RMweb Premium lash Posted January 5, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 5, 2014 On my Portsea Town layout I have been test running my 2bil after track laying I am having problems with the pick up shoes fouling the third rail on curved sections on or adjacent to points. The third rail should be a little lower than the recomended hight as I omitted the little washers that'll should be fitted to the Peco insulators when laying with code 100 streamline track Any similar experiences out there ? Suggestions gratefully received Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 The problem is that the 2BIL show beams are at the correct height which is lower than some other 3 rail models . The choices you have are to lower the 3rd rail further or maybe remove the shoes from the shoebeams. I have had similar problems in the past and have not yet run my 2BIL on my Croxley WRD layout , however I am sure that I will have similar problems and might opt fir lowering a lot of my 3rd rail. Nigel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium lash Posted January 5, 2014 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 5, 2014 Nigel Many thanks that is really useful . I suspect my solution will be to remove the shoes which to be honest are not really visible from a normal viewing distance The prospect of relaying the third rail has led to an hour or so of me hiding behind the sofa whimpering and asking if the man has gone away . I did try the link to your layout but got an error message ,be nice to pay it a visit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crompton 33 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 When i put my 3rd rail down on my code 100 layout i fitted the washers that peco tell you to use. fitted about 40FT of track only to find my class 73 got stuck on it . only choice was to lift it all and remove the washers. plus file the bottom of the shoe on the beam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRman Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 I chose to mount my third (and fourth) rails level with the running rails. Not only does this overcome any clearance problems, it also allows for easier and more effective track cleaning. Doing this involved actually countersinking the 'pots' into the sleepers. For the Lima/Hornby class 73s, it is essential to cut off those out of gauge and overscale sand pipes on the lower edges of the bogies. I have quite a few of these 73s on my layout! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium lash Posted January 5, 2014 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 5, 2014 Crompton that sounds appalling and would lead me to give up railway modelling and take up crotchet SR Man that sounds sensible what did you use as insulators/pots ? All in all its looking like a little bit of surgery on the collector shoes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Nigel I did try the link to your layout but got an error message ,be nice to pay it a visit Hi lash My apologies I stood the website down however here is the link to my Facebook site and there is a gallery on RMweb too, https://www.facebook.com/CroxleyWRD?ref=stream Regards, Nigel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRman Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Crompton that sounds appalling and would lead me to give up railway modelling and take up crotchet SR Man that sounds sensible what did you use as insulators/pots ? All in all its looking like a little bit of surgery on the collector shoes I used the Peco pots without washers. I just drilled all of the holes to the outer diameter of the base of each pot so the rail could find its own level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium lash Posted January 6, 2014 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 6, 2014 I used the Peco pots without washers. I just drilled all of the holes to the outer diameter of the base of each pot so the rail could find its own level. Sounds a nice idea I may well try if and when I extend Portsea Town . Many thanks I am going to try some test running with my 2 epb later so lets see how that does Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
73c Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Hi all Can anyone tell me if it's possible to use code 75 track and have a third rail? I'm thinking of clearance's Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnb Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 It is possible to third rail Code 75 but as SRMan says set the 3rd rail level with the running rails. It doesn't really notice either I too find the Limby 73s need the sand pipes trimming quite a bit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 The sandpipes on Hornby Class 31 's are another area which causes problems and it best to remove them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
