Wright writes.....

[MikeTrice]

5 minutes ago, BMS said:

Please could someone give me the full wheelbase spacings for a LNER C2 (nee GNR C2) 4.4.2T.

6'3"+6'9"+8'3"+6'0"

[t-b-g]

42 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Sorry to potentially prolong the close-coupling discussions but ...

 

On reading about Victorian air-brakes and vacuum brakes, the former were more effective, but required appreciably more skill to use. The vacuum brakes were easier but still not trivial. Would a handful of percentage-points less in carriage-length simply mean that the drivers wouldn't under/overshoot the platforms less often in a way that mattered. Not so much getting a 17-coach train in the space of 16 coaches (more money), more fitting a 16-coach train onto a 16.5 coach platform with nobody having to jump (less time-wasted)?

 

When many of the early 4 wheeled, close coupled sets were put into service, they didn't have continuous brakes. Some sets relied entirely on the brakes in the two specific brake carriages at the ends of the set and the intermediate carriages had no brakes at all. A couple of the sets I have built are like that. On some railways, the brake carriages had welded spoke wheels (known to modellers as split spoke) and the intermediate carriages with no brakes had wooden disc wheels. All interesting details to consider when modelling such things.

[Coach bogie]

14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Which makes an interesting comparison. Who will pay more for a metal equivalent, just because it's been kit-built or scratch-built? Not only that, the RTR one is a known quantity, particularly in terms of running. If one were to buy all the components for a Crownline (now PDK) B17 kit, it would probably be over twice the price of the Hornby equivalent, maybe more.  

I have several times. Metal, but of greatest importance, heavy, kits for King, Castles etc. Despite having several Hornby Stars, I built another one based (loosely) on the Wills a few years back. I have a near complete NuCast Hall back in the UK to run alongside a couple of Hornby rtr. It will use it on a long goods train which few modern rtr will be able to haul.  Same with the Star, which I am sure I have shown previously, which is comfortable with 15 kit built coaches. The rtr equivalent, though very detailed and pretty just polishes the rails. I have just picked up a K's ROD which will be a spare for the one already running which is 40 years old now. 

Kit builds still have their place.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Tony Wright]

41 minutes ago, Coach bogie said:

I have several times. Metal, but of greatest importance, heavy, kits for King, Castles etc. Despite having several Hornby Stars, I built another one based (loosely) on the Wills a few years back. I have a near complete NuCast Hall back in the UK to run alongside a couple of Hornby rtr. It will use it on a long goods train which few modern rtr will be able to haul.  Same with the Star, which I am sure I have shown previously, which is comfortable with 15 kit built coaches. The rtr equivalent, though very detailed and pretty just polishes the rails. I have just picked up a K's ROD which will be a spare for the one already running which is 40 years old now. 

Kit builds still have their place.

 

Mike Wiltshire

Good morning Mike,

 

I couldn't agree more, and you've answered my question perfectly. 

 

Your mention of an RTR loco just 'polishing the rails' made me chuckle, because exactly the same sort of thing occurred a couple of days ago on LB. 

 

I had a good friend round (he who built those superb locos in S7 and S Scale), and I was driving a kit-built A2/3 round at speed on 14 all-metal carriage (showing off, really). 'Is that the reason you build your own locos, just so they'll pull such heavy trains?' he asked. 'Yes', and by way of a 'controlled experiment' I put a Hornby A4 on the same set. It just polished the rails! Granted, on starting, the A2/3 slipped a little (very prototypical for a Thompson Pacific), but very quickly got under way. The RTR A4 certainly slipped, but that was all. 

 

I suppose I should have qualified my earlier question by adding the caveat 'if there is no necessity to pull really heavy trains', but in the haulage stakes, especially with steam-outline, 'heavy metal' always wins over plastic. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

13 hours ago, BMS said:

This being an LNER orientated forum, please could someone give me the full wheelbase spacings for a LNER C2 (nee GNR C2) 4.4.2T. All I can find is the total wheelbase so far.

