Wright writes.....

[PMP]

Al, some of the Brits up to the early teens had taller domes, but the later builds had a lower version like yours, so on ‘13’ you should be ok.

[APOLLO]

Feedback controllers - ECM were the best, I never had any problems with any motor. They both eventually died, replaced a year or two ago with Gaugemaster feedback hand helds. Whilst OK some locos don't like them, running away or jerkilly on down grades. They work as intended on up grades though, with all motors.

 

I also have a Gaugemaster model Q - 4 track, no feedback, no problems.

 

It's a pity the old ECM's are no longer made.

 

Brit15

[thegreenhowards]

Hi Andy,

 

It is generally accepted practice that it is okay to operate chipped locomotives on analogue controllers.  When you think about it the chips in a locomotive running on a DCC layout are normally subjected to a constant 18 volts AC and so the maximum 12 volts supplied by the normal analogue controller is significantly lower than this even when running at full tilt.  Our standard operating approach on our Hungerford exhibition layout is to shunt the station yard under DCC control but the pick up goods arrive and depart over the main line under analogue control.  We have operated Hungerford this way for more than 10 years and have never experienced the kind of problems you have reported even though all the locomotives we use to shunt the yard have Portescap motors.  Given the success we have had on Hungerford we are now repeating this operational approach on our new Clayton layout.   

 

I would add that the DCC fitted tank engines on Hungerford are all built with split frame pickups and my DCC fitted Dean Goods uses the American pick up system.  All have proved to be 100% reliable in operation and unlike Tony I have no hesitation in recommending this approach to anyone like me who despises fitting wiper pickups to their models.  Indeed most of the tender engines on Hungerford have now been converted to the American system as I have upgraded the frames and running gear on the older models. 

 

As long as you follow a few basic rules and think through what you are doing there should never be any problems with this approach.  

 

As to why you have had the two failures that you have described I am wondering whether the 2nd instance was caused by the very high back EMF that the Portescap unit was generating.  Coreless motors act as very efficient generators when the driving voltage is removed and if the locomotive was travelling at high speed at the time it may be this voltage that contributed to the failure of the chip.  Alternately if the motor was not properly anchored, at the point the train started to push the locomotive is it possible that the terminals on the motor came into contact with the metal body of the locomotive causing a short in the chip?

 

Finally I will take the opportunity to say how much I have enjoyed the recent photo's of LB in LNER days.  I can only imagine how much work it has been for all those involved, so many thanks to you all for doing it.  I look forward to the video as I have to all the wonderful photos that have appeared on this blog in the last few weeks.  Inspirational or what?

 

Regards,

 

Frank 

 

Thanks Frank,

 

Just to be clear, the second instance was not a Portescap. It was a standard Hornby mechanism, and just the chip got fried. I'm sure the problems are down to a combination of factors. As Tony says, Portescaps are normally OK on his layout, but somehow the chip must have caused a spike which it didn't like.

 

Andy

[Porcy Mane]

More flowing trackwork, on my old P4 layout, Clinkerford.

 

Clinkerford.jpg

 

I'm sure I once saw something else flowing on Clinkerford.

 

 

P

[Barry Ten]

Al, some of the Brits up to the early teens had taller domes, but the later builds had a lower version like yours, so on ‘13’ you should be ok.

 

Good to know, thanks!

[gr.king]

I have the impression that current editorial opinion would regard your own example as a fairly advanced project, strictly not for beginners. Fortunately, there is plenty to inspire people on Wright writes, I find mags are a bit of an irrelevance these days.

 

I hardly ever buy a magazine these days. The one I used to buy regularly, considering it the best of the readily available ones, then almost always including some piece of inspirational high-standard "made it myself" modelling, is now ruined by editorial insistence on the spoon-feeding of beginners / newcomers and on constant worship at the shrine of digital gimmickry. It seems that the publishers wish to compete with the poorest quality model railway publications that mainly cover low-effort railway modelling (or the model railway sub-branch of digital electronics) rather than trying to show something better.

 

Even as a beginner I was amazed and inspired by the very highest standards of modelling, even if I hadn't the faintest idea of how to emulate the results.

Edited August 28, 2018 by gr.king

[grahame]

 

Was there anyone better at laying (and disguising the chunky nature of) N Gauge track than the late Andy Calvert? Moorcock Junction.

 

Moving nearer-to-scale gauge in 2mm does make the trackwork look more realistic, especially in a low view like the one below.

