JN said:

 

Seems an issue with slackness the way you have described the issue.

 

https://www.trains.com/trn/train-basics/ask-trains/measuring-track-curvature/

 

(See linked image).

Let me call the left-hand rail, rail a.

Let me call the right-hand rail, rail b.

 

Assume the train is moving in the direction right to left, a coupling should move towards rail a bending towards rail b. I am not sure a coupling can move (‘the wrong way’) towards b by bending towards a, in the direction given.

 

Kinematic couplings are designed to straighten out the track for the couplings to get around the curve without buckling: preventing a derailment because the chord between the wagons is extended, so the curve is less sharp. If something else is happening then something is wrong with you or your couplings because the laws of physics are constant (our knowledge of those laws changes or discovered, but the laws are constant). Perhaps the couplings are not loose enough. Other people’s couplings do not seem to be not working, so maybe you got an end/start-of-shift model.

Not a one off - every class 60 and class 56 I own from the red box company has the same issue (total 14 locos).  Others have had the same issue as detailed on threads somewhere on here. It is probably a design issue with those models and I can’t explain the physics suffice to say it does happen and can be corrected in way I described.

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

Finally got mine today as a birthday gift, however having quite a weird issue with DCC. 
 

Using a Dapol chip, I can get the fans working fine, and the decoder supply’s 5 volts. (Tail lights don’t work due to the way I’ve re-programmed the decoder used for testing), however, using a Zimo mn340C, the decoder only seems to be supplying 3ish volts and the fans do not work. But when the Zimo chip is in another loco, it can supply the full 5 volts just fine? Not an issue I’ve encountered before.

[RBE]

2 minutes ago, Bryn_Bach_Railway said:

Finally got mine today as a birthday gift, however having quite a weird issue with DCC. 
 

Using a Dapol chip, I can get the fans working fine, and the decoder supply’s 5 volts. (Tail lights don’t work due to the way I’ve re-programmed the decoder used for testing), however, using a Zimo mn340C, the decoder only seems to be supplying 3ish volts and the fans do not work. But when the Zimo chip is in another loco, it can supply the full 5 volts just fine? Not an issue I’ve encountered before.

Why don't you use the specified Lokpilot with the correct programming either via download from ESU or pre programmed from Rails of Sheffield?

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

4 minutes ago, RBE said:

Why don't you use the specified Lokpilot with the correct programming either via download from ESU or pre programmed from Rails of Sheffield?

If all else fails I’ll have to, however I don’t really want to be forced to use esu. Zimo gives me better control as I know exactly how the decoders perform, and know what cv’s I need to change to get the functions mapped how I want even on a gaugemaster prodigy. looking at the esu manual there’s not as much information available unless you have a lok-programmer etc. 

 

the decoder is giving an output on the correct pin, the loco for some reason is not accepting it. I’ll keep having a play to try and work out what’s up but it’s definitely a weird predicament. 

[RBE]

16 minutes ago, Bryn_Bach_Railway said:

If all else fails I’ll have to, however I don’t really want to be forced to use esu. Zimo gives me better control as I know exactly how the decoders perform, and know what cv’s I need to change to get the functions mapped how I want even on a gaugemaster prodigy. looking at the esu manual there’s not as much information available unless you have a lok-programmer etc. 

 

the decoder is giving an output on the correct pin, the loco for some reason is not accepting it. I’ll keep having a play to try and work out what’s up but it’s definitely a weird predicament. 

Have you got the dip switches set for none ESU?

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

1 minute ago, RBE said:

Have you got the dip switches set for none ESU?

I have, like I said the Dapol chip works the fans (won’t work the tail lights due to how it’s programmed for my 68, yet to be upgraded to Zimo).

 

hopefully it something I can change in the CV settings. Will have to check that later however. Does the voltage have to be exact 5v for the fans to work?

 

also having an issue where I can get the rear cab light to work but not the front one. However I think that’s me needing to play with the settings more as it requires changing input pins to outputs.