A shunting puzzle with a twist in 009 (eventually)

[009 micro modeller]

11 hours ago, DCB said:

Have you considered a vintage Triang pre 1960 underframe. They are in two mazak halves split left and right and when separated by an insulated plastic rod or match stick and fibre washer and Bachmann split axle wagon wheels are fitted it picks up power nicely.  I had one as a runner for an 0-4-0 diesel before I went live frog.   It shouldn't be too difficult to fit an N gauge motor or something from a dead computer to power one..  The Triang chassis lacks detail  but brake levers etc can be added ,  it should be better looking  Than the Bachmann(?) van  perched on top of the Euro star bogie  

I was thinking of something along those lines, although possibly just having another go at scratchbuilding my own chassis. The Dapol van is good because it doesn’t have a floor as such and the body just clips to its original frame, and then the motor bogie fits within this. The Eurostar bogie runs a lot better than the class 86 one, but the annoying bit is the amount of detail that has to actually be sawn off (as opposed to just unclipped) and the need to move the brake rigging outwards slightly. The issue with all the options is weight - ideally a bit of weight would be added to improve adhesion, but I can’t add too much because the narrow gauge loco needs to be able to move two transporters, each loaded with a motorised wagon. The Eurostar-powered van will do for now, although I really want something slightly better, and I need to actually focus on building the loco for a bit and finding out what its haulage capabilities are.

[009 micro modeller]

While the motorised wagon design probably ideally needs a bit more work it works well enough for now. I’ve turned my attention to the narrow gauge loco. I was originally going to leave this until rather later in the process, but it’s likely that I’ll need it sooner, simply to make sure that it can haul the weight of the motorised wagons before I finalise how those are going to work.

 

I’m building round the Roco chassis mentioned earlier, and have made a start. The loco is taking shape although it’s at quite an early stage. It’s based on a Meridian Ashover coach kit. The sides and ends for these can be purchased separately, although sadly you don’t get a roof unless you buy the whole kit. However, I now plan to give it a slightly higher flat roof instead, which hopefully will make the origins a bit less obvious and will hopefully support the pantograph (and therefore eventually the overhead wire) up to a suitable height to clear the standard gauge wagons without needing a ridiculously high pantograph tower.

 

The other good reason to use this kit is the large end windows, which make suitable cab windows for a double-ended electric loco.

 

[Stubby47]

I've finally dragged my 009/00 layout from the loft and taken a few photos.

 

1. The Baldwin arrives at the transfer dock with the transporter wagon.

 

2. The Sentinel pushes the standard gauge wagon to the edge...

 

3. ...and on to the NG wagon.

 

4. The Sentinel uncouples and moves away.

 

5. The Baldwin takes the transporter wagon and load off to somewhere on the munitions base.

 

And a couple of videos here :  

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Stubby47

[009 micro modeller]

4 hours ago, Stubby47 said:

I've finally dragged my 009/00 layout from the loft and taken a few photos.

 

1. The Baldwin arrives at the transfer dock with the transporter wagon.

 

2. The Sentinel pushes the standard gauge wagon to the edge...

 

3. ...and on to the NG wagon.

 

4. The Sentinel uncouples and moves away.

 

5. The Baldwin takes the transporter wagon and load off to somewhere on the munitions base.

 

And a couple of videos here :  

 

Very interesting. Have you got any video of it moving with the wagon loaded on?

[Stubby47]

10 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Very interesting. Have you got any video of it moving with the wagon loaded on?

 

Yep, a little bit on here:  

 

[009 micro modeller]

 

 

The loco continues to take shape, although it’s proving slightly difficult to get it to sit level and at a consistent height on the chassis. This will be more important than usual because of the overhead wire height. I still haven’t ordered the pantograph yet and will need to do the electrical connection to it anyway.

[009 micro modeller]

I realise it’s been more than 2 months since the last post, work and other things got in the way. The Halling pantographs arrived today though which meant I could do a bit of cack-handed bodging modelling and the loco is now basically finished (obviously still to be glazed, detailed and painted, and couplings will be fitted at the same time as they are fitted to the transporter wagon).