I am trying to create a chassis to fit a Vulcan Foundry TVR 4.4.2T Class C  ( 5'  9" +6' 11.5"+ 7'10"+ 6' 0") and accept that modifying some other chassis frame is the most likely route for me.

 

More broadly have I missed something like Mike Sharman's wheels book but for chassis wheelbases; there must be others looking to adopt chassis for locos other than those for kits for more "popular" locos?

Thanks

Good afternoon BMS,

 

From the RCTS - six foot five and a half inches (bogie wheelbase) + six foot eight inches (rear bogie wheel to leading driver) + six foot ten and a half inches (coupled wheelbase) + seven foot six inches (rear driver to pony), total 27 foot six inches. These are for only No. 327 (the inside-cylinder example).

 

For all the rest of the piston valve locos it's - six foot three (bogie wheelbase) + five foot three and a quarter inches (rear bogie wheel to leading driver) + six foot ten inches (coupled wheelbase) + eight foot (rear driver to pony), total 26 foot four and a quarter inches. The balanced slide-valve locos had their bogies placed three quarters of an inch further back. 

 

My apologies for writing the numbers in alphabetical-style; I've yet to learn how to type fractions in numerical-style! 

 

What might be worth considering is that manufacturers (both RTR and kits), because of the very close proximity of the driving wheels to each other, will either extend that scale dimension and/or suggest drivers of a slightly smaller diameter. 

 

I hope the above helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[BMS]

Thanks for that; as you'll appreciate having a comprehensive library for railway info outside the main interest is limited!

I'll bear in mind your comments - I appreciate that the supplier is in no way responsible for my mods!

Good to see your book again in advert listings- shame about the reduced price!

•  

[Mark Laidlay]

On 12/07/2023 at 17:49, Tony Wright said:

Off to Peterborough North soon. To deliver this............

 

Once there, fit a decoder (Ugh!) and that'll be that (I hope, because I'm tired of having previously sweet-running kit-built locos 'hindered' after they'd been DCC-d). 

 

No doubt Gilbert (Great Northern) will report accordingly. 

I'm surprised to read of sweet running DC locos becoming worse when fitted with a DCC decoder.  My experience (as discussed over lunch back in early May (or was that at York)) is that a good quality decoder will mask problems when installed in a loco giving the appearance of a smooth running loco (that actually has a problem or two).  Are you reporting the opposite?  What's the quality of the decoders involved?

[Compound2632]

18 hours ago, DenysW said:

Sorry to potentially prolong the close-coupling discussions but ...

 

On reading about Victorian air-brakes and vacuum brakes, the former were more effective, but required appreciably more skill to use. The vacuum brakes were easier but still not trivial. Would a handful of percentage-points less in carriage-length simply mean that the drivers wouldn't under/overshoot the platforms less often in a way that mattered. Not so much getting a 17-coach train in the space of 16 coaches (more money), more fitting a 16-coach train onto a 16.5 coach platform with nobody having to jump (less time-wasted)?

 

But five 6-wheelers into a 300 ft platform?

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Mark Laidlay said:

a good quality decoder will mask problems when installed in a loco giving the appearance of a smooth running loco (that actually has a problem or two).  

 

What is the difference between a smooth-running loco and a loco that appears to run smoothly?

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Mark Laidlay said:

I'm surprised to read of sweet running DC locos becoming worse when fitted with a DCC decoder.  My experience (as discussed over lunch back in early May (or was that at York)) is that a good quality decoder will mask problems when installed in a loco giving the appearance of a smooth running loco (that actually has a problem or two).  Are you reporting the opposite?  What's the quality of the decoders involved?

Good afternoon Mark,

 

I've been in (yet another) DCC discussion on the Peterborough North layout, and I've posted 'I'll say no more'. 

 

I won't say much here; or try not to!

 

I can only speak from my own experience, but on at least three occasions I've installed (high-quality) decoders in locos I've built, and then they run jerkily. At first (because I don't have, nor want, any DCC control equipment) I thought it was because I was testing them (with the chip fitted) on analogue. However, even with  help from Digitrains (at one Preston Show), who tested the loco on DCC, one loco...........

