Wright writes.....

[ROSSPOP]

 

I wasn't suggesting that you use the older-fashioned XO4 type motors (though Pendon did, and I've still got a couple of very old kit-built locos with them inside). I doubt if they're happy with DCC, either. 

 

I think what you've also pointed out is true, that DCC is more-suited to plastic-bodied locos, though an electrically-dead chassis under a metal body should be OK. 

 

 

 

Sorry I hav`nt got any LNER models  Tony , but I have always been and remain an avid  loco kitbuilder.

 

I think this counts as an old fashioned XO4 type motor (actually it is a Japanese KTM)  inside a recently completed 1970`s 7mm whitemetal Pug

 

kit.

 

 

I think DCC (using a quality decoder) makes these old motors function even better than expected.......

 

 

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

 

regards

 

John

[ecgtheow]

Wow! The YouTube video shows very impressive running & the DCC sound is great. Also the loco must be fully automated as it goes & stops without a driver.

 

Just kidding,

 

William

[Tony Wright]

Sorry I hav`nt got any LNER models  Tony , but I have always been and remain an avid  loco kitbuilder.

 

I think this counts as an old fashioned XO4 type motor (actually it is a Japanese KTM)  inside a recently completed 1970`s 7mm whitemetal Pug

 

kit.

 

DSC04170.JPG

 

I think DCC (using a quality decoder) makes these old motors function even better than expected.......

 

 

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

 

regards

 

John

Great stuff, John,

 

Thanks for posting. 

 

Believe it or not, when I did the DVD with Nigel Burkin on DCC, he put a chip into a loco fitted with an old-fashioned, five-pole open-framed motor (a Jepson) and (I hate to admit this) it did run sweeter once the correct CVs were configured. My prejudice dictated that the decoder was later removed. 

 

It still runs (very well) without it, but it was just a (tiny) bit smoother. 

[grob1234]

A little bird told me the DJH A3 is no longer in production. Last time I checked their website it wasn’t listed. This would be a real shame as the kits I have are really lovely. One being unbuilt and one at the rolling chassis stage.

 

Tony, I hope Mo is feeling a little better now? Emergency trips to A&E (I suppose they are emergency by default) are never welcome.

 

I’m also glad that this thread has returned to its usual good form - that of encouraging people to model. I’m eager to get back to the work bench having picked up two more kits on a short visit to Blighty. Another A1/3 and a C1. Upon checking the kits (both of which from EBay... but did I “win” them or merely buy them?!) I noticed the C1 has a missing cab. Initially I thought of buying a replacement from DJH. However such is my preference for building stuff, I simply bought some brass sheet, and I’ll fashion and cut a new cab from the sheet. I hope this approach is in the spirit of this great thread.

[sandra]

Tony,

 

I'm sorry to hear that Mo has been ill. Please give her my regards and I hope she will soon be fully recovered.

 

I'm not sure I agree with your remark that DCC is more suitable for plastic-bodied locos. I've got several kit-built locos both white metal and brass which run quite happily with DCC. A couple of these are ones with live under-frames ( I was told off by Roy Jackson for referring to the under-frame as the chassis.) These admittedly do have modern motors and gearboxes but I don't see any reason why, if care is taken, DCC should not be used with kit-built locomotives and I would not like to put DCC users off kit building locomotives because of a fear that DCC is not compatible with such locomotives.

 

As I've said before, there is something very satisfying in watching a locomotive you have built glide effortlessly along the track. I do appreciate that a lot of work can be involved in getting to this stage but I do think it is worth it.

 

Sandra

[queensquare]

Lots of interesting stuff as usual. Just to dispel a myth here is an example of an all metal loco with split axle pickup so the chassis is both split and live. It is in 2mm scale and is DCC fitted. Most of my locos have metal bodies and split chassis and I've never had a problem with DCC chips blowing or failing. If the chip is properly fitted and electrically isolated there shouldn't be a problem.

 

 

 

For the record it's a MR 1F c.1922, one of a pair (the other is 1874) which shunted the Midland yard at Bath for many years. The body utilises an etch which was shot down by an Association member some years ago from a 4mm kit - I suspect Craftsman. The chassis is scratchbuilt with Association wheels and gears, a Faulhaeber 816 motor and a CT chip.

 

Jerry

[Bucoops]

As I understand it, as a noobie, is that with live chassis and body on DCC or DC can cause short circuits if it meets another metal bodied (and buffered/coupling/other method of physical contact) but the other polarity. Sometimes even nice sparks can be seen

 

Any live chassis loco can become the other polarity by simply turning it round.

