Sandy Harper Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 - I have two six-coupled tanks locos which are sprung but, having seen the light, my next loco (a J6) will have beam compensation and no springs - easier and cheaper. Chaz Chaz Not sure if I can agree with you on this one! Beams need a degree of measuring skill to construct, and to get the ride height correct, where as a simple spring wire attached to the side frame and bearing down on to the wheel bearing is a simple operation needing no measuring skills to speak of. 'Jazz', of this parish, only ever uses this method in his models and they are built to a professional standard, expected to work 'straight out of the box'. If they didn't he wouldn't be in business! An 0-6-0 only needs the centre wheels sprung as you can live with only three of the fixed wheels touching the rails if the other two are always in contact via the downward force of the spring. The other advantage is that you only need to allow clearance for one set of brakes instead of two. Regards Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Michael Edge Posted December 1, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 1, 2012 OK Kenton, I will try to answer your points. Firstly let's get springing out of the way - with beam compensation, as propounded by Sharman (amongst others) there are no springs. The beams allow each wheel to rise and fall a little - half a mill' in each direction is considered ample - if it isn't you really do need to fix your track! The best way I can answer your other points is with a couple of photos of the underside of one of my locos - an 0-6-0ST. The first picture shows the front two axles. You can see one of the beams with the wheel bearings soldered into it. The rod you can see passing over the speaker is the pivot pin for the beams. There is a shortened Slater's crank pin bush on each end of the rod to beef things up a bit. The holes in the frames (which you can't see) have been enlarged to allow the wheel bearings to move up and down. So, the first two legs of our three legged stool are the two pivots in the middle of the beams. Now for the back axle... This engine has a rigid back axle - which is a bit of a compromise - which I will deal with in a moment..... That's an ABC gearbox - which fits nicely between the axle bearings with a bit to spare - you can glimpse a bit of axle between the gearbox axle bearing and the one in the frames. Now were the bearings in the frames to be reversed and put in a beam the gearbox would still fit - I know because I've done it. I said that the rigid axle is a bit of a compromise - it means that the third "leg" is the whole axle - the weakness of this arrangement is that if one of these wheels wants to move up or down the whole loco has to move. This is OK but it is theoretically not the best solution. A refinement (the Rolls Royce version) would be to put the axle bearings into two short beams pivotted somewhere close to the middle axle. These would move through a small arc to give each wheel a small amount of movement up and down. The level would be maintained by fixing a rod in the chassis at right angles to the axle against which it would rub. The net effect is to allow the axle to rock - which gives excellent 3 point suspension - the third point being the contact between the rod and the axle. BUT to do this you would have to turn the gearbox round and drive the centre axle. No problem - the gearbox is axle hung anyway. In the photo you can see a torque arm - a strip of brass soldered into the frame spacer. it has a D shaped slot filed in its end which fits around the steel pin in the gearbox. Using that, repositioned, would allow the axle to move and the motor to go with it. Remember, we are only expecting very small movements. Having said that this loco, with its rigid driven axle, is an excellent runner and the compromise appears to have very little effect. Sorry to go on a bit, but you did ask. I know it's tricky getting your head round this stuff - it took me a while to get it - but it is not a difficult as it looks and the result is a very reliable model that rarely stalls and has good adhesion. Feel free to post any other questions you might have - I'll do my best to answer them.... Chaz This is the same system used in most of our recent kit production. Michael Edge Judith Edge kits Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Chaz, thanks for the additional info and photos - to me that method remains as compensation rather than springing. Or to put it another way where the wheels are independent of each other is springing. I guess again for me it comes down to the amount of extra work and how much is not "in the kit" vs how much is what I see as really necessary. This is also influenced by the track quality and standards. Don thanks for the shot at explaining why only 3 wheels of an 0-6-0 can be in contact withe rail, dirt is NOT an issue that I see or shorting. The rollercoaster that you describe is somewhat of an exaggeration as I think in both cases the "lost" third wheel will effectively bring back one of the wheels on the other axle, beside although I would wish for all six wheels in contact with the rail all I really require is one on each rail. I suppose my preference would still be sprung on all axles other than driven but who is going to pay for all the extra work if it is not really required? As many things it comes down to personal preference and a belief in the idea that it will make things better for the effort put in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Chaz Not sure if I can agree with you on this one! Beams need a degree of measuring skill to construct, and to get the ride height correct, where as a simple spring wire attached to the side frame and bearing down on to the wheel bearing is a simple operation needing no measuring skills to speak of. 