Wright writes.....

[New Haven Neil]

Fully sprung loco (Black 5 4767) slipping madly - see the sparks. 

 

British West Hartlepool station, about 1975 ish.

 

[sandra]

Bulleid pacifics were not allowed to use sanding gear when leaving Waterloo. Therefore they did tend to slip but then most locomotives would slip if trying to start a 13 coach train without using sanding gear even if they did have assistance from the locomotive which brought the empty stock in. I think any assistance would only be until the rear of the train passed the platform end.

 

In steam days I saw many and various locomotives slip on starting and it was usually due to rail conditions being damp. I would imagine that it would also depend on the skill of the Driver. I remember the locomotive would slip violently then get hold of the train move a few yards then violently slip again and then get hold of the train again. This would happen a number of times until the train was well under way.

 

Sandra

[manna]

G'day Gents

 

I have seen many of Olivers Pacific loco's, and not one have slipped during my observations, although, I will admit they were all standing in a siding at Barry !! 

 

manna

[cctransuk]

Why, when the evidence is empirical (not anecdotal), cannot those who advocate complicated chassis-building, not accept that rigid chassis work in OO and EM. They're quicker to make, easier to make and (despite, apparently, defying Newtonian Law) work just as well, if not better, than their sophisticated counterparts?

 

I second this - a thousand times over !!!

 

The one kit chassis, substantially completed, that has sat awaiting further progress, for as long as the rest put together, is a Brassmasters' Black Five.

 

I simply have no confidence that such a lightweight, flimsy, flexible thing can possibly deliver the 'grunt' that I will need to pull decent length trains.

 

Whilst the rest of the kit is fine, I strongly suspect that a good solid, rigid chassis will be substituted eventually, and the rest of the kit erected thereon in short order.

 

I too fail to understand this obsession with watchmaker engineering, in order to model what was blacksmith technology motive power.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Horsetan]

I second this - a thousand times over !!!

 

The one kit chassis, substantially completed, that has sat awaiting further progress, for as long as the rest put together, is a Brassmasters' Black Five.

 

I simply have no confidence that such a lightweight, flimsy, flexible thing can possibly deliver the 'grunt' that I will need to pull decent length trains.

 

Whilst the rest of the kit is fine, I strongly suspect that a good solid, rigid chassis will be substituted eventually, and the rest of the kit erected thereon in short order.

 

I too fail to understand this obsession with watchmaker engineering, in order to model what was blacksmith technology motive power. .

Well, if you don't want the chassis and value it so little, I'm sure a home could be found for it....

[newbryford]

What I believe you are describing there is draggy rolling stock. The Bachmann B1 is light, but once the tyres are polished up it is easily good for 50 wagons or a dozen Bach mk1s on level track provided they roll freely. Cure the problem, not the symptom! 

 

The standard for rollability of stock is that it should at least keep moving once started on a true 1 in 100 - ideally it should roll away and accelerate -  and there is no difficulty in achieving this with current RTR with pin point axles. This standard was explained to me in my teens at the model railway club as 'the secret of the railway', why such large loads can be hauled with so little horsepower; and it should apply to our models just as much as the real thing.

 

Most RTR needs several hours running to get up to this standard, as the axle ends improve their location. Honourable exceptions, the metal bearings in Bach's Pullmans and MU trailer cars. Some of these have been good for roll away on a 1 in 300, straight from the box.

 

Some RTR gets progressively worse with running.

In particular, Bachmann wagons with chassis moulded from ABS to facilitate painting. We had a rake of VGA vans and HEA coal hoppers (understandably vague foreign terms to pre-TOPS modellers)  that over time became harder to haul around the layout. A quick conversation with Dennis Lovett at Bachmann revealed the answer.

ABS isn't "self-lubricating" like nylon based plastics and would actually wear within the pinpoint housing creating a very fine powdery residue that clogged the axle ends. Once they were cleaned out, they returned to their "as new" state of free rolling - until the next time...........

 

I once had a small shunting layout mostly populated mainly with Parkside kits - they were built to be as free-running as possible. However, when trying to couple up with BB couplings, the slightest push would send them rolling away - so it's not all good.......