 

It's not just a DCC issue?

Edited February 5, 2018 by Bucoops

[glo41f]

"there is something very satisfying in watching a locomotive you have built glide effortlessly along the track"   Totally agree when that happens but in my experience there is usually a lot of effort and pain put in before that state of Nirvana arises!

 

Thank you John for the film about the Pug. The sounds on that are some of the best that I have heard especially the coasting and rail noises. You must have a wonderful speaker on that loco and be a very skilled driver as few in my experience get it as right as you have done.

 

Tony the pictures you have posted are wonderful. That BP looks stunning running through uncluttered countryside. You mention the late Geoff Holt. He truly was a master craftsman of the first order. I was in correspondence with him for a while and he, like you, was very encouraging on matters of loco building. All the great builders seem to have benefited from a background of technical training. (Geoff was originally an RAF engineer). This does give an advantage especially when it comes to forming shapes such as chimneys and other fittings. I would love to be able to turn wheels accurately on my little lathe but the processes involved are a total mystery!

 

The Princess Coronation picture shows what wonderful locos these were (And that from an Eastern Man!)  Really super work. How lucky we are to have access to these pictures which certainly help and encourage me to try harder and I hope have the same effect on those who lurk here. As I said in an earlier post this has to be the best Model Railway Club in the country!

 

Martin Long

[Lecorbusier]

Lots of interesting stuff as usual. Just to dispel a myth here is an example of an all metal loco with split axle pickup so the chassis is both split and live. It is in 2mm scale and is DCC fitted. Most of my locos have metal bodies and split chassis and I've never had a problem with DCC chips blowing or failing. If the chip is properly fitted and electrically isolated there shouldn't be a problem.

 

 

IMG_1498.PNG

 

For the record it's a MR 1F c.1922, one of a pair (the other is 1874) which shunted the Midland yard at Bath for many years. The body utilises an etch which was shot down by an Association member some years ago from a 4mm kit - I suspect Craftsman. The chassis is scratchbuilt with Association wheels and gears, a Faulhaeber 816 motor and a CT chip.

 

Jerry

What a great little engine .... excellent.

[jamie92208]

As regards the Blue Pullman's I can echo Chrisf's comments about the 6 car units.  I remember seeing them leave Paddington as coupled pairs in 1971 when I was doing a sort of gap year. So at least the 6 car sets need a coupler.

 

Jamie

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

I'm sorry to hear that Mo has been ill. Please give her my regards and I hope she will soon be fully recovered.

 

I'm not sure I agree with your remark that DCC is more suitable for plastic-bodied locos. I've got several kit-built locos both white metal and brass which run quite happily with DCC. A couple of these are ones with live under-frames ( I was told off by Roy Jackson for referring to the under-frame as the chassis.) These admittedly do have modern motors and gearboxes but I don't see any reason why, if care is taken, DCC should not be used with kit-built locomotives and I would not like to put DCC users off kit building locomotives because of a fear that DCC is not compatible with such locomotives.

 

As I've said before, there is something very satisfying in watching a locomotive you have built glide effortlessly along the track. I do appreciate that a lot of work can be involved in getting to this stage but I do think it is worth it.

 

Sandra

Thanks for your thoughts, Sandra,

 

Mo is recovering very well.

 

I'm not saying that DCC is not suitable for kit-built metal locos; only, and this is born out from my own experience, it seems less likely (for obvious, non-conductive reasons) that any problems will occur if the body is all plastic. 

 

Though I'd never use DCC myself (surely the most axiomatic statement ever), I have built metal locos where the customer has requested decoders be fitted. That being the case, I've built the frames (not the chassis!) electrically-dead. That seems to be the perceived path of wisdom. 

 

Where a chip has been installed in what is essentially an electrically-live body (where only one set of drivers is insulated) I've actually seen chips fry (how appropriate?) when a short has occurred (a bogie wheel touching a frame, and so forth). This would never happen with an electrically-dead set of frames, would it?

 

I've also spent hours fiddling with metal locos on Peterborough North, trying to obviate stray shorts and stuttering running in commission-built, live-chassis, metal locomotives. They run fine on DC (on test), but any problems are exacerbated with DCC. 

 

Whilst I'd never personally recommend anyone using DCC, I wouldn't like to think that I'd actively dissuade folk from employing it, even given my natural prejudice. 

