Wright writes.....

[cctransuk]

Just now, Willie Whizz said:

.... getting the nuts in the false ceiling to stay securely fixed can be a challenge in itself. 

 

Drill a hole the diameter of the distance across the flats of the nut in the false ceiling.

 

Press the nut into the hole with a vice.

 

Drill a clearance holes for the screw thread in two squares of plastic card, and stick one on each side of the ceiling nut.

 

The nut is now trapped and can't rotate; furthermore, the lower clearance hole is ideal for locating the end of the screw into the nut - not easy when peering through a coach window.

 

.... speaking of which - how close do you observe your coaches for you to be able to see the screws? At normal viewing distance, if visible at all, they might resemble a standing passenger.

 

CJI.

[lezz01]

Well as much as I hate to burst you old codgers bubbles but I ain't no spring chicken and I'm closing in on retirement age with alarming speed but even so I have managed to keep up with the times.

Regards Lez. 

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

On 02/03/2024 at 13:30, LNER4479 said:

 

I wouldn't normally get involved in such a discussion, as I am resolutely in the Dinosaur Control camp. However, I'm asking for a friend ...

 

Irrespective of pitch / tone considerations, two fundamentals need to be met for steam sound to even start to be realistic:

1) The 'chuff' to accelerate in time with the loco (not go up in discontinuous steps), with the correct chuffs to the revolution (4 per rev for a 2/4 cyl. loco; and 6 per rev for a 3 cyl. loco)

2) The 'chuffs' to stop altogether when the locomotive is slowing to a stand. This should NOT require the input of the operator(!) - the system should sense the load on the motor (or equivalent) and adjust the sound accordingly.

 

Are there any steam sound systems out there that achieve both of these? I might have heard No.1 but not - to date - No.2.

 

As I say - asking for a friend.

 

(FWIW, we do have two sound diseasels on Shap - that work on DC - and it's reasonably acceptable)

The answer is a resounding Yes!  A good example is Locoman sounds on a decent chip, not a Hornby budget type one, but an ESU Loksound one (the first two being the newer and much improved v5).  The difference between whats on the links bellow and what you'll see on most locos out of the box cannot be overstated.  I decided to show A4s as their distinctive sound (3 cylinder and the wonderful three chime whistles) as it pushes the decoder to use a wide range of the speaker's total pitch range.  Bear in mind too, with DCC, if you don't like something, its straightforward to reprogramme it.  Also, I was unable to find a bass + "full range" double speaker combination, which would make the lot sound richer, more vibrant, and sound more powerful with deeper exhaust notes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnJuaHhDm58

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtFBF_B-Xlg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7vkR4qYXgI

 

Rohan

 

[thegreenhowards]

On 02/03/2024 at 18:30, LNER4479 said:

 

I wouldn't normally get involved in such a discussion, as I am resolutely in the Dinosaur Control camp. However, I'm asking for a friend ...

 

Irrespective of pitch / tone considerations, two fundamentals need to be met for steam sound to even start to be realistic:

1) The 'chuff' to accelerate in time with the loco (not go up in discontinuous steps), with the correct chuffs to the revolution (4 per rev for a 2/4 cyl. loco; and 6 per rev for a 3 cyl. loco)

2) The 'chuffs' to stop altogether when the locomotive is slowing to a stand. This should NOT require the input of the operator(!) - the system should sense the load on the motor (or equivalent) and adjust the sound accordingly.

 

Are there any steam sound systems out there that achieve both of these? I might have heard No.1 but not - to date - No.2.

 

As I say - asking for a friend.

 

(FWIW, we do have two sound diseasels on Shap - that work on DC - and it's reasonably acceptable)

If I can weigh in on this too, then I would say 1) is possible, but often not achieved; and 2) nearly always.

 

The ‘Chuff rate’ is programmable on modern chips, certainly the more expensive ones. However many people just fit and forget rather than taking the time to change one CV (CV 267 on Zimo) to get the correct rate. It needs to be finessed because different locos will have different gearing etc. On my O gauge locos this is particularly important as the chuff rate is normally roughly set for 00 and the larger diameter wheels mean they chuff far too frequently.