 

 

 

The copper tube coming out of the roof was necessary to provide an electrical contact to the pantograph from the brass tab on the chassis. The original N gauge body did this much more easily as it was small enough to press directly onto the brass tab, and originally I’d hoped to make the connection via internal wiring, but the difficulty is in making the contact nice and secure and reasonably robust while still allowing the body to be removed easily. I could have done another connection to the second tab on the other bogie but it would have meant more cutting into what I’d already done and there wasn’t really much point (they both feed into the same bit of the motor but the original N gauge loco had two pantographs). I’ll have to wait and see if one pantograph is enough - it looks OK with just one and should run OK but two would provide an extra point of contact.

It’s been tested and the pantograph works, draws power and feeds it to the motor, although obviously I don’t yet have the overhead line set up.

Edited August 29, 2023 by 009 micro modeller

[009 micro modeller]

No pictures this time but a small update. I’m now close to an improved solution for motorising the standard gauge wagons, which will be slightly more expensive than some of the ideas I’ve tried so far but will be worth it longer term. However, the wheelbase means there’s now a bias towards open wagons (I don’t think there were many 9ft wheelbase vans still in service in the BR era) so I’m looking at some 16 ton mineral wagons. I’ve always wanted one of the more unusual ‘cupboard door’ ones, which I could build from the Parkside kit, but will need some more conventional ones as well, so does anyone have any opinions on the quality of the old Airfix/Dapol kit? I understand they’re basically dimensionally accurate and, when it comes to fitting the motor bogies, kitbuilding the wagons might be easier than trying to hack RTR (in this case Bachmann) wagons around, but as a mostly NG modeller it’s not really my area of expertise.

 

I need 5 sufficiently distinctive wagons to operate the puzzle and 16 ton mineral wagons give me at least 3 wagons that look noticeably different from each other (even to a casual observer, without getting into detail differences) - i.e. one ‘cupboard door’, and two of the more usual type, one grey, one bauxite.

[Stubby47]

You could add different light-weight loads to the opens, to make them distinctive.

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, Stubby47 said:

You could add different light-weight loads to the opens, to make them distinctive.

That is one option I’d considered, I was hoping to make the shunting look vaguely believable though even if it’s mainly just a puzzle. I can still use vans as well, but were there that many 9ft wheelbase vans left on BR in the 50s/60s? If not a 10ft wheelbase is still possible but probably more expensive.

 

I’ve also realised I can do the Parkside kit for the normal 16 ton mineral as well as the cupboard door one. At the moment I also have an Oxford Rail 7 plank (in a BR livery) but with open wagons I get the sense that kit built wagons will be easier to motorise than RTR.

[009 micro modeller]

The Sommerfeldt tramway masts and wire have now come. I’ve only bought 3 standard single bracket masts for now to do a test piece, to make sure they work, and also because I still need to work out the exact layout of the masts on the finished layout, and how many of each type I will need. I’ve put these to one side for now because they are threaded masts (requiring holes to be drilled in the baseboard) and the test rig will hopefully also include a test loading dock and piece of standard gauge track for the transporters and the ability to test the magnetic uncoupling system (Greenwich/B&B hybrid, done before by others in 009 but new to me personally), meaning that building it is going to be a bit more of an involved process.

 

However, the alternative solution for motorising the wagons has now arrived from Mark at Locosnstuff. It’s superb, very controllable and fits nicely into the wagon. It is obviously improved by adding weight, but doesn’t seem to require anywhere near as much as the other bogies I’ve tried. It’s not quite finished yet but I wasn’t working today so spent a bit of time hacking the Oxford Rail wagon to fit. This requires the buffers to be removed in order to separate the body from the chassis, and these still haven’t been refitted yet. A cutting disc and a bit of filing took care of the wagon floor and the middle bit of the chassis, though again this part should be easier with kit built wagons. That said, I managed to do the modifications without damage to the wagon’s appearance. The only issue is that, as with the earlier van wagon, I had to cut the brake shoes off. I had hoped to stick them back on slightly further in, but they still fouled the wheels. Hopefully it isn’t too noticeable. Next time I will see if I can get a 36mm wheelbase bogie from Mark, even though I understand it isn’t a standard size (this one is, at 35mm). This might allow all the brake gear to be retained completely intact as it will exactly match the original wagon’s wheelbase, assuming that this is actually the issue and it isn’t to do with wheel profiles/alignment being different on the motor bogie compared with the outside-framed pinpoint wheels originally fitted.