 

 

There is a range of N gauge track available now. Starting with the 'chunky' RTR code 80 (equiv code 160 for 00/4mm) from Peco and others. Then the code 55 type - a pseudo version from Peco and others from the likes of Atlas (although American sleeper spacing) - to code 40 (kits) from Micro-engineering (American) and British fiNetrax (British 1:148 sleeper size and spacing). And then there is a N2 hybrid bespoke trackage which looks commendably fine - see the layouts 'Burton-on-Trent' and 'Blueball Summit' which have threads here on RMweb. 

 

It's worth noting that 2mm fine-scale track looks more realistic not because of the 1:152 scale gauge (9.42mm) - a widening from N gauge 9mm which is significantly less that that of OO to EM or P4 - or the code 40 rail, but because of the smaller flangeways, generally tighter tolerances and usually flowing point-work. The Peco points have grossly inflated flangeway gaps and even the British Finescale fiNetrax, which is a vast improvement, is still a little greater than 2mmFS.

 

G 

[Barry Ten]

With Peco Code 55, I find that viewing angle and illumination can make quite a difference.

 

I try to ballast as deeply as possible, since any hint of those deep sleepers and rail webs gives the game away.

 

 

 

The points are the real giveaway with Peco code 55, as Grahame says, as there's not much that can be done to disguise the

flange ways and rail depth.

 

Al

[grahame]

With Peco Code 55, I find that viewing angle and illumination can make quite a difference.

 

I try to ballast as deeply as pos:sible, since any hint of those deep sleepers and rail webs gives the game away.

 

The points are the real giveaway with Peco code 55, as Grahame says, as there's not much that can be done to disguise the

flange ways and rail depth.

 

 

Yep, agree. With careful ballasting - to be level with the top surface of the sleepers - and sympathetic painting to blend and disguise the rail height, Peco N code 55 can be made to look very acceptable (here with a code 40 third rail added)

 

 

But it is the points with their huge flangeways and the code 80 blades that move over reduced height sleepers that are a real bete noire. It's a real shame that Peco didn't address those things when recently introducing their new range of 'unifrog' points. It was a great opportunity missed and would have made them winners. 

 

 

G

[Hollar]

Thanks, Tone,

 

My reasons? 

 

It's impossible to road-test a loco chassis without having its tender attached.

 

It requires wires (or a wire) between the loco and the tender. I hate this, and it's a similar thing (because of the insistence of those who use DCC) with modern RTR tender locos where the chip is placed inside the tender. All my pointwork is live frog, so I have no need of tender pick-ups. I can then thoroughly-road test a loco without having to use its tender to pick-up.

 

Though the drawbar must be insulated for the American system, it's also imperative that the drag box on the loco is insulated from the drag beam of the tender. If they touch on curves (without their being insulated), then a short circuit occurs.

 

I make all my drawbars sprung between locos and their tenders - by use of a split-pin, coil spring and flexible .45mm nickel silver wire - all metal, so useless with the American system.

 

Where a layout has dead-frog points, if I build a loco for it, then I install tender pick-ups, and also make any chassis electrically dead. I then install wiper pick-ups to every driving wheel, every bogie wheel (if necessary) and the outer wheels on a tender. Of course, it means wires between the two units, but it means every (or near every) wheel picks-up. With the American system, you halve this. 

 

From my own experience, if I make a loco for DCC-use (he who pays the piper, and all that!), I now make all my chassis electrically-dead as well - meaning the whole loco body and its tender are also electrically-dead. This minimises the risks to any decoders. With the American system, everything is live, and, worse still, the loco and tender are live to opposite polarities. 

 

For my own use, I make all my chassis live-to-one-side, because I don't have the encumbrance of DCC. I also use live-to-one-side bogie, pony and tender wheels, which means all wheels can be picking-up on one side at least. The same side.

 

I'm sure the American system has been used with great success. It's not for me, though. And, how does it work on an 0-6-0T?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

There's two ways to use the American pickup system on tank engines.  1. couple up a cut-down mineral wagon like Scottish pugs used to pair up with.  2. if you make the sort of loco chassis I make, Stick a BR van body on an old Triang dock shunter bogie (apologies to younger readers), permanently couple it up to an engineless loco and hope no-one notices what's going on, or unlike your P4 visitors everyone is too polite to ask what's going on.  Or you can put a pantograph on the cab roof and say it's an early experiment in hybrid vehicles.

 

Tone

[31A]

Like this:

 

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/swisselec/swisselc.htm

[jwealleans]

I think this can probably be posted without fear of spoiling the forthcoming article and/or DVD: it's not well known that after Bulleid took 2001 to Vitry, he and Gresley agreed with Chapelon to take a prototype 141P on test by way of a reciprocal gesture.  Suitably adapted for the loading gauge, it ran trials on mineral workings, almost always at night or in the early hours.  Here it passes unnoticed through Little Bytham with a string of empties bound for somewhere like Colwick.