 

It could be that chips and systems have improved since my days of destroying decoders (not deliberately) and the most recent one I've installed for a friend - inside an electrically-dead A7 body I've not long built - seems faultless, principally due to the sound advice I received from Jeremy at Digitrains. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Tony Wright

[johndon]

 

 

 South Pelaw 13.jpg

 

And, another way-above-average layout under construction right now is Pelaw South in EM. 

 

 

Knowing the guys building it and having seen it under construction a couple of times, I'd agree that it will be well above average but if I may drop in to pedant mode with a small correction, the layout isn't Pelaw South but South Pelaw Junction (although it goes a bit further and includes Stella Gill as well).

 

I harbour plans to build the same location in P4...

 

John

[Tony Wright]

Lots of interesting stuff as usual. Just to dispel a myth here is an example of an all metal loco with split axle pickup so the chassis is both split and live. It is in 2mm scale and is DCC fitted. Most of my locos have metal bodies and split chassis and I've never had a problem with DCC chips blowing or failing. If the chip is properly fitted and electrically isolated there shouldn't be a problem.

 

 

IMG_1498.PNG

 

For the record it's a MR 1F c.1922, one of a pair (the other is 1874) which shunted the Midland yard at Bath for many years. The body utilises an etch which was shot down by an Association member some years ago from a 4mm kit - I suspect Craftsman. The chassis is scratchbuilt with Association wheels and gears, a Faulhaeber 816 motor and a CT chip.

 

Jerry

Great stuff Jerry (as always),

 

However, surely the body is not electrically-live? As would be the case with a 'live' chassis; that is only one set of wheels insulated. 

[Tony Wright]

Knowing the guys building it and having seen it under construction a couple of times, I'd agree that it will be well above average but if I may drop in to pedant mode with a small correction, the layout isn't Pelaw South but South Pelaw Junction (although it goes a bit further and includes Stella Gill as well).

 

I harbour plans to build the same location in P4...

 

John

John,

 

My mistake.

 

The picture's description is correct, though.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[stewartingram]

Sorry I hav`nt got any LNER models  Tony , but I have always been and remain an avid  loco kitbuilder.

 

I think this counts as an old fashioned XO4 type motor (actually it is a Japanese KTM)  inside a recently completed 1970`s 7mm whitemetal Pug

 

kit.

 

DSC04170.JPG

 

I think DCC (using a quality decoder) makes these old motors function even better than expected.......

 

 

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

 

regards

 

John

 

Not DCC (though I converted many to Zero-1 when I was doing repairs for local shops), my X04 motors that I have tick over nicely (literally) with my home-built PWM controllers from a very old Practical Wireless magazine design. I can actually get a bog standard Triang Jinty (with the solid mazak wheels!) to go that slow, that it is possible to watch the tension hook s l o w l y climb over its neighbouring coupling. The X04/X03 motor is sadly derided nowadays, but will last forever.

Also, the Hornby Ringfield motor gets much derision which I think is not all deserved. The mainstay of Horny motors for many a year, it was derived from a Fleischann design. The initial ones (in the early 9F tender, and the early 47 diesel) may have actually been cloned by Hornby. The slighter later plastic ones, which have a number of detail differences over various models, are almost as good, far better than the rival Lima one of the time. Ironically, one sees quite a lot of compliments nowadays for the latter! There is a certain knack of giving them tlc in the servicing, to get the best, but I do like them. One of my locos is the original B17 (tender drive), married to a Crownline B2 conversion kit, the extra weight of a whitemetal tender body gives a quite wonderful upgrade in performance (along with the controller of course). I have no idea of maximum load capability however. I know tender drives are disliked by many, but if they work ok for me then I'm happy with them.

[queensquare]

Great stuff Jerry (as always),

 

However, surely the body is not electrically-live? As would be the case with a 'live' chassis; that is only one set of wheels insulated.

 

Hi Tony,

 

No the body isn't electrically live but the frames are. The two are isolated (insulated?) from each other by the simple means of coating the underside of the body with super glue and cigarette paper - or a pad of insulating tape. One of the many advantages of split axle/ frame pickup is that it doesn't matter if the wheels occasionally touch the frames as both are live to the same polarity. I will however concede that isn't as straightforward with Romford/Markit wheels.

 

As an amusing aside, you might not advocate DCC to anyone but at least one chap who came to see you at Southampton cited one of the DVDs you did as persuading him to adopt digital ........ the spawn of satan indeed! :-))

 

Jerry

[CF MRC]

Sorry I hav`nt got any LNER models  Tony , but I have always been and remain an avid  loco kitbuilder.