 

 

Wagon frame. The tension locks cannot now be refitted as I’ve cut part of their mounting points away, but the plan is that the standard gauge wagons will not need to couple to anything anyway.

 

 

Motor bogie.

 

The motorised wagon, fitted back together temporarily but not yet complete. The test weight won’t be staying, I’ll get something a bit more subtle! It was factory weathered.

 

 

Body and frame, showing the cutout.

Edited September 12, 2023 by 009 micro modeller

[009 micro modeller]

The wagon is now almost finished. I’ve glued the motor bogie to the frame, the idea being that the body clips onto this assembly but can be removed. The body itself has had a false floor put in at a slightly higher level and then some weight (the original wagon weight sawn in half to suit, plus some bits of lead sheet). All that’s left to do now is to add a load, which will hide the motor, false floor and weights. The buffers will be reinstated when it’s all put back together as these have to come off to separate the Oxford wagon’s body and chassis.

 

 

 

The wagon continues to run better and be much more controllable than the previous attempts (involving the Dapol van) covered earlier in the thread. However, and in common with the other motorised wagon, it does seem to have difficulty running well on the transporter itself. There’s nothing particularly wrong with the transporter that I can see as it was electrically tested when built, so I’m not sure what the problem is (I’m pretty sure it is a problem with the transporter itself though, given that the wagon doesn’t have any issues on the test track). I wonder if it would improve in the final set up, where the transporter would be stationary and would be pushed against the loading dock by the narrow gauge loco?

 

Edit: it does indeed appear to work fine when the transporter is wedged in place (which essentially it will be for intended operation on the finished layout). I’m not quite sure why this would solve the problem but possibly it’s just removing the inertia or possibly just the opposing force created by the rolling chassis of the transporter, which wants to run the other way when power is applied.

Edited September 20, 2023 by 009 micro modeller

[009 micro modeller]

Moving onto couplings, and this is another area that looks like it might be a bit of a learning curve. As a bit of background, on my first few layouts I used manual uncoupling (i.e. ‘great hand from the sky’, wielding an uncoupling hook). This gave a lot of flexibility, but I wasn’t really happy with the intrusion into the scene and it was sometimes difficult not to knock stock off accidentally (I suspect that a lot of modellers would agree with this overall analysis). I do have one micro layout that is a single line automatic shuttle, so uncoupling doesn’t really happen except when locos are swapped over, which takes place off the scenic section anyway. Anyway, for my cake box quarry layout (mentioned at the start of the thread) I used a Peco uncoupling ramp. This worked well, especially as there was only really one location where uncoupling had to happen, although another rarely-used ramp was fitted in the other siding to give more flexibility. It also wasn’t as intrusive as I’d feared. Apart from a few early items of rolling stock with Rapido/Elsie type N gauge couplings, all my previous 009 experience has involved the Bemo-type loop couplings commonly used in 009.

 

On the quarry, there wasn’t really a need to propel uncoupled wagons while avoiding re-coupling them. On the current project though, I need to be able to do this - the alternative is to have about 7 ramps or uncoupling magnets to account for all possible uncoupling positions, which isn’t really practical. Even if I was happy with manual uncoupling, this doesn’t seem like a great idea anyway because I will need to avoid damaging the overhead wires with the uncoupling hook. Essentially I need delayed uncoupling, and the best option at the moment seems to be B&B couplers (or the similar DGs, although I don’t currently have any of these). The delay latch on B&Bs is built into the coupling, and in theory they don’t require the ‘shuffle’ which seems to be needed to make the delay function on Kadee/Microtrains buckeye couplings work. B&Bs should also have some level of compatibility with conventional 009 couplings, given the similar hook and loop design. There is a way to set up Greenwich couplings which works on a similar principle, but as far as I can tell this also requires a bit of shuffling and fine control of the loco.