 

As for coasting, there all decent modern chips will do this, but early DCC sound didn’t do this and maybe some current cheaper ones still don’t. I particularly like ‘active drive’ available on Zimo and ESU (maybe others) where shutting off means the loco coasts with just some clanking and slows down very slowly  (just like on the real thing) and one applies a separate button to brake (with appropriate noises).

 

Andy

[andytrains]

DCC Sound (Topic)!

😁

 

Hat, coat, door!

Edited March 4 by andytrains

[MJI]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

If I can weigh in on this too, then I would say 1) is possible, but often not achieved; and 2) nearly always.

 

The ‘Chuff rate’ is programmable on modern chips, certainly the more expensive ones. However many people just fit and forget rather than taking the time to change one CV (CV 267 on Zimo) to get the correct rate. It needs to be finessed because different locos will have different gearing etc. On my O gauge locos this is particularly important as the chuff rate is normally roughly set for 00 and the larger diameter wheels mean they chuff far too frequently.

 

As for coasting, there all decent modern chips will do this, but early DCC sound didn’t do this and maybe some current cheaper ones still don’t. I particularly like ‘active drive’ available on Zimo and ESU (maybe others) where shutting off means the loco coasts with just some clanking and slows down very slowly  (just like on the real thing) and one applies a separate button to brake (with appropriate noises).

 

Andy

 

Why is chuff rate not controlled like the ignition on a 70s car with a hall sensor (as found in the distributors)?

 

2 lumps for a 2 or 4, 3 for a 3, 4 for a Lord Nelson.

[thegreenhowards]

8 minutes ago, MJI said:

 

Why is chuff rate not controlled like the ignition on a 70s car with a hall sensor (as found in the distributors)?

 

2 lumps for a 2 or 4, 3 for a 3, 4 for a Lord Nelson.

Probably because that would be an unnecessary extra cost and complication.

[cctransuk]

12 hours ago, lezz01 said:

Well as much as I hate to burst you old codgers bubbles but I ain't no spring chicken and I'm closing in on retirement age with alarming speed but even so I have managed to keep up with the times.

Regards Lez. 

 

At my mid-70s, that is a spring chicken.

 

As to keeping up with the times, I trust the mechanical strength of a machine screw against magnetism every time!

 

CJI.

[MJI]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Probably because that would be an unnecessary extra cost and complication.

 

And sound is alreadt expensive, and with custom sounds and the like, it seems sensible, even if to stop me commenting to an owner  that my 1970s Flying Scotsman with sandpaper tender sounds as good.

[bbishop]

1 hour ago, MJI said:

 4 for a Lord Nelson.

but not for Sir John Hawkins.

[Dunsignalling]

13 hours ago, lezz01 said:

Well as much as I hate to burst you old codgers bubbles but I ain't no spring chicken and I'm closing in on retirement age with alarming speed but even so I have managed to keep up with the times.

Regards Lez. 

 

I think we pick up on techniques as we go along, and if they work, we carry on using them until we come across (or somebody points out) something that's either better or as good but easier.

 

I've (for instance) had a play with magnetic couplings in one carriage rake vs the Roco ones I've been using for the past 30 years. They work just as well (though not better IMHO). I haven't bought any more though, simply because I have a few dozen Rocos from my newest bulk pack to use up.

 

I haven't compared them with the Kadees I use on wagons, simply because there's (as yet) no way to remotely uncouple them, and I want to shunt most types of wagon.

 

If I hadn't already equipped my only block train with Kadees and Rocos, they'd be great. 

 

John

 

 

[andytrains]

The article in the latest MRJ regarding coaches, (Bachmann Mk1's), using Kadees inside the rakes looks interesting.

[Roger Sunderland]

Most people use Kadees at rake ends only on Bachmann Mk1’s. Is this article advocating something different?

[Dunsignalling]

37 minutes ago, Roger Sunderland said:

Most people use Kadees at rake ends only on Bachmann Mk1’s. Is this article advocating something different?

 

The article relates to #5 couplers being used as prototypical frame-mounted buckeyes in P4.

 

I'd think success will be extremely radius-dependent.