 

[video=youtube;]

Edited August 28, 2018 by jwealleans

[Michael Edge]

Thanks, Tone,

 

My reasons? 

 

It's impossible to road-test a loco chassis without having its tender attached.

 

It requires wires (or a wire) between the loco and the tender. I hate this, and it's a similar thing (because of the insistence of those who use DCC) with modern RTR tender locos where the chip is placed inside the tender. All my pointwork is live frog, so I have no need of tender pick-ups. I can then thoroughly-road test a loco without having to use its tender to pick-up.

 

Though the drawbar must be insulated for the American system, it's also imperative that the drag box on the loco is insulated from the drag beam of the tender. If they touch on curves (without their being insulated), then a short circuit occurs.

 

I make all my drawbars sprung between locos and their tenders - by use of a split-pin, coil spring and flexible .45mm nickel silver wire - all metal, so useless with the American system.

 

Where a layout has dead-frog points, if I build a loco for it, then I install tender pick-ups, and also make any chassis electrically dead. I then install wiper pick-ups to every driving wheel, every bogie wheel (if necessary) and the outer wheels on a tender. Of course, it means wires between the two units, but it means every (or near every) wheel picks-up. With the American system, you halve this. 

 

From my own experience, if I make a loco for DCC-use (he who pays the piper, and all that!), I now make all my chassis electrically-dead as well - meaning the whole loco body and its tender are also electrically-dead. This minimises the risks to any decoders. With the American system, everything is live, and, worse still, the loco and tender are live to opposite polarities. 

 

For my own use, I make all my chassis live-to-one-side, because I don't have the encumbrance of DCC. I also use live-to-one-side bogie, pony and tender wheels, which means all wheels can be picking-up on one side at least. The same side.

 

I'm sure the American system has been used with great success. It's not for me, though. And, how does it work on an 0-6-0T?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

There is another way of using the "American" pick up system which I used a lot in 7mm scale with cast iron wheels. This is to insulate the inner tender frames from the body and proceed as above but with no need for an insulated drawbar. It worked very well for large tender locos and removed the need for pickups of any sort which the customers could easily damage. Changing to Slater's wheels for 7mm work (mostly) made conventional pickups easier to fit - easier than shorting out Slater's wheels.

[Jamiel]

Just a photo to show that if you are determined enough you can make tin cans out of brass etches. Work in progress.

EDIT - I forgot to say it is a Class 120 DMU, Swindon Cross Country, and will be a 3 car unit when finished.
 

 

A huge amount of enjoyment from making a DMU from old Craftsman kits, Comet frames and a whole host of other parts MJT, Hornby and Heljan spares, A1 and a bit of resin casting, partly of DC Kits cabs for the front roofs.

I know the RTR diesels are really good, but steam kits exist alongside the RTR locos, it would be lovely to see some brass kits for some of the diesels. With apologies to Judith and Mike Edge who are doing what they can to give us some diesel and electric loco kits, but I would love to see DJH downsize some of their diesel kits to 4mm, getting a really good Class 31 would great to make.
 

I really must finish the Comet Caprotti Black Five as well, especially since I had advice and help on this thread. Thank you to everyone here for inspiration, and especially Tony.

Jamie

Edited August 28, 2018 by Jamiel

[Barry Ten]

I think this can probably be posted without fear of spoiling the forthcoming article and/or DVD: it's not well known that after Bulleid took 2001 to Vitry, he and Gresley agreed with Chapelon to take a prototype 141P on test by way of a reciprocal gesture.  Suitably adapted for the loading gauge, it ran trials on mineral workings, almost always at night or in the early hours.  Here it passes unnoticed through Little Bytham with a string of empties bound for somewhere like Colwick.

 

[video=youtube;]

 

Nice  - might I ask the provenance of the model?

[jwealleans]

It's by Jouef and actually belongs to Mrs. W. We bought it in the erstwhile model shop in Colmar on what must have been one of our first visits. Wonderfully poky and crammed little shop with the rudest and most uncooperative proprietor I can recall encountering. Long gone now.

[New Haven Neil]

Snip<

For  dcc it is nice to have a dead chassis to reduce the chance of shorting.

 

Baz

 

I'm still picking the shrapnel out from the last time I suggested that as best practice!

[gr.king]

It's by Jouef and actually belongs to Mrs. W. We bought it in the erstwhile model shop in Colmar on what must have been one of our first visits. Wonderfully poky and crammed little shop with the rudest and most uncooperative proprietor I can recall encountering. Long gone now.

 

A proper model railway shop!

 

 

Added 29/08/18 - In fact it reminds me of a "proper" cycle shop I knew in my youth, which also had the benefit of very dark carpet in some areas, worn lino in others, both covered (as much else was) in general grime, nicotine, fag ash and dog hairs. Only the prices and the service, grudgingly delivered with free use of expletives, saved the day.