 

Being very small and entirely black it doesn’t photograph well, but I’ve had a go at assembling a B&B coupling. Even with appropriate scoring of the etch first I found it a bit difficult to bend it correctly and get all the angles right. Hopefully this will improve with practice but I don’t know if it’s worth actually measuring the angles or just adjusting it a bit afterwards.

 

 

 

I don’t think this one would work because, if I’ve understood correctly, the delay latch needs to be directly above the hook, such that when the loop on the adjacent wagon rises up as it passes over the magnet it will push the delay latch up, but then come back down to rest on top of it while the wagon is propelled to its destination. On this one I didn’t quite get the bend in the hook right so it’s a bit far forward. I’d be very grateful for any suggestions or tips as to how to do this in a better way.

 

Although this one has both the loop and the delay latch fitted, I think for my purposes on the final layout I might have only the loops on one end, and only the latches on the other. Another way of doing this is for the loop-fitted ends to have Greenwich couplings instead (which others have done in 009 as they find the loop and its tail to be more suitable than the B&B one).

 

Apart from the obvious issue of my chubby fingers failing to assemble it properly (see above 😬), I’m slightly worried about how reliable this is all going to turn out to be when it’s actually in service. Interestingly though, I’ve looked at the intended track plan and expected shunting moves again and with delayed uncoupling the actual act of uncoupling will only take place off-scene. Of course the uncoupled wagons will then need to be propelled onto the scenic section with the loops resting on the delay latches, but I wonder if it might be possible to simplify the uncoupling arrangements at all or make them more reliable. It should involve using an electromagnet to uncouple while the train is moving but, given that in my case the actual uncoupling will take place off-scene, I wonder whether a movable permanent magnet, ramp or even manual uncoupling hook might also work.

[009 micro modeller]

Well, that went unexpectedly well! I’ve now had another go at the B&B couplings and am very pleased with the results. I decided in the end to fit the delay latch only on one end and the loop only on the other, so while the loco in the pictures only has a latch and the transporter only has a loop they will be different on the other end, when eventually fitted (I’ve only done one of each so far, purely for testing purposes). A further advantage of this is that it’s forced me to do something about the front of the loco. I had to cut off the remains of the N gauge coupler pocket in order to fit the B&B, and to support this at the right height to match the transporter I used a couple of bits of rectangular section styrene rod, so the loco now has a buffer beam. Somehow I think this makes it look a bit smarter and more like a locomotive.

 

 

 

I don’t think I can post the video but I temporarily added a permanent magnet to my test track and it definitely works. The loco propels the wagon over the magnet, flipping the loop and latch, then stops and pulls back, allowing the loop to slide off the latch and thus leaving the wagon behind, exactly as it’s supposed to. I’d love to believe that I’ll be able to maintain this level of consistency and reliability with all the others, but I’m not sure…

 

I realise that people who know what they’re doing often use a height gauge for these couplings. I haven’t done this so far but might need one later on. I’ve no idea if the couplings are at anything close to a standard height because the position and height is based on the (very low-slung) transporter, with the loco coupling set to match this. I suppose it all fits in with the rather non-standard nature of the project as a whole.

 

I did have to bend the tail of the B&B loop in half to avoid it scraping along the sleepers and rails, but a suitably powerful magnet will still activate it. It’ll need to be either an electromagnet or a movable permanent one on the finished layout to avoid inadvertently tripping every coupling in the train, although I’m not sure how you turn on and off the electromagnet at the appropriate moment while also controlling the moving train as it seems the timing would be quite critical. The transporter now has a plastic strip in the centre along its length to support the coupling.