 

I think this counts as an old fashioned XO4 type motor (actually it is a Japanese KTM)  inside a recently completed 1970`s 7mm whitemetal Pug

 

kit.

 

DSC04170.JPG

 

I think DCC (using a quality decoder) makes these old motors function even better than expected.......

 

 

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

 

regards

 

John

Impressive, but you need to tell the driver to shut off the drain cocks quicker. He’s letting all the oil out of the cylinders....

 

Tim

[Enterprisingwestern]

As regards the Blue Pullman's I can echo Chrisf's comments about the 6 car units.  I remember seeing them leave Paddington as coupled pairs in 1971 when I was doing a sort of gap year. So at least the 6 car sets need a coupler.

 

Jamie

 

Prepare yourself Tony, I'm coming to your defence!

Pedantically, the BP in the picture isn't MU fitted, Bachmann are bringing one out this year allegedly, so Tony is correct in asking why a coupling is necessary, although technically, there must have been times when the BP's were loco hauled for whatever reason, but not frequently enough to warrant an ugly coupling.

 

Mike.

[Chuffer Davies]

 

 

I hope you're not going to be disappointed, but one friend, with a substantial fleet of split chassis locos sees them failing one by one. I know split chassis aren't really suited to DCC; hence their being abandoned now. 

 

I'd persevere with building your own locos (and still carry on building rakes, now you're retired). They really are much more satisfying. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Hi Tony,

 

Firstly can I just say how much I had been looking forward to seeing you at Stafford this last weekend, but I completely understand that your priorities are elsewhere currently.  I had the pleasure of being invited to operate David Woodward's modern image EM layout Woodfield Road at the Stafford show. Hopefully you will be at York as usual and we can catch up in person then.

 

Now then you know some of us are not going to let you get away with the above statement about split chassis and their suitability for DCC operation.   I accept that there is a complication if you are trying to convert a commercial split chassis to run on DCC because as built some have the brush housings shorted directly to the frames and therefore  require an amount of engineering to overcome.  Fitting DCC to hand built models irrespective of whether they have been built with split chassis is very straight forward.

 

You and I have always had different approaches to how we choose to build our underframes.  You are of the traditional analogue control, rigid chassis with pickups school, whilst I am from the compensated chassis and no pickups school with an increasing leaning towards DCC for loco control.   We are both happy with our record for loco performance and we both get enormous satisfaction from how we model so neither of us are likely to change any time soon. 

 

Personally I haven't fitted a single pickup to any of the tens of locomotives that I have built in the last 30 years.  All my tank engines are built with split chassis and all my tender engines use the American system (loco collects current from one track and the tender from the other) and no one (and I'd be the biggest critic anyway) has ever complained about the running characteristics of my models.  Yes I have to ensure that the frames are electrically isolated from the superstructures but any numpty (such as I) can work out how to do this, it is not difficult.  The only problem I have ever experienced was with a particular lubricant I started using where the horn blocks on one model stopped conducting electricity.  After a thorough clean of the horn blocks and axles and the application of a more appropriate lubricant all was once again well and has remained so ever since.   

 

My personal preference for building models this way is because I hate fitting pickups.  Whilst I can usually get them to work I could never make them look as tidy as I wanted.  I may be strange but I find the uncluttered appearance of an upturned chassis without pickups esthetically appealing as in the following example of an upturned GW 61xx Prairie.

 

So in conclusion can I reiterate that DCC and split/American chassis are fully compatible.  As with all DCC installations to avoid damaging the chip you must not allow any of its components to come into direct contact with any electrically live parts of the model.  This is true of any DCC fitted model irrespective of your chosen method of pickup and is easily achieved with a bit of forethought.

 

Best wishes,

 

Frank 

[Anglian]

I was rather pleased with myself this weekend – having watched Tony working at his repair clinic I was able to get an old Triang Flying Scotsman running smoothly for a little lad. I was actually amazed how quickly it sprang to life after some cleaning and tinkering, in a logical order that I'd picked up from watching the master at work. I was also surprised how smoothly the motor soon began to run. I presume this was the X04.

Since I have little time for modelling at the moment (the curse of being self-employed and having other hobbies as well) I'm occasionally buying RTR locomotives to acquire the often beautifully painted body shells. Since I've not yet decided if I shall model OO or EM what I do with these locomotives, or body shells, is uncertain but I know that I'm unable to build paint and line to the same degree of perfection. Conversely I am conscious that the RTR product may have a limited working life span.