'Jazz', of this parish, only ever uses this method in his models and they are built to a professional standard, expected to work 'straight out of the box'. If they didn't he wouldn't be in business! An 0-6-0 only needs the centre wheels sprung as you can live with only three of the fixed wheels touching the rails if the other two are always in contact via the downward force of the spring. The other advantage is that you only need to allow clearance for one set of brakes instead of two. Regards Sandy So Sandy, we agree to differ. We could argue long and hard about the best way to skin this particular cat, and will have our own preference based on our own experiences of building and operating model locos BUT in the end Rule One applies. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Chaz, thanks for the additional info and photos - to me that method remains as compensation rather than springing. Or to put it another way where the wheels are independent of each other is springing. I guess again for me it comes down to the amount of extra work and how much is not "in the kit" vs how much is what I see as really necessary. This is also influenced by the track quality and standards. Don thanks for the shot at explaining why only 3 wheels of an 0-6-0 can be in contact withe rail, dirt is NOT an issue that I see or shorting. The rollercoaster that you describe is somewhat of an exaggeration as I think in both cases the "lost" third wheel will effectively bring back one of the wheels on the other axle, beside although I would wish for all six wheels in contact with the rail all I really require is one on each rail. I suppose my preference would still be sprung on all axles other than driven but who is going to pay for all the extra work if it is not really required? As many things it comes down to personal preference and a belief in the idea that it will make things better for the effort put in. I can summarise my experiences thus.... a sprung or a compensated loco (not the same thing) will usually perform significantly better than one with a rigid chassis a compensated loco is cheaper to build (unless hornblocks are included in the kit) compensation is usually more work than springing beam compensation is unlikely to go out of adjustment - springs might well become tired But as you say it "comes down to personal preference and a belief in the idea that it will make things better for the effort put in". I have built three 0-6-0s with springs, and three with compensation. My next loco (an LNER J6 0-6-0) will have beam compensation, as will its tender. Can I finish by saying - there is no right way to build a model loco. If your methods work then they are right. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I can summarise my experiences thus.... a sprung or a compensated loco (not the same thing) will usually perform significantly better than one with a rigid chassis a compensated loco is cheaper to build (unless hornblocks are included in the kit) compensation is usually more work than springing beam compensation is unlikely to go out of adjustment - springs might well become tired But as you say it "comes down to personal preference and a belief in the idea that it will make things better for the effort put in". and I'll agree with your summary with one caveat - that is they must be done properly or what you'll get is far far worse than leaving them fixed. If you do get it wrong there is almost no way back, which is just another reason (or if you prefer excuse) for not doing it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will L Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I can summarise my experiences thus.... a sprung or a compensated loco (not the same thing) will usually perform significantly better than one with a rigid chassis a compensated loco is cheaper to build (unless hornblocks are included in the kit) compensation is usually more work than springing beam compensation is unlikely to go out of adjustment - springs might well become tired Agree the first three , but I've had a compensation beam bend on me (or on my loco), and even if a CSB spring should get tired (haven't ever seen such a thing but you never know) all you need to do is pop in a new one. They are made to be easy to change as it is the only form of adjustment required or available. .. I'll agree with your summary with one caveat - that is they must be done properly or what you'll get is far far worse than leaving them fixed. If you do get it wrong there is almost no way back... Don't see it, before I turned to compensation then CSB sprung chassis I seem to remember getting the rigid chassis square and the axles properly parallel wasn't without it own difficulties. The result still doesn't work nicely and is certainly no easier to fix than resetting an out of place horn block. Will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 ..... I've had a compensation beam bend on me (or on my loco)........ Roll back up the topic Will, to the pictures of my saddle tank's frames. I don't see these beams ever bending. I have seen locos with beams made of wire and these might well bend. Wrong choice of material, IMHO. I am just about to start building the J6 kit I bought yesterday. I can't start the loco (I always start with the frames) until I have the milled coupling rods so I will do the tender first. I will be scratchbuilding a sub-frame for it, which will incorporate beam suspension. You can follow the story here... http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64929-7mm-j6-build/ Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I seem to remember getting the rigid chassis square and the axles properly parallel wasn't without it own difficulties. The result still doesn't work nicely and is certainly no easier to fix than resetting an out of place horn block. I disagree. Getting a fixed frame square and the axles parallel is simplicity itself. It requires little more than a sheet of glass (or a mirror) and some care and improves with experience. The bigger issue is getting the coupling rods in alignment with the axles which is far more easier when the axles are rigid than when you introduce movement in other planes. No really fancy and expensive jig required - can be done by even the novice kit builder without mind bending concepts. ...and I will hold by that if you can't get a chassis square with fixed axles you will never fix an out of kilter chassis by applying any form of compensation or springing - or should you attempt to. I can't start the loco (I always start with the frames) until I have the milled coupling rods so I will do the tender first. I will be scratchbuilding a sub-frame for it, which will incorporate beam suspension. You can follow the story here... Nice to have that option. But remember that the the vast majority of kit builders even those with considerable experience, they do not have such facilities for scratch building - and neither should they require them to build a kit. A kit should come with the parts included and any kit worthy of the name supplied without one of the most important parts (coupling rods) might as well be as much scrap metal. This is especially true of an etched kit where possibly the most important parts are coupling rods that match the holes in the frames. It is no wonder you have trouble with fixed chassis and end up avoiding or cutting out these holes when everything is based around the coupling rods born outside the kit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davelester Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Nice to have that option. But remember that the the vast majority of kit builders even those with considerable experience, they do not have such facilities for scratch building - and neither should they require them to build a kit. A kit should come with the parts included and any kit worthy of the name supplied without one of the most important parts (coupling rods) might as well be as much scrap metal. This is especially true of an etched kit where possibly the most important parts are coupling rods that match the holes in the frames. It is no wonder you have trouble with fixed chassis and end up avoiding or cutting out these holes when everything is based around the coupling rods born outside the kit. You have clocked that Chaz is working in 7mm, haven't you? It is not possible to get the look of the ends of the milled section with either etching or "built-up" scratch-building. The only way is milling. The problem is that as the cut depth reduces towards the crank-pin bosses, the cut gets narrower. In 4mm this is less of a problem, but in 7mm everything is a bit larger and therefore more noticeable. Personally, I find it is a rare kit where some part of the valve gear doesn't end up in the junk pile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 You have clocked that Chaz is working in 7mm, haven't you? It is not possible to get the look of the ends of the milled section with either etching or "built-up" scratch-building. The only way is milling. The problem is that as the cut depth reduces towards the crank-pin bosses, the cut gets narrower. In 4mm this is less of a problem, but in 7mm everything is a bit larger and therefore more noticeable. Personally, I find it is a rare kit where some part of the valve gear doesn't end up in the junk pile. Yes clocked and so do I (as well as 4mm). What you are saying with that last statement is that there will never be a kit that can be produced to go together without the builder having access to (or purchasing separately) some milling/lathe machinery and of course the skill to use one. AFAIC any kit that doesn't come with all such parts included and fit for purpose has no right to call itself a kit and deserves a wide berth and the label "scrap parts that might aid a scratch builder" - there are indeed some of those around but not the picture you paint - thankfully. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davelester Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Yes clocked and so do I (as well as 4mm). What you are saying with that last statement is that there will never be a kit that can be produced to go together without the builder having access to (or purchasing separately) some milling/lathe machinery and of course the skill to use one. AFAIC any kit that doesn't come with all such parts included and fit for purpose has no right to call itself a kit and deserves a wide berth and the label "scrap parts that might aid a scratch builder" - there are indeed some of those around but not the picture you paint - thankfully. Sigh. Let's try again. What I am saying is that no kit yet devised nor any that could conceivably be yet to come will be so exact that there is no possibility of the individual builder improving it in some way. This does not mean that an un-improved kit is "scrap parts that might aid a scratch builder", nor does it mean that all builders have to improve things if they do not wish to. Nor do I think that everyone should acquire machine tools to make locomotives. But, if there are things that you'd like to do, and you have access to the right equipment, then making improvements is that much easier. If you so choose, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 But, if there are things that you'd like to do, and you have access to the right equipment, then making improvements is that much easier. If you so choose, of course. Yes and I have no issue with anyone wishing to add to or alter a kit because they feel that way inclined and have a tool to use to do all well and good for them. But this debate is about the "need" to spring (or compensate) an 0-6-0 and if we are to conclude that there is really a need - which I am still not convinced about, then that requirement should be part of the kit design and not require Mr Average kit builder (which I'm happy to be one) to purchase additional expensive tools or obtain high engineering skills to complete. Also if it is deemed required then the method should be simple and a part of the kit. Note Mikes comments about compensation (I almost used the word simple) in the recent JE kits, there are plenty of kits that provide pre etched frames ready for hornblock springing - even if they don't include the cast hornblocks. For anyone starting out in building kits all this does is to confuse and place the first loco build even further away. Even for those old hands at the game some it seems rather pointless and an overcomplexity that CAN be avoided. Just like working inside motion it comes down to a pretty addition and an engineering show off (I approve) but the practical necessity is'nt there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 This topic might be on the verge of becoimng tedious, but I think maybe the issue of compensation v rigid and the problems associated with it are worth airing at length so here goes.... Getting a fixed frame square and the axles parallel is simplicity itself. If that's the case then adding compensating beams isn't that much more tricky - although I will concede the need for more work in making and fitting them. What you do is to start by making fixed frames using your "simplicity itself" method. But you pay regard to where the beams will be, no frame spacers etc in the way. Proceed as you would for a rigid chassis until it runs nicely on its wheels with the coupling rods on - BUT you only tack solder the axle bearings in place in the frames (you probably do that anyway until it works well?) .Now to add the compensating beams..... You cut the beams out and drill them so that they will just fit onto the projecting wheel bearings on the inside of the frames. Sounds more difficult than it is. The outside shape is not that important (as long as they fit in) but the holes must be fairly accurately positioned. You could have as many goes as you need 'till you get it right. mark the LH beam with a nick in the top edge (triangular needle file) at the front and the RH one with two nicks - this makes it easy to put them back the same way round clamp a beam in position on the wheel bearings and drill a pivot hole halfway along a line joining the centres of the axles - extreme accuracy is not necessary - this pivot hole should be a snug fit on whatever you are going to be using as a pivot and should go through both the frame and the beam. It will prevent the frames bending when you drill if you put a packing piece (wood) between them. repeat for the other beam dismantle the beams and unsolder the wheel bearings from the frames tack solder the bearings into the beams - don't be tempted to do this with the beams in position on the frames - the risk is that you will lock everything up solid reassemble the beams so that the bearings pass through the holes in the frames from the inside put the beams, axles, wheels and coupling rods back onto the frames and check that you still have a sweet-running chassis dismantle again, complete soldering the wheel bearings into the beam - on the side which will be away from the frame side - make sure the bearings don't move reassemble the rolling chassis and temporarily fix the pivot rod - check that you still have a sweet-running chassis - at this stage if it's going badly you could say "to hell with compensation" and revert to a fixed chassis. dismantle yet again (last time, I promise!), and open out the axle holes in the frame so that the bearings can move up and down - you could file them into short slots but I just enlarge the hole - you won't be able to see this as the holes will be behind the wheel boss. reassemble the rolling chassis - the compensated the rolling chassis - and test it .....the vast