[009 micro modeller]

I’ve been having a think about the traverser that will eventually be needed on the layout. The track plan will basically involve 3 narrow gauge sidings, and, for various reasons (to do with optimum lengths but also wanting to provide some opportunities to actually see the loco on scene during operation), I’ve decided to have these fed from a 2-position traverser and a single point.

 

Originally I’d hoped to make the layout vaguely modular, i.e. with the current shunting puzzle project forming a self-contained scene but with the ability to join onto another module in future, should I want to do so (and ever get round to building it). This would have been fairly straightforward with the other designs I considered, which involved either 2 points or a single 3-way point (both of which would end up significantly longer than the traverser option), but the modular idea kind of went out the window once I decided to use the traverser.

 

However, I then realised that, in theory, I could make the traverser double-ended, so that it could also be used as the end of a run-round loop on a future adjacent module, and still permit through running. But there is a problem with this, related to the overhead wire. Overhead wire (especially if it’s actually live) doesn’t really do very well with baseboard joins, but a simple baseboard join with one piece of straight track joining another should theoretically be OK. I have a reasonable idea about how to reliably link up the power to each position for a single-ended traverser that is built into the same baseboard as the shunting puzzle scenic section, but the double-ended modular one (which would need to be detachable and separate from the scenic section) seems to involve a few too many potential baseboard/traverser joins in the overhead line.

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to build a traverser in a way that is compatible with overhead line operation? I’m wondering  whether I’ll ever actually build an additional module anyway, so it may not be worth future proofing for this and complicating the current project even further by making everything modular.

[Dunalastair]

Perhaps use a live mesh over the traverser rather than wires? After all, what you are looking for is pickup while moving in two dimensions - which is essentially how traditional dodgems work.

 

https://www.mablethorpefunfair.co.uk/attraction/dodgems/

 

However, a mesh would make access even more challenging than wires.

 

I used drawer runners for a 6.5mm gauge traverser, but found it tricky to maintain the tolerances needed - probably just my bodging. And no overhead wires.

[009 micro modeller]

5 hours ago, Dunalastair said:

I used drawer runners for a 6.5mm gauge traverser, but found it tricky to maintain the tolerances needed - probably just my bodging. And no overhead wires.

There’s no particular problem with the actual movement of the traverser deck itself - I have a couple of ideas for that, one of which does involve draw runners as I’ve seen this method used to good effect in the past. I do have another option that might work here as well though. The issue is just around how to supply power to the loco while it’s on it.

 

5 hours ago, Dunalastair said:

Perhaps use a live mesh over the traverser rather than wires? After all, what you are looking for is pickup while moving in two dimensions - which is essentially how traditional dodgems work.

I did think about having either a mesh or some sort of metal sheet (perhaps brass or copper) both to hold the pantograph in place while the traverser moves sideways and then to supply power to the loco when it needs to move along the track. In fact, this is probably the simplest solution. However, I’m a bit concerned about the effect on the pantograph of scraping it against a flat surface at right angles to the track the loco is on, as opposed to the motion it’s designed for (scraping against a thin wire, parallel to the track).

 

On real railway traversers (and turntables) that are used to move overhead electric locos they seem to provide a separate overhead line for each position, rather than moving the wire with the traverser deck (as here). But this requires the loco being moved to drop its pantograph and then raise it again after the traverser deck has been moved sideways, which again perhaps isn’t ideal in model form in terms of avoiding damage to the pantograph (and makes it more fiddly).

[009 micro modeller]

The testing rig takes shape:

 

 

I’m still a long way off being able to actually start the proper layout but it also seems like I’ll need somewhere to build and test all the stock first, and I also need to get some practice soldering the live overhead wires. This isn’t long enough to test the uncoupling but I can do that on my normal test track. On this one the loco will be able to run properly in overhead wire mode and when that’s working I’ll also be building a test loading siding at the left hand end to check that the transporter wagons and motorised standard gauge wagons work. Masts are Sommerfeldt and were ordered for this project, the Peco N gauge track and plank of wood I had lying around.

[Dunalastair]

Good to see progress with the OLE. How do the points work - presumably there are Sommerfeldt parts for that?