 

This one............

 

 

 

 

Just would not run properly, despite all sorts of fiddling with the CVs. 

 

Eventually, we gave up.

 

Another couple of locos had earlier open-framed motors, of an age long before DCC, so there might have been incompatibility issues. 

 

To be frank (or even blunt), I'm afraid I don't care. I build locos (as you've seen) which (on straight DC) run sweetly, slowly, rapidly, powerfully, quietly and smoothly; how others choose to 'muck about' with them afterwards is up to them, though it'll negate any guarantee. 

 

If you've read my post on PN, I'm now taking my own advice and definitely not fiddling with DCC locos on behalf of others, ever again! I've seen so much in the way of poor installations (which, to be fair, is not DCC's fault). 

 

As for 'curing' poorly-running locos by the installation of a decoder, with respect I think that that's the practice of folly; rather like 'curing' a banging from a car's engine by turning the radio up to full blast. Was that ever part of the DCC propaganda? If so, I can't agree. 

 

From my building/fitting experience (probably limited to just over two score locos - not much, I admit), a decent decoder, correctly installed, can make a sweet-running loco even sweeter - by that, I mean, because of the consistently highest voltage in the system, it'll be far less likely to 'stutter' at very slow speed. In fact, some of the finest slow-speed running I've ever witnessed has been because of DCC-control (usually diesels, though not exclusively); with that, I cannot argue. 

 

Finally, I'd never adopt a control system where I couldn't fix (at least) 99% of the problems, should they arise; be that building/wiring locos, fitting decoders, programming CVs or trouble-shooting power problems. Though I can do a few of those necessities for DCC, I'm far to dim to do the rest. In some cases, I'm not alone. How many times have you seen DCC layouts at shows where all the operators are looking at each other in a most-perplexed fashion, their fingers/thumbs fiddling with buttons and nothing happens? Or, when it does, nobody seems to be in control? To be fair, it does happen on DC, but those layouts are usually easier to fix; at least in my experience. Also in fairness, one DCC layout I saw, on which nothing was working, was 'cured' by the expedient of an operator switching it off at the mains; then switching it back on, to a hearty round of applause. That never works on a DC-controlled layout.  One DC-controlled layout I saw never seemed to work properly, the builders constantly wielding soldering irons. The cure? Fit it with DCC. The result? If possible, it worked even worse!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[APOLLO]

I bought a bargain "non runner" Weaver O gauge Southern Pacific U25B diesel off ebay for around £70 a few years ago.

 

Body off and a nest of wires, boards and chips presented itself. A pair of snips, out with the lot, then connected the motor leads direct to the pickup leads and off she ran, smooth as silk. I wired the headlamps later via directional diodes. Now a useful locomotive.

 

All together now -- "DCC is not for me" !!

 

Brit15

[Northmoor]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I've been in (yet another) DCC discussion on the Peterborough North layout, and I've posted 'I'll say no more'. 

 

To be frank (or even blunt), I'm afraid I don't care. 

My sympathies Tony.  It can happen to anyone.  You only have to mention that, "DCC isn't necessary for my sort of layout" and someone will appear out of nowhere to tell you how it would transform your railway.  I said much the same innocuous statement on another thread a few months ago and  one particular individual called my knowledge of model railways and the real world (yes, really), into question.  The temptation to offer the bloke some advice of my own concerning sex and travel was strong, but I resisted as I rather not be banned from RMWeb, so I simply refused to enter into any further argument after my second reply.

 

Like religion and veganism, DCC seems to be one of those things where the most recent converts are the biggest evangelists.  You will not be allowed to express a different opinion, because you will be wrong.  Perhaps for such evangelists, it's a way of justifying not to others but to themselves, why it has been worth them spending so much more than other people who have bought all the same locos and seem to be getting just as much enjoyment, but paid between £50-100 less for each of them.