 

Cheers,

Mick

[DavidB]

How refreshing to hear that I'm not the only person to have problems with compensated bogies.  There are three different types of bogie under my 16mm scale Welsh Highland rake, all running with identical steel wheels, pinpoint axles and brass bearings:  rigid cast whitemetal; cosmetic whitemetal frames over a compensated O gauge bogie subframe; and wooden (yes, really - IP Engineering produce laser-cut wooden bogies for garden railways).  Now I share Tony's commitment to achieving consistent, smooth operation with no derailments over the course of many hours of operation (in my case in a challenging outdoor environment), so I took a lot of convincing to try the wooden bogies (to someone brought up on 4mm and 7mm modelling, it sounded like a heresy), but they are the best-running bogies of all - the accuracy of the laser-cutting means that they are absolutely square, rigid and the work of minutes to build.  Next best are the rigid cast whitemetal bogies - once carefully fettled and soldered, they run solidly, smoothly and without derailing.  The worst by far are the compensated ones - despite having identical wheels and bearings, they are very fussy about track quality, with the outer leading flanges always trying to climb over the railhead on curves.  It seems a bit ironic that it's the bogies that are meant to cope with uneven track are the ones that require absolute accuracy in track laying - I suspect they have an advantage on straight track when it comes to riding over the occasional obstacle that can land on the rails of a garden railway during a running session (leaves, livestock, etc), but I'm not going to be repeating this particular experiment on any more rolling stock in the future.  So please chalk me up as another Luddite.

 

David

[gr.king]

Wooden bogies? And why not? Wood is suitable for many forms of construction if the right sort of wood is used properly. I gather that the rather unusual 25 ton bogie brake vans built by the MS & LR for coal train workings on heavily graded routes back in in 1880s (yes, the 1880s) had timber framed bogies. One such vehicle was still in use in the Immingham depot breakdown train in the 1950s.

Edited October 21, 2015 by gr.king

[Focalplane]

Fully sprung loco (Black 5 4767) slipping madly - see the sparks. 

 

British West Hartlepool station, about 1975 ish.

 

Scarborough 3 (13).jpg

Could there be a check rail there as well as on the inner track?  If so, then that could be cause of the sparks.  Just a thought.

[Tony Wright]

As promised, images of the latest 4mm 'scale' lamps from Lanarkshire Models and Supplies. 

 

 

To begin with, here are Springside's BR loco lamps on the front of a much-modified Bachmann A1 (what's happened to one of its guard irons I have no idea). These lamps scale out at just over 2' tall from the top of the handle to the base. What's the size of a real lamp, please? 

 

 

Now with Dave Frank's new LNER loco lamps. What a difference. I've fixed these on with superglue because I found it too difficult to drill a hole in the base to take Bachmann's rather porcine lamp brackets. No matter, because this A1 always takes an express in the sequence.

 

 

And, on the front of a DJH A1. Again, these are attached with superglue because DJH's lamp brackets are a bit thick as well. Brass shim lamp brackets should present fewere problems. 

 

Whether it's right to endorse a product on this site, I've no idea. If it's wrong, then the moderators will remove it. But, I heartily recommend these cast items (and I haven't even bothered to paint them). They can be obtained from LMS, 9 Nairn Avenue, Blantyre G72 9NF. Tel: 01698 821272. www.lanarkshiremodels.com

 

 

 

Speaking of endorsements, the two locos above were built and painted by Geoff Haynes. They're both in P4. Geoff is just getting going as a professional builder and painter in all scales/gauges. With Ian Rathbone concentrating now more on O Gauge, Geoff is painting my 4mm builds. If you'd like to contact him, phone 01778 346313.

 

Again, if the above contravenes site rules, then the moderators will no doubt act.  

[Focalplane]

Tony, if you come across a product or service you feel the rest of us should know more about, then why not be able to tell us?  Those lamps look perfect.  And which brand of kit is the Scot from?

[gr.king]

RT Models do some lamps similar to those now offered by Dave Franks.

[Tony Wright]

Tony, if you come across a product or service you feel the rest of us should know more about, then why not be able to tell us?  Those lamps look perfect.  And which brand of kit is the Scot from?

Paul,

 

I don't think product/service recommendation is illegal - i just wanted to make sure. 

 

The Scot is a Brassmasters' product. One of things the firm bought in were the buffers; the heads are too small. Scots had very large buffer heads. Comet made the same mistake, but not Wills/SE Finecast. 

[micklner]

Dave Alexander does LNER Lamps without the overlarge handles seen on other versions.

[Focalplane]

I was looking at the video from the latest BRM magazine (11/2015) and enjoyed Phil Parker's piece on real coal. So much so I went out and got some today.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1565/entry-16817-0-gauge-coal/

 

Nice to get out in the very fresh air and actually do some modeling at the same time! One thing I will take issue with Phil is his use of pliers to break up the coal. Whatever is wrong with using a hammer? OK, a small hammer. Good coal will break down along fractures with very little effort, providing scale lumps for the discerning modeller.