Edited August 29, 2018 by gr.king

[davefrk]

Oh you're far too modest Dave

 

Well thanks Kier, come and say hello at Manchester and I'll buy you a pint, oh wait, it's a dry show....

 

Dave Franks.

[Northmoor]

In terms of practical, hands-on modelling, they don't seem to be much remembered now, but the decisive articles for me were those by Richard Gardner (if I have the spelling correct) that appeared in Model Trains, and dealt with relatively simple, achievable upgrades to RTR steam locos. I remember him showing how the Hornby 9F could be improved by sawing off the front steps from the bogie casting, and reattaching them to the body - a total revelation to this young modeller, that such a simple alteration could suddenly make a model look convicinng - or at least to my eyes. He also covered such things as adding pick-ups, repainting and relining, weathering, all good stuff for the budding modeller. Because of these articles I never had any qualms about taking a knife or brush to an RTR model as soon as it was out of the box. Even with the better models of the day, like the Mainline 4MT, the model looked better with the wheels and motion toned down, the front coupling removed, some crew and weathering etc.

I used to read and re-read Railway Modellers and other mags, knowing I wanted to build a model railway.  I read Richard Gardner's articles in Model Trains and knew I wanted to be a railway modeller.

[Tony Teague]

I'd be interested to hear why you you loath the American pick-up arrangement.  Some of the locos I have commissioned use  it and I have found it trouble-free and resilient.

 

Tone

 

My limited experience with the American pick-up system was also not good, but for slightly different reasons to those Tony outlines.

I use DC and have some OO RTR models by OO Works who use this approach and I wondered why they would stall at certain section breaks, where there was a change from one controller to another - until I realised that this was how they were wired.

This meant that the loco was trying to pick up at the front on one one side from the first controller and through the tender at the rear on the opposite side from a second controller; unless the train was moving fast enough for momentum to carry it across the gap they inevitably stalled.

Once I realised the reason, it was soon solved through adding pick ups to the opposite side - plus of course the additional pick-ups also increased reliability.

 

Tony

[Barry Ten]

It's by Jouef and actually belongs to Mrs. W. We bought it in the erstwhile model shop in Colmar on what must have been one of our first visits. Wonderfully poky and crammed little shop with the rudest and most uncooperative proprietor I can recall encountering. Long gone now.

 

That's interesting. I was in Colmar earlier this year and there was still a model train shop, very centrally situated too.

[Barry Ten]

I used to read and re-read Railway Modellers and other mags, knowing I wanted to build a model railway.  I read Richard Gardner's articles in Model Trains and knew I wanted to be a railway modeller.

 

His were the first articles I read that dealt with such things as Crownline conversions, and were very inspirational. The only problem was, being a skint schoolboy, I couldn't

afford such niceties. When I returned to the hobby a decade and a half later, I had a bit more cash but all of a sudden the Crownline kits had disappeared! I presume they were

quite well regarded at the time, as they seem to show up on ebay relatively infrequently. Or perhaps everyone just got on and did them, and they're now scarce.

 

Al

[Tony Wright]

His were the first articles I read that dealt with such things as Crownline conversions, and were very inspirational. The only problem was, being a skint schoolboy, I couldn't

afford such niceties. When I returned to the hobby a decade and a half later, I had a bit more cash but all of a sudden the Crownline kits had disappeared! I presume they were

quite well regarded at the time, as they seem to show up on ebay relatively infrequently. Or perhaps everyone just got on and did them, and they're now scarce.

 

Al

Al,

 

There were all sorts of tales going around as to what happened to the Crownline bits after the business was sold some years ago. There were legal proceedings I believe, but where they are now (if they still exist) I have no idea. 

 

A pity really, as they were really useful for those who were getting into the 'hands-on' aspects of railway modelling, particularly the detailing and improving of RTR locomotives. Perhaps they're not necessary today, anyway, but many folk honed their skills by using them; if, one could make sense of the instructions (not that I ever read any, even though I write them). Though I didn't use a great deal of the Crownline bits & pieces, on one occasion (detailing a modified RTR 9F), I thought the instructions were the most amusing I've ever seen. The English was dreadful and there were various squiggly drawings and serpentine arrows pointing in all sorts of directions. I wish I'd kept them. 

[Atso]

Regarding magazines, if I find old copies at a shop, swap meet or preserved railway, I get great enjoyment from flicking through them. The difference in the articles compared to many of today's is huge and I find many of the older ones much more useful and informative. Add in the locomotive and stock drawings (a useful starting point despite there often being errors) and you'll find me buying these up in bulk!