[Tony Wright]

17 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

My sympathies Tony.  It can happen to anyone.  You only have to mention that, "DCC isn't necessary for my sort of layout" and someone will appear out of nowhere to tell you how it would transform your railway.  I said much the same innocuous statement on another thread a few months ago and  one particular individual called my knowledge of model railways and the real world (yes, really), into question.  The temptation to offer the bloke some advice of my own concerning sex and travel was strong, but I resisted as I rather not be banned from RMWeb, so I simply refused to enter into any further argument after my second reply.

 

Like religion and veganism, DCC seems to be one of those things where the most recent converts are the biggest evangelists.  You will not be allowed to express a different opinion, because you will be wrong.  Perhaps for such evangelists, it's a way of justifying not to others but to themselves, why it has been worth them spending so much more than other people who have bought all the same locos and seem to be getting just as much enjoyment, but paid between £50-100 less for each of them.

Thanks Rob,

 

However, in fairness, all of my 'critics' over the last day or so have been very fair. If anything, I'm the more 'reactionary' one with regards to opinions. That said, having built over 600 metal locos down the year, with more than two score associated with DCC, I'm either getting a few things 'right' or my 'critics' have considerably greater experience of getting things more-right. 

 

I come back to my point about stating that I'd never countenance adopting a system where I couldn't do things for myself, be that DCC installations, programming, trouble-shooting or whatever 'mysteries' are thrown at me by a radically-different method of controlling my locos. I understand DC (inasmuch as I can fix most problems which might occur), but I'm far too dim to adopt DCC!  

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[Mark Laidlay]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Mark,

 

...........

 

As for 'curing' poorly-running locos by the installation of a decoder, with respect I think that that's the practice of folly; rather like 'curing' a banging from a car's engine by turning the radio up to full blast. Was that ever part of the DCC propaganda? If so, I can't agree. 

...................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Not curing, I was very careful to say that DCC can mask problems.  This is done by the BEMF function and the close relationship between the decoder and motor in a loco.  Obviously it's not a good idea to cover up a problem that will probably come back to cause trouble later.  I've never seen "masking a bad mechanism" advertised as a feature of DCC but aren't BEMF controllers and specific motors used by some modellers to give a similar result?

 

Mark in Melbourne

[Mark Laidlay]

11 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

What is the difference between a smooth-running loco and a loco that appears to run smoothly?

Increased chance of future failure....

 

Mark in Melbourne

[Chas Levin]

14 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

What is the difference between a smooth-running loco and a loco that appears to run smoothly?

 

The same as the difference between being in love and thinking you're in love: none at all.

[Chas Levin]

On the question of why railway companies close-coupled: there's been some discussion about whether the saving of seemingly insignificant lengths could have justified the practice and a few people have been sceptical.

I wonder whether there's insufficient allowance for the scale of operations and the way small increases (in revenue) across a huge company can become significant on the balance books.

In my day job, I'm always surprised at how excited some of our business partners get over a few pence shaved off the production cost of something, or a few pence added to the retail cost, until I think about how many units are involved.

Surely it could be the same here: a handful of extra passengers added to one train may seem trivial, but if you add up the number of trains per year...

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, Mark Laidlay said:

Not curing, I was very careful to say that DCC can mask problems.  This is done by the BEMF function and the close relationship between the decoder and motor in a loco.  Obviously it's not a good idea to cover up a problem that will probably come back to cause trouble later.  I've never seen "masking a bad mechanism" advertised as a feature of DCC but aren't BEMF controllers and specific motors used by some modellers to give a similar result?

 

Mark in Melbourne

Good morning Mark,

 

I often put specific words in speech marks, and 'curing' was one. Perhaps 'masking' is better. However 'masking' an indifferent locomotive's performance by using DCC (or any other 'electronic' device) is still unacceptable to me. 

 

Whenever I build a loco, it's initially tested using a venerable H&M 'Safety Minor' (when did these first appear, because it's from that time?). It's got a knob on the top which proclaims 'Vari-Wave Control', which can be slid along giving 'rectification' between half-wave and full-wave. I believe it's a sort of 'pulse power', which, I'm told, gives better slow-speed running (towards half-wave), but at the cost of a very 'buzzy' loco. I've never used it other than on full-wave. Later H&Ms (the 'Clipper' and the 'Duette', for instance) had a different system employing a pair of sliding switches, but with no gradation. I still have several old H&Ms, one of which goes with me to shows. 