majority of kit builders even those with considerable experience, they do not have such facilities for scratch building - and neither should they require them to build a kit. A kit should come with the parts included and any kit worthy of the name supplied without one of the most important parts (coupling rods) might as well be as much scrap metal. This is especially true of an etched kit where possibly the most important parts are coupling rods that match the holes in the frames. It is no wonder you have trouble with fixed chassis and end up avoiding or cutting out these holes when everything is based around the coupling rods born outside the kit. Just a few more points if I may.... A modeller who has the tools to build an etched brass kit probably has all the tools he will need to "do" compensation - if he hasn't he's not going to need to buy more than a piecing saw, a couple of drill bits and a tapered reamer (the sort that is used to enlarge the holes in metal switch panels. And when he's got 'em he will find 'em useful in building the kit - not just compensating it. I could, and have in the past, used the etched coupling rods that came with kits. I don't choose to now - for just over £20 I get a set of nicely milled rods which look excellent without the chore of laminating up etched layers and then filing the edges square and smooth. "coupling rods that match the holes in the frames" - you might be surprised at how often they don't! With a poor kit you may well need to drift the holes in the frames to match the rods (the holes are invariably undersized to allow this). I've never seen a brass kit that didn't have coupling rods, but I have seen a couple where I wouldn't use the ones supplied - they were just too awful. I'm sorry to go on so, but it really is worth doing. Think of the day or so that compensation will add to the build as an investment. However, as I keep saying, Rule One applies. PS - I don't have a milling machine or a lathe, would be nice, but I don't need them for what I do...also I'm not particularly skillful, although I am better now than I was when I started in 7mm. I just plod along trying to get better, the brass scrap bin is testament to my failures. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 In some of the comments above members are doubting the necessity of compensation, so here's a simple test which might just make the case. The next time you are operating your layout and a loco with a rigid chassis stalls place a finger gently on the top of the loco at one end. Press down gently - so that a different combination of wheels are now touching the rails - if the loco immediately moves off the odds are that if it had been compensated it would not have stalled. you can do the same test with a loco that refuses to start. Now I am not saying that compensated locos never stall - that would be a lie BUT in my experience they are much less prone to it. Nuff said? Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Chaz, I think you are missing my point in your post #39 above. I'm not saying compensation cannot be done or that if done correctly it will improve matters especially on "finer scale" track. What I am saying is that it is all extra work (more cost) that can be done without. There is both more to do and more complexity (things to go wrong) and when it does go wrong much more difficult to fix. The main reason for a loco to stall is dirty track, wheels and/or pickups (an area we haven't even touched on) The first remedy should be to keep the wheels and track clean and have positive bearing pickups - only then should the option of poor uneven track be explored and finally compensation/springing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Chaz, I think you are missing my point in your post #39 above. I'm not saying compensation cannot be done or that if done correctly it will improve matters especially on "finer scale" track. What I am saying is that it is all extra work (more cost) that can be done without. There is both more to do and more complexity (things to go wrong) and when it does go wrong much more difficult to fix. The main reason for a loco to stall is dirty track, wheels and/or pickups (an area we haven't even touched on) The first remedy should be to keep the wheels and track clean and have positive bearing pickups - only then should the option of poor uneven track be explored and finally compensation/springing. OK Kenton. Sorry about that. But to respond - complexity? - I would say that a rocking beam is a fairly simple device. "The first remedy should be to keep the wheels and track clean" Yes, absolutely, but it can be a council of perfection. Next time you go to an exhibition count the number of layouts where locos keep stalling. The operators are probably gritting their teeth and mumbling "It worked fine at home, yesterday". All those members of the public stirring up the dust are the problem. I do clean my track and the wheels on all the locos. When we have an operating session if a loco stalls (and they do) it is immediately taken off the track and its wheels and pickups are cleaned. I also clean at least the section of track where the stall ocurred. This usually means that it doesn't stall again during that session. If it isn't cured I take it off and replace it - It goes on the bench for investigation. I hate stalls, derailments and coupling problems and don't tolerate them. They totally destroy the illusion the model is there to create. I'm sure we can agree on that! Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffP Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Well, I have to say I'm with Kenton here. One of the reasons I've NOT buuilt any of my loco kits yet, (they range from 0-6-0 to 4-6-2), is that I cannot decide whether to go rigid, sprung, csb, or compensated. Now I'm NOT a beginner, and have built etched and whitemetal kits in 4mm plus a nice working J36 in P4, with scratch compensated chassis. But I CAN see how the idea of doing something other than the kit is designed ofr, and in that case, what to choose, would put off some kit builders. Chaz, I followed your bit about compensation above, and it was what I did with my J36. But what of locos other than the 0-6-0? Looking at the ABC site, I was mired down in triangles and movable pivots, and gave up in frustration. What do you, personally do with locos other than 0-6-0? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 What do you, personally do with locos other than 0-6-0? First I must apologise to David, who might be feeling that his topic has been highjacked, so I will keep it brief.... 0-4-0T one axle rigid (essential to stop the loco flopping sideways) the other set up to rock 2-6-0 as for an 0-6-0 but with a lightish spring putting some weight on the pony - spring must not be so stiff as to upset the compensation 4-4-0 rear driver fixed, leading driver axle can rock - is controlled by a central beam which rests on the top of it and has a forked end resting on the bogie, on both sides of the bogie pivot (a friend of mine had a LSWR T9 which we nicknamed "the pogo stick". It had its driving axles rigid and a spring on the bogie pivot. I rebuilt it for him to the scheme above - it was transformed - gliding serenely along the track). I haven't built an eight-coupled or a 9F (CRIPES! I wouldn't know where to start) so can't comment on these. If I was doing a Pacific I would do the drivers like the 0-6-0 scheme, use light springs to keep the bogie and pony on the track and make sure that most of the weight was over the drivers. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted December 2, 2012 Author Share Posted December 2, 2012 The main reason for a loco to stall is dirty track, wheels and/or pickups (an area we haven't even touched on) That's because I only asked about compensation, or springing, for an 0-6-0T; I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! Our chief weapon is springing, springing and compensating beams, compensation beams and springing... Our TWO weapons are springing, compensation beams and hornblocks. etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Oh, NO, NOT THE COMFY CHAIR!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I also clean at least the section of track where the stall ocurred. - don't tell me, with a Peco track destroyer? I hate stalls, derailments and coupling problems and don't tolerate them. They totally destroy the illusion the model is there to create. I'm sure we can agree on that! Yes we can, though even a stall comes second only to the hand of god craning the offending loco away to some alien spaceship. I guess we conclude that in an ideal world none of this would be needed, everything would have some form of perfectly engineered compensation or springing, all our stock would have an appropriate mass to be able to make use of it and we would all have the time and money to get it all perfect. Sadly most people want things built as fast as possible and without additional expense that takes a degree in engineering to explain and understand. ... and all the time I return to - if it ain't in the kit, it doesn't get done or is going to be extra, if it is extra it is going to cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Kenton, if you have found a way to clean the wheels of a loco while it's still on the track - please PLEASE PLEASE tell us how..... waiting here on the edge of my seat...... I understand the point you are making about kits. In an ideal world every kit would be totally accurate, and would offer the option of rigid, comp', springs etc AND all the variations the prototype went through. But this is a totally unrealistic expectation from what is a cottage industry. But I have a different viewpoint - there is nothing sacred about a kit - if I want to change it to suit myself I will - Rule One always applies If you want to build 'em all rigid - go ahead - Rule One always applies But that won't stop me suggesting that if you were to compensate them they would work better - regardless of how spotlessly clean your track is. Now, I must go, that alien ship is cruising over the fiddle yard and I'm worried that the downdraft from its engines will melt the solder in my locos..... . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffP Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 If not using DCC, does anyone still use those track cleaners made by Relco, etc? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted December 2, 2012 Author Share Posted December 2, 2012 I haven't cleaned my track for a while now and everything runs better than when I used to clean it before every running session. All I do now is rub a graphite stick over the rail tops now and again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.