 

I am not sure where one can collect coal in the UK, NCB did an incredible job of removing much of its infrastructure and I feel sure the Aberfan disaster weighed heavily on not leaving slag heaps in place. Not that slag heaps should have good coal in them. But the local coal yard may be the best bet, I recently saw one at Aberaeron even though the branch line had been closed for decades there was still a coal merchant plying his trade!

[New Haven Neil]

Could there be a check rail there as well as on the inner track?  If so, then that could be cause of the sparks.  Just a thought.

 

That is my own photo, I was there!  There is a check rail, but I can assure you we were stationary after a signal check, and the Black 5 was slipping furiously, volcanically in fact, several times, without making an inch of progress. We got away after a few minutes of this performance.  To be fair, British West Hartlepool (local north east joke) is on a sharp reverse curve and I think we had 11 on. The tour from Newcastle ended up in Scarborough behind 92220, which didn't slip!  The shot of 4767 was on the way back, heading north.  Happy days.

 

My one and only (to get back on topic) 'fancy chassis' was a Gibson 3F tank - it was awful - I'm in with the luddites.

[davefrk]

So what's the opposite of a luddite cause that would be me then, I like making fancy chassis.

 

So there. TFIC.

 

Dave Franks

[glo41f]

Those headlamps look the business and hopefully will lead to you 4mm types getting it right in future.... there is no excuse now!

 

As to the missing guard iron mystery, I find this sort of thing happens all the time. You spend hours adding the details only for them to drop off in the 4 foot somewhere never to be found again. Re assured to know that it happens to others. My worst case was part of the brake gear coming adrift on a WC pacific. Never saw it go!  Trouble is (as any fule kno) is that WC brake gear is most complicated and I have yet to summon up the willpower to re fabricate the missing bits. Grrrrrr!

 

The new painting lad looks as if he has the talent Tony.

 

Martin Long

[New Haven Neil]

So what's the opposite of a luddite cause that would be me then, I like making fancy chassis.

 

So there. TFIC.

 

Dave Franks

 

No issue with that Dave, I applaud your skills.  My skills were honed on massive ships engines and are a little crude and rough for 4mm scale chassis!  I'm happier building bodies onto RTR chassis myself.

 

I do recall the springs from the axleboxes on the Gibson Jinty had an incredible range......my fingers were a lot younger and more dextrous back then.

[Brian Kirby]

There's another solution that eases the dilemma of whether to build compensated or rigid loco chassis, which increases traction too without resorting to steel wheels and steel rail, namely building sprung track. (Bear with me!)  I remember as a child that my rigid chassis Hornby-Dublo Castle would always pull better on Peco track with foam underlay, rather than on any rock solid "skating rink" sections of permanent way. The heavier the loco, the more the rails will flex and maintain wheel grip and electrical contact. Guided by Iain Rice's track book, i always lay my track on quarter-inch foam rubber, and have used the technique throughout on my Carlisle project and Robert Carroll's "Marton Central" layout. (See MC on RMweb "Layout Topics")

   When it comes to ballasting, we all know the old cliche of "adding washing-up liquid" to the glue (to reduce surface tension and increase flow), but in the case of foam rubber this would be disastrous and would percolate into the foam, turning it solid. With sprung track we want only a crust of glued ballast, so we leave out the fairy liquid and dilute less, but still drip the weakened glue on to the arranged ballast. A day or so later all should be dry, then you can crack the crust and actually get the sleepers moving vertically in the ballast. As a bonus, track on foam also leads to much quieter running..

 

                                                                                   Cheers, Brian.

[davefrk]

Hi 34theletterbetweenB&D, that's what we agree on it seems, see post #6322. Instead of heavily weighting up locos with sometimes dubious drive mechanisms we should look at what the locos are trying to pull, afterall the real railways went for roller bearings to improve rollability and therefore fuel economy and maintainance. Long ago I discovered that my workbench had a very slight slope on it when I fitted some RTR coaches with brass pinpoint bearings, one started to roll, hit another which then headed for the floor only stopped when the first bogie went off the edge and the battery boxes provided the brakes...

Fitting brass bearings also provides longevity by not having the pinpoint axle cutting a groove in the plastic sideframes.

As Tony W. said, in the old days we had dumb ended axles running in whitemetal frames which would slowly seize up.

Eg. I had an old Ks whitemetal GWR railcar in to remotor as the customer said the Spud bogie just would not power up his very slight grades and he wanted a much bigger drive bogie with traction tyres fitted.  The trailing bogie had dumb end axles which one could turn quite easily but would not spin, I fitted pinpoint bearings and axles on this bogie and returned the railcar with no charge as there was nothing wrong with the Spud bogie, the railcar could now take two RTR plastic coaches as a trailing load up the grade which was probably more than the real thing. So what does that prove? One bogie that was a bit stiff and plenty weight over the drive bogie didn't do it but free rolling pinpoints could make the difference of more than two coaches. As was said above - cure the problem.