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, Dunalastair said:

Good to see progress with the OLE. How do the points work - presumably there are Sommerfeldt parts for that?

The Sommerfeldt system involves fitting individual bits of wire between each mast and its neighbour (if that makes sense). It’s explained here, and also shows the range of other mast types which will help me with the diverging tracks when I need to do points (which I presume is what you meant): https://www.bec-kits.co.uk/Masts/mastho.htm

 

For now I’m just making a little test piece so only have these three single bracket masts, when I get to the stage of actually building the layout proper and have finalised the track and overhead wire layout (including exact siding lengths etc.) I will order some more as needed.

 

The linked website above also explains the system for fitting bits of wire in between. I have now done this. I’ve tested the loco and it runs smoothly, drawing power from the overhead line (please excuse the fact that the work space in the background looks like a rubbish dump, it’s a bit awkward trying to rearrange it to accommodate the OLE test plank while also working on all the other stuff for this project alongside it).

 

 

 

Because I’m actually using my OLE to supply power I’ve also lightly soldered the bits of wire to the masts and each other. It was a bit fiddly but not as difficult as I’d feared, my main concern is when there are visible bends in the wire as it doesn’t look right. There are of course other options to make finer, more prototypical tramway-style overhead but the Sommerfeldt system seems very straightforward and robust, which I think is what I need for this project.

 

The sprung pantograph seems to cope very well with minor variations in wire height. Currently it’s Sommerfeldt 0.7mm diameter copper-plated wire, but I’m wondering whether to switch to 0.5mm or even 0.3mm for the final layout. It would look better but on the other hand might not work as well. Others (including in 009) who have done layouts with live overhead have reported improved reliability with slightly larger diameter wire.

Edited October 18, 2023 by 009 micro modeller

[009 micro modeller]

I haven’t had time to build the test loading dock yet but have been having a think about it. It seems that prototype transporter wagon loading arrangements do not incorporate anything to aid in the lateral alignment of the rails on the transporter with the rails on the fixed siding (as opposed to vertical alignment, which they sometimes do seem to provide for) - see here for the Leek & Manifold and here for an example in Poland - in both cases the rails just align perfectly each time.

 

I’m not convinced that I can necessarily rely on this in model form. Even if I improve the construction of the transporters and make the tolerances much finer, is it really a good idea to completely remove the possibility of slight sideways movement of the transporter wagon’s axles, given its extremely long wheelbase? I was wondering if something like the metal plates featured prominently at the rail ends in these photos from the Vivian incline in Dinorwic might be useful to aid the alignment and the transition of standard gauge wagons from the transporter to the fixed standard gauge track. I don’t know if anyone has made these for either 4mm or 7mm NG, as either might work for 00.

 

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? I might be OK (as I think some other modellers have been) just using the rail ends as with the prototype, but I thought it was worth having a think about, and I don’t want to introduce another aspect that could be really unreliable if not done properly.

Edited October 23, 2023 by 009 micro modeller

[Porfuera]

What about guides at the end of the loading dock that hold the wagon in the correct position?

 

If the guides curve slightly outwards or are angled outwards (a bit like a funnel) then as the wagon enters the 'funnel' it becomes centred when the wagon touches the loading dock and the rails on the wagon would be correctly aligned with the rails on the loading dock.

 

Maybe you could put the guides at axle box height rather than at wagon body height to make them less noticeable? Or possibly disguise them in some other way as guard rails or some such? They probably wouldn't need to be very long.

 

It might not be very prototypical but it might solve your problem. And then again, isn't there always a prototype somewhere?

[009 micro modeller]

4 hours ago, Porfuera said:

What about guides at the end of the loading dock that hold the wagon in the correct position?

 

If the guides curve slightly outwards or are angled outwards (a bit like a funnel) then as the wagon enters the 'funnel' it becomes centred when the wagon touches the loading dock and the rails on the wagon would be correctly aligned with the rails on the loading dock.