 

 

Edited March 4 by Dunsignalling

[thegreenhowards]

3 hours ago, MJI said:

 

And sound is alreadt expensive, and with custom sounds and the like, it seems sensible, even if to stop me commenting to an owner  that my 1970s Flying Scotsman with sandpaper tender sounds as good.

If you really believe that then you’re deluded!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I'd think success will be extremely radius-dependent.

True, but the MRJ readership will know this, and  most will probably be using ample radii on their layouts.

 

I have been steadily moving to body mounted Kadee on the end of Pullman gangway/ knuckle coupler equipped prototype stock, and have to say that the thought of using them throughout  with sprung gangway ends to eliminate the Kadee's slack in the train is appealing.

 

Not that I am unhappy with the effect delivered by the close coupling systems on my RTR OO, but the use of a coupler of superior appearance throughout really appeals.

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

6 hours ago, MJI said:

 

Why is chuff rate not controlled like the ignition on a 70s car with a hall sensor (as found in the distributors)?

 

2 lumps for a 2 or 4, 3 for a 3, 4 for a Lord Nelson.

many modern/decent decoders have that option, but back-electromagnetic force reading from motors has become good enough to do without.

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

The article relates to #5 couplers being used as prototypical frame-mounted buckeyes in P4.

 

I'd think success will be extremely radius-dependent.

 

 

I wonder if anyone in P4 has heard of Sergent/prototype couplers?  They are far superior in my experience to any Kadees in both appearance and operation.  They mainly make American couplings, but their "Sharon" type one is probably the best match for 4mm scale 3/4 size buckeyes.

 

Rohan

[Tony Wright]

Mo and I had a splendid time at the Preston show over the weekend. 

 

I managed to fix a few locos, sell a few items for good causes (over £80.00 for CRUK) and found time to photograph a rather nice little ex-Caley terminus in OO.

 

 

Bred Albin by Alisdair Macdonald. 

 

 

 

My stand seemed to generate a fair bit of interest.

 

And............

 

 

Gordon and Maggie Gravett's Arun Quay (with absolute justification) won 'best in show' as voted for by the exhibitors. 

 

With the topic generating comments on here at the moment, there were a few layouts with sound, but, since the notion doesn't interest me, I paid them little attention.

 

My thanks to the Preston Club for putting on such an excellent event, to the members for their help and hospitality, to all those who donated in whatever form and to all those I spoke with.  

 

 

 

 

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

I wonder if anyone in P4 has heard of Sergent/prototype couplers?

 

Yes of course, and years ago. 

[Captain Kernow]

1 hour ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

I wonder if anyone in P4 has heard of Sergent/prototype couplers?

No, but I use 3-links anyway.

 

[Dunsignalling]

23 minutes ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

I wonder if anyone in P4 has heard of Sergent/prototype couplers?  They are far superior in my experience to any Kadees in both appearance and operation.  They mainly make American couplings, but their "Sharon" type one is probably the best match for 4mm scale 3/4 size buckeyes.

 

Rohan

Probably not, Kadees are readily obtainable over here and I doubt many UK-outline modellers are aware of alternatives.

 

Judging from layout photos in the magazines, Kadees are nowadays quite widely used in OO. Quite a change from when I took them on in 1992. 

 

There's a "scale-head" whisker equivalent to the #5, the #158, that would look finer, but the coupler is largely hidden by the gangways if floor mounted.

 

John

[Michael Edge]

6 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

The article relates to #5 couplers being used as prototypical frame-mounted buckeyes in P4.

 

I'd think success will be extremely radius-dependent.

 

 

This works fine at least down to 3ft 6in radius (probably tighter but I don't have direct experience), all the Mk 1s and LNER corridor stock on Carlisle has Kadee No5 couplers at the correct height for the full size buckeyes.

[Tony Wright]

On Friday morning, Geoff Haynes brought over a couple of O Gauge locos he's painted (built by others).

 

 

[Tony Wright]

With Squires taking over DJH, I'll be sending Roger Lewis images of locos I've built from the firm's kits.

 

Including the likes of..................

 

 

This A1 (painted by Ian Rathbone; headboard by Silver Tay). 

 

Just flicking through my photo library, I have hundreds of images of DJH kit-built locos.......................