I think I'll take some more modified coaches to the club tomorrow and see just how many the discredited Bachmann 4F can take. Bet it will be nearly twenty.

Dave Franks.

 

Well, as I said, the Bachmann 4F which had been slated in various threads and posts for being a bit gutless was put onto the ten coach train of Bachmann Mk1s including a Comet twelve wheel restaurant car all retrofitted with brass pinpoint bearings, it walked away with it, added another 5 Hornby Staniers - same surefootedness, another 5 Staniers and a bit of a slip on starting but off it went round and round. Another 2 coaches which didn't have brass bearings and the 4F was slipping but still moving. Now't wrong with that loco or indeed the Bachmann 4mt 2-6-0, the Bachmann 2mt 2-6-0 and believe it or not the Bachmann Compound which rattled 20 coaches round at breakneck speed. Adding a couple more unmodified coaches caused much slipping and eventually stalling of all the Bachmann locos on the curves at the ends of the layout. But, a Bachmann J39 with a fully sprung Bradwell chassis and a weight of only 3/4 of the 4F walked away with 22 coaches then 24, then 26 but struggled at the final 28 coaches, only the heavier kit locos out performed the J39.

What does this test prove? well, free running stock is the answer to locos not performing when all else is right with the loco, normal size trains should be able to climb grades and, a sprung 0-6-0 loco does haul more than a rigid one but when there are variables like bogies etc taking some weight which can not be guaranteed to be the same between a rigid and a sprung loco the results can't bee relied upon. In my own experience of sprung locos I've had a bare 6 coupled sprung chassis hauling more than a rigid one with the body on.

Yes I agree with the two Tonys in that rigid locos can perform well and can be easier to built but, a well designed, well built sprung one is a different kettle of cod.

Just my own opinion mind.

 

Dave Franks.

[St Enodoc]

There's another solution that eases the dilemma of whether to build compensated or rigid loco chassis, which increases traction too without resorting to steel wheels and steel rail, namely building sprung track. (Bear with me!)  I remember as a child that my rigid chassis Hornby-Dublo Castle would always pull better on Peco track with foam underlay, rather than on any rock solid "skating rink" sections of permanent way. The heavier the loco, the more the rails will flex and maintain wheel grip and electrical contact. Guided by Iain Rice's track book, i always lay my track on quarter-inch foam rubber, and have used the technique throughout on my Carlisle project and Robert Carroll's "Marton Central" layout. (See MC on RMweb "Layout Topics")

   When it comes to ballasting, we all know the old cliche of "adding washing-up liquid" to the glue (to reduce surface tension and increase flow), but in the case of foam rubber this would be disastrous and would percolate into the foam, turning it solid. With sprung track we want only a crust of glued ballast, so we leave out the fairy liquid and dilute less, but still drip the weakened glue on to the arranged ballast. A day or so later all should be dry, then you can crack the crust and actually get the sleepers moving vertically in the ballast. As a bonus, track on foam also leads to much quieter running..

 

                                                                                   Cheers, Brian.

"Fleetwood Shawe" floating track, as used (among others) by the late Ken Northwood on the North Devonshire.

Edited October 22, 2015 by St Enodoc

[Tony Wright]

Well, as I said, the Bachmann 4F which had been slated in various threads and posts for being a bit gutless was put onto the ten coach train of Bachmann Mk1s including a Comet twelve wheel restaurant car all retrofitted with brass pinpoint bearings, it walked away with it, added another 5 Hornby Staniers - same surefootedness, another 5 Staniers and a bit of a slip on starting but off it went round and round. Another 2 coaches which didn't have brass bearings and the 4F was slipping but still moving. Now't wrong with that loco or indeed the Bachmann 4mt 2-6-0, the Bachmann 2mt 2-6-0 and believe it or not the Bachmann Compound which rattled 20 coaches round at breakneck speed. Adding a couple more unmodified coaches caused much slipping and eventually stalling of all the Bachmann locos on the curves at the ends of the layout. But, a Bachmann J39 with a fully sprung Bradwell chassis and a weight of only 3/4 of the 4F walked away with 22 coaches then 24, then 26 but struggled at the final 28 coaches, only the heavier kit locos out performed the J39.