 

Maybe you could put the guides at axle box height rather than at wagon body height to make them less noticeable? Or possibly disguise them in some other way as guard rails or some such? They probably wouldn't need to be very long.

 

It might not be very prototypical but it might solve your problem. And then again, isn't there always a prototype somewhere?

That is one option (guiding the whole wagon as opposed to just guiding the rails, or the couplings). I’m not sure what is happening in the Leek & Manifold video I posted earlier as the coupling seems to go into the box at the end of the track - not sure if that is to anchor or guide the transporter.

 

There isn’t really any such thing as ‘axle box height’ because they’re very low slung and inside-framed. The thing that worries me about guide rails is that they will scrape the paint on the transporters. And also, if I’m going to have guide rails, should I have used them for power transmission as well, thus avoiding the complexity of using the running rails for this?

[Porfuera]

On 25/10/2023 at 19:33, 009 micro modeller said:

That is one option (guiding the whole wagon as opposed to just guiding the rails, or the couplings). I’m not sure what is happening in the Leek & Manifold video I posted earlier as the coupling seems to go into the box at the end of the track - not sure if that is to anchor or guide the transporter.

 

There isn’t really any such thing as ‘axle box height’ because they’re very low slung and inside-framed. The thing that worries me about guide rails is that they will scrape the paint on the transporters. And also, if I’m going to have guide rails, should I have used them for power transmission as well, thus avoiding the complexity of using the running rails for this?

 

Yes - guide rails won't really help on a model railway because keeping the wheels fixed laterally won't stop any sideways movement in the transporter wagon body because model wagons tend to have sideways slop between the wheelsets and the body (or wheelsets and bogies with bogie wagons). Maybe you could try and shim that out but it might affect the running of the wagon.

 

Maybe the box on the Leek & Manifold is there simply to stop people falling over the coupler or getting their foot trapped in it while pushing the standard gauge wagon onto the transporter wagon, although there seems to be some sort of handle sticking up from the box when the loco and wagon pull away at the end (the handle doesn't seem to be sticking up at the start of the video clip when they're loading the wagon) so maybe there is a coupling or similar to stop the transporter wagon moving along the rails while the standard gauge wagon is being loaded.

 

One thing I did notice was that they used a wooden chock under the left side of the transporter wagon, presumably to get the standard gauge rails to align correctly for height on that side - you can see the transporter wagon drop slightly when it moves away and falls off the chock and then the chock can be seen rolling out of position and the guard(?) turns to look towards it. So it looks like even when the full-size railway had alignment problems they sometimes used non-standard solutions (i.e. whatever was to hand) to overcome them.

[009 micro modeller]

25 minutes ago, Porfuera said:

Yes - guide rails won't really help on a model railway because keeping the wheels fixed laterally won't stop any sideways movement in the transporter wagon body because model wagons tend to have sideways slop between the wheelsets and the body (or wheelsets and bogies with bogie wagons). Maybe you could try and shim that out but it might affect the running of the wagon.

This makes slightly more sense if you look at the earlier posts about the construction of the wagons, but basically the wheels are inside-bearing, running in some pieces of brass tube, the inside diameter of which is very slightly larger than the diameter of the axle (obviously not exactly the same diameter as I don’t want them to be too tight, but the difference is a fraction of a fraction of a millimetre, so not significant in this context). The important dimension in this instance is the length of the brass tube pieces; ideally these would be exactly the same as the NG back to back measurement, but again there’s a need for a bit of tolerance, and to be honest it can be a challenge to get everything precisely aligned anyway, given that (for insulation reasons) each of the two axles needs to be on a separate brass subframe. I also need to allow for the thickness of the insulated wheel centre on the side that has this (the opposite side on each axle, again because that’s what is needed for the pickup arrangements). So guide rails or bars guiding the transporter wagon’s body (independent of the wheels) could be quite helpful, provided that the bodies of all the transporter wagons are built to reasonably fine tolerances and the guiding bars are relatively unobtrusive and don’t scrape the paint. It’s these last two points that concern me slightly though (how noticeable they are, and whether they would damage the wagons).