 

Is anybody using RTR shells on chassis they have built?

Edited February 5, 2018 by Anglian

[Clive Mortimore]

Prepare yourself Tony, I'm coming to your defence!

Pedantically, the BP in the picture isn't MU fitted, Bachmann are bringing one out this year allegedly, so Tony is correct in asking why a coupling is necessary, although technically, there must have been times when the BP's were loco hauled for whatever reason, but not frequently enough to warrant an ugly coupling.

 

Mike.

I have seen several photos of the lovely Midland Pullman being shunted out the way by a dirt encrusted Jocko :sungum:

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony,

 

Firstly can I just say how much I had been looking forward to seeing you at Stafford this last weekend, but I completely understand that your priorities are elsewhere currently.  I had the pleasure of being invited to operate David Woodward's modern image EM layout Woodfield Road at the Stafford show. Hopefully you will be at York as usual and we can catch up in person then.

 

Now then you know some of us are not going to let you get away with the above statement about split chassis and their suitability for DCC operation.   I accept that there is a complication if you are trying to convert a commercial split chassis to run on DCC because as built some have the brush housings shorted directly to the frames and therefore  require an amount of engineering to overcome.  Fitting DCC to hand built models irrespective of whether they have been built with split chassis is very straight forward.

 

You and I have always had different approaches to how we choose to build our underframes.  You are of the traditional analogue control, rigid chassis with pickups school, whilst I am from the compensated chassis and no pickups school with an increasing leaning towards DCC for loco control.   We are both happy with our record for loco performance and we both get enormous satisfaction from how we model so neither of us are likely to change any time soon. 

 

Personally I haven't fitted a single pickup to any of the tens of locomotives that I have built in the last 30 years.  All my tank engines are built with split chassis and all my tender engines use the American system (loco collects current from one track and the tender from the other) and no one (and I'd be the biggest critic anyway) has ever complained about the running characteristics of my models.  Yes I have to ensure that the frames are electrically isolated from the superstructures but any numpty (such as I) can work out how to do this, it is not difficult.  The only problem I have ever experienced was with a particular lubricant I started using where the horn blocks on one model stopped conducting electricity.  After a thorough clean of the horn blocks and axles and the application of a more appropriate lubricant all was once again well and has remained so ever since.   

 

My personal preference for building models this way is because I hate fitting pickups.  Whilst I can usually get them to work I could never make them look as tidy as I wanted.  I may be strange but I find the uncluttered appearance of an upturned chassis without pickups esthetically appealing as in the following example of an upturned GW 61xx Prairie.

IMG_0444.JPG

 

So in conclusion can I reiterate that DCC and split/American chassis are fully compatible.  As with all DCC installations to avoid damaging the chip you must not allow any of its components to come into direct contact with any electrically live parts of the model.  This is true of any DCC fitted model irrespective of your chosen method of pickup and is easily achieved with a bit of forethought.

 

Best wishes,

 

Frank 

Thanks Frank,

 

I'm sorry I couldn't make it to Stafford. 

 

The reasoning behind my belief that split chassis are not really suitable for DCC operation is based on my conversations in more recent times with my friends at Bachmann. That's why locos like the A4 , B1 and V2 (and the J39?) are now coming out with new chassis, complete with pick-ups, which are more suitable for DCC-operation. Previously, it wasn't a simple procedure of just plugging in a decoder, and, often, where a decoder had been fitted into an old B1, the decoder had to be in the cab! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

P.S. Lovely work, by the way.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Clive Mortimore]

Not DCC (though I converted many to Zero-1 when I was doing repairs for local shops), my X04 motors that I have tick over nicely (literally) with my home-built PWM controllers from a very old Practical Wireless magazine design. I can actually get a bog standard Triang Jinty (with the solid mazak wheels!) to go that slow, that it is possible to watch the tension hook s l o w l y climb over its neighbouring coupling. The X04/X03 motor is sadly derided nowadays, but will last forever.