 

By today's standards, these ancient (but everlasting) controllers are considered 'crude' (as an aside, I see them being sold on second hand stands at shows. However, unless they have a current PAT certificate, such a sale is illegal - I wonder how many of the vendors know that?). Crude though they might be, if I can get a new loco running smoothly and sweetly using my 'Safety Minor' (at full-wave), then when it comes to run on anything controlled by a modern 'electronic' device (Helmsmans on LB), then it's even sweeter. 

 

I'm all for the most-sophisticated control systems, but not if they're needed to 'mask' a locomotive's poor performance.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Tony Wright
to add something

[micklner]

Duettes are wired up using Asbestos insulation ???

My one was binned years ago. Dont open it !!.

 

I use a Guagemaster Combi lifetime guarantee, small and lightweight.

[MJI]

I still use a safety minor, good controller, variable transformer, so still works well.

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, Mark Laidlay said:

Increased chance of future failure....

 

1 hour ago, Chas Levin said:

The same as the difference between being in love and thinking you're in love: none at all.

 

Hum. An interesting pair of responses! Is it the case then, that in love as in smooth running, if you're not properly meshed and quartered, failure inevitably lies ahead?

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

However 'masking' an indifferent locomotive's performance by using DCC (or any other 'electronic' device) is still unacceptable to me. 

I’m going to play devil’s advocate here.
 

As a general rule I agree with you, but I think there are exceptions. Poor performance in the mechanism needs to be sorted out, but poor performance caused by lack of pick ups can be cured electronically. I’m thinking of a 4 coupled loco. Rather than trying to put pick ups on the bogies, I often use a stayalive which gives very smooth running much more easily.

 

You may well ask if more than 2 pickups per side are necessary. And I would agree that they shouldn’t be. But sadly I find that they are - particularly on my garden railway, but also on Gresley Jn which has insulfrog slips and a few insulfrog points in the fiddle yard.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Tony Wright]

50 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’m going to play devil’s advocate here.
 

As a general rule I agree with you, but I think there are exceptions. Poor performance in the mechanism needs to be sorted out, but poor performance caused by lack of pick ups can be cured electronically. I’m thinking of a 4 coupled loco. Rather than trying to put pick ups on the bogies, I often use a stayalive which gives very smooth running much more easily.

 

You may well ask if more than 2 pickups per side are necessary. And I would agree that they shouldn’t be. But sadly I find that they are - particularly on my garden railway, but also on Gresley Jn which has insulfrog slips and a few insulfrog points in the fiddle yard.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Good morning Andy,

 

May I play Devil's advocate as well?

 

Why on earth would anyone employ anything but 'live-frog' points and crossings on their model railways? 

 

I admit I did, but that was years ago when I had Tri-ang track!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

May I play Devil's advocate as well?

 

Why on earth would anyone employ anything but 'live-frog' points and crossings on their model railways? 

 

I admit I did, but that was years ago when I had Tri-ang track!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

1. Because Peco don’t make code 100 electrofrog slips and crossings; and

2. Because I had spare insulfrog points from a previous layout which I thought I’d use up in the fiddle yard. 
 

I would make different decisions if I was building it again, but this was 8 years ago and I’m still not sure I’d trust my clumsiness with code 75 track! Also, I believe that with the very small insulated section on newer Peco insulfrog points, it’s not the insulated bit which creates pick up problems but the wheel drop into the crossing which lifts other wheels off the track. I do occasionally get pick up problems on electrofrog points.

 

For my foray into O gauge I’ve used kit built points in the main and they are generally better. But being in the garden, I get more dirty track which creates problems.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Chas Levin]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

Hum. An interesting pair of responses! Is it the case then, that in love as in smooth running, if you're not properly meshed and quartered, failure inevitably lies ahead?

 

So my wife tells me...