What does this test prove? well, free running stock is the answer to locos not performing when all else is right with the loco, normal size trains should be able to climb grades and, a sprung 0-6-0 loco does haul more than a rigid one but when there are variables like bogies etc taking some weight which can not be guaranteed to be the same between a rigid and a sprung loco the results can't bee relied upon. In my own experience of sprung locos I've had a bare 6 coupled sprung chassis hauling more than a rigid one with the body on.

Yes I agree with the two Tonys in that rigid locos can perform well and can be easier to built but, a well designed, well built sprung one is a different kettle of cod.

Just my own opinion mind.

 

Dave Franks.

Thanks once again, Dave.

 

I think the discussion about the various merits of rigid/compensated/sprung chassis can run and run. 

 

I might have mentioned that I've recently written a piece for Scale Four News (Train of Thought), to be published in February. I felt quite honoured to be asked to do this, and I tried not to be too argumentative. But, and this is my principal point, to be able to build a fully-sprung/compensated chassis in 4mm (surely essential for P4?) requires a great deal more skill than that required to jig-erecting a basic rigid one. The fact that the 'fancy' one might run better is down to two things; one, Newtonian Law and two, the high-degree of skill possessed by the builder. I think those who advocate the building of complicated chassis are (perhaps?) being overly modest about their capabilities. I admit, despite building what must be getting on for 500 individual loco chassis (and just about all the bodies to go on top), I do not have the requisite skills to build a 'fancy' chassis that works; let alone works as well as all my rigid ones, just one that'll just about run to my satisfaction. My already-mentioned compensated WC won't and in trying to build the Beames 0-8-4T's chassis with full springing/jointed rods, I gave up in disgust because of my incapabilities. Now fully-rigid, the loco works perfectly.

 

May I cite some observations, please?

 

A loco has been through my 'works' recently. It was built fully-compensated, but was jerky and noisy. My cure? Solder everything up solid, including the rods and replace the motor/gearbox (single stage drives can grind a bit). The result; perfectly smooth running; the opposite of what it had been. 

 

On trying to photograph an EM layout, several 'professionally-built' fully-compensated locos proved impossible to place in position under their own power - they just didn't run smoothly, shorted or derailed. Two of my rigid EM Pacifics just flew round over the same professionally-built trackwork, and also ran very slowly.

 

As for a P4 layout, photographed many years ago, despite the same 'professionally-built' status of its fully-sprung locos, none would run to what I would call 'satisfaction'.

 

One could argue (most-reasonably) that, despite the paid-for status of the motive power, the builders weren't skilled enough. And, that is the key to me - the immensely high skill-factor required to make 'fancy' chassis (which I don't have). A factor displayed by the late Tony Miles and the likes of John Hayes and Eddie Bourne. There are others as well, and they all have the 'knack'. 

[jwealleans]

I'd like to second what Tony says. Some 10-12 years ago, with probably one or two kit built locos under my belt, I was volunteered to provide a J15 for Thurston. I looked around and settled on the Alan Gibson kit (Nu-Cast being quite hard to get hold of in those days). I ordered the kit from Alan and it came in a commendably short time. I made a start, but struggled from the outset to get the chassis to run well, or at all. As you do, I started to question myself and whether I was capable of doing this. Then I happened to take it down to a club night and as luck would have it, Graham Varley was there. I asked his advice and he rattled off a list of bits he'd suggest not using - which were all the ones I'd been struggling with. He also alerted me to the fact that Alan would supply a 'rigid' chassis - one with holes at the axle centres instead of hornblock cutouts - if asked.

 

A few weeks later I had a rigid J15 running on Romford wheels with wire pickups. It's worked on Thurston ever since and is my favourite of all the locos I've built.

 

I tip my hat to those who can build sprung or compensated locos - I've used springing on rolling stock and it does make for superb running - but it remains beyond me and it really is not the be all and end all of good running except perhaps in the very finest scales - which are also beyond me.

 

Plenty of weight in the right places does work wonders, as does freeing up rolling stock - after doing both I was able to watch my DJH C1 romp round Grantham with 10 kit built bogie carriages. One thing which hasn't been mentioned are tenders: get rid of the axle ends in whitemetal sideframes and put a brass subframe under it, it really helps.

[chris p bacon]

 and in trying to build the Beames 0-8-4T's chassis with full springing/jointed rods, I gave up in disgust because of my incapabilities. Now fully-rigid, the loco works perfectly.

 

 

Morning.

 

I couldn't get back to speak to you again at the end of Saturday afternoon (car share), I spoke to the designer of the 0-8-4 and asked why he had designed it that way, his response was that he was asked to, he said it would work better if rigid or beam compensation.