Also, the Hornby Ringfield motor gets much derision which I think is not all deserved. The mainstay of Horny motors for many a year, it was derived from a Fleischann design. The initial ones (in the early 9F tender, and the early 47 diesel) may have actually been cloned by Hornby. The slighter later plastic ones, which have a number of detail differences over various models, are almost as good, far better than the rival Lima one of the time. Ironically, one sees quite a lot of compliments nowadays for the latter! There is a certain knack of giving them tlc in the servicing, to get the best, but I do like them. One of my locos is the original B17 (tender drive), married to a Crownline B2 conversion kit, the extra weight of a whitemetal tender body gives a quite wonderful upgrade in performance (along with the controller of course). I have no idea of maximum load capability however. I know tender drives are disliked by many, but if they work ok for me then I'm happy with them.

Hi Stewart

 

I agree about the Hornby ringfield motor, I never have any major problems with them in my diesels. With good care oiled, but not too much, clean wheels, axles and where the axle comes in contact with the trailing bogie frame they will run very nicely and slowly. Lima ringfields again with a bit of care will never let anyone down and show me a Lima diesel that cannot haul a decent sized train. 

 

One of the slowest locos I have is a MTK class 22 with two Tri-ang Hymek bogies, I didn't build it but picked it up secondahand many moons ago. Another MTK loco that has always surprised me is (again secondhand) a class 47 with two MTK power bogies, it can out pull a Heljan 47. I haven't tried against my Heljan Class 128 Parcels unit as they seem to be one if not the most powerful RTR "loco" around at the moment.  

 

I am not too sure how these older powered models I have would run with DCC but thankfully that will never be a problem. Remember DC is only two wires one form each set of pick ups to the two brushes on the motor.

[Tony Wright]

I was rather pleased with myself this weekend – having watched Tony working at his repair clinic I was able to get an old Triang Flying Scotsman running smoothly for a little lad. I was actually amazed how quickly it sprang to life after some cleaning and tinkering, in a logical order that I'd picked up from watching the master at work. I was also surprised how smoothly the motor soon began to run. I presume this was the X04.

 

Since I have little time for modelling at the moment (the curse of being self-employed and having other hobbies as well) I'm occasionally buying RTR locomotives to acquire the often beautifully painted body shells. Since I've not yet decided if I shall model OO or EM what I do with these locomotives, or body shells, is uncertain but I know that I'm unable to build paint and line to the same degree of perfection. Conversely I am conscious that the RTR product may have a limited working life span.

 

Is anybody using RTR shells on chassis they have built?

Very much so..............

 

 

This is the line up of all my current B1s. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th (from the left) are all (modified) Palitoy/Bachmann bodies, which were all on their original split chassis as acquired. Having chucked the nasty original mechanisms away, all of them now run on Comet chassis. For layout locos, the loco bodies and, particularly, the tenders are excellent. All the bodies are packed with lead and their haulage capacities are the equal of metal, kit-built equivalents. 

 

In fairness, Bachmann's current B1 chassis is excellent.

 

 

The replacement Comet chassis fit perfectly (it's what they were designed for) and are easy to erect.

 

 

 

No modifications are needed to either the frames or the bodies (apart from packing the latter with lead).

 

 

Tony Geary did this one (I did the others), some time ago, and it's on the original Comet chassis; the one designed from the Roche drawing, with the eccentric rod too short and the die-block too far back. The current Comet chassis is dead right. 

 

 

I've also made a SE Finecast chassis to go under a Bachmann A4 body (after the original chassis collapsed). It's considerably modified, mind, tows a SE Finecast tender and Mr Rathbone painted it. 

 

Edited because the Tony Geary one has ended up at the end of this post.....................

Edited February 5, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Hi Stewart

 

I agree about the Hornby ringfield motor, I never have any major problems with them in my diesels. With good care oiled, but not too much, clean wheels, axles and where the axle comes in contact with the trailing bogie frame they will run very nicely and slowly. Lima ringfields again with a bit of care will never let anyone down and show me a Lima diesel that cannot haul a decent sized train. 

 

One of the slowest locos I have is a MTK class 22 with two Tri-ang Hymek bogies, I didn't build it but picked it up secondahand many moons ago. Another MTK loco that has always surprised me is (again secondhand) a class 47 with two MTK power bogies, it can out pull a Heljan 47. I haven't tried against my Heljan Class 128 Parcels unit as they seem to be one if not the most powerful RTR "loco" around at the moment.  

 

I am not too sure how these older powered models I have would run with DCC but thankfully that will never be a problem. Remember DC is only two wires one form each set of pick ups to the two brushes on the motor.

Thanks Clive,

 

I should have made my comments clearer.

 

My disliking of Hornby's tender drive is an aversion to seeing a loco being punted along by its tender, with its motion locked solid!