73c Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 That's great guy's, thanks for the info Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modern_min Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I had a similar problem with my 2-HAL, which has the same bogies. Here is Hornby's response: We have raised this with our Hornby Development team. They have assured us that the bogies, which are common to both the 2-Bil and the 2-Hal, were fully measured before the models were produced. This is one of the first models we have produced with the shoe gear for the third rail. We believe that the other manufacturers you mention* will probably have encountered this issue before, and adjusted their shoe height to allow for a third rail. Therefore, as the unit is as designed, and has been modelled to the correct prototypical dimensions, we regret that we cannot assist further on this occasion. *this means Bachmann So, they are deliberately selling these units, knowing that they cannot be run on a normal third rail layout. I believe they have an obligation to make clear that these models are for exhibition only unless the unit or the track is modified. Furthermore, I am not convinced that they are prototypically accurate. The real third rail is higher than the running rails - otherwise, the pickup shoes would keep coming into contact with the running rails. In my model, and in all the close up pictures I have seen, the Hornby pickup shoes appear to be at running rail level. There are several possible reasons (I am theorising here): An error in the design/production process The wheels are too small, causing the unit to sit lower The prototype shoes and/or beam are allowed to 'float' vertically, and the model was based on a prototype where the shoes/beam were unsupported, and therefore in an abnormally low position Anyway, whilst I agree that lowering the third rail would have other benefits (like easier track cleaning), I would have to join lash behind the sofa rather than do it. So I am afraid it is off with the shoes! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TravisM Posted January 23, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 23, 2015 As I have collected quite a few 2-BIL's and 2-HAL's, I was interested to read in what has been written, so I have decided to build a small test track with a crossover or two to check clearances. I will be using Peco Code 75 track and their 3rd rail insulating pots. Does the Bachmann 2-EPB and 4-CEP have the same problem? Julian Sprott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Does the Bachmann 2-EPB and 4-CEP have the same problem? Julian Sprott On my Croydon North Street layout, I've used Code 75 with Peco insulators and Code 60 bullhead. I obviously discarded the spacers meant for use with Code 100. Both my Bachmann 2EPBs are fine. The bottom of the shoe rides a fraction above the 3rd rail across the whole layout, points, curves etc. No problems at all. I don't have any Hornby EMUs, but if I did, I think shoe surgery would be preferable to relaying the 3rd rail, especially as has been pointed out, OO scale conductor shoes are not the most visible things on the planet! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnb Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I found the solution for me was to set the conductor rail top level with the running rails. The juice rail top surface is prototypically 3.5 ins above running rail top, just over 1mm in 4mm scale terms. Personally that 1mm difference is of no concern to me, it obviously is to others and I can appreciate their views, but it's not for me. My layout is set at a bit over one metre in height so viewing that from above (I am just on 6ft tall) I can't see the difference!!! However having said that, the shoe and rail are in real life supposed to be in contact!! So assuming that the Peco set up correctly in height for code 100 track then the correct shoe position will be in contact with that rail, as the shoe is fixed solid unlike the real thing, then problems will ensue with the slightest error of fractions of a millimetre in either. I run the rtr 2BILs, 2HALs, 2EPBs, 4CEP, 4VEP, Class 73s as well as some kit built 2BILs and took the decision early on with West London Parcels which was built in 2005, to have a running rail level 3rd rail for the cleaning aspects. I used Peco pots on West London, but on my new Whitecross Street have soldered the 3rd rail to short brass panel pins. A bit easier than threading about 350 or so pots onto the rail and also much more robust for an exhibition layout. I did have a derailment or two with a heavy loco which pulled the rail off the Peco pots, if it just caught it wrong. Just my views for what they are worth. I don't mean to upset anyone with my remarks, but to me there are two options, either lower the 3rd rail or trim the shoes off !! John edited to correct 2HAP to 2HAL wishful thinking there !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modern_min Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 As I have collected quite a few 2-BIL's and 2-HAL's, I was interested to read in what has been written, so I have decided to build a small test track with a crossover or two to check clearances. I will be using Peco Code 75 track and their 3rd rail insulating pots. Does the Bachmann 2-EPB and 4-CEP have the same problem? Julian Sprott No, I run both of these on the same layout without difficulty. In a subsequent email, Hornby said they were 'damned if they did, damned if they didn't'. They claim that the models are accurate to prototype, which is what the majority of their customers want. Those of us who actually want to RUN the models on a layout with third rail are, apparently, a small minority. Sad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RFS Posted January 29, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 29, 2015 I think we have a catch-22 situation here. The shoes on our models are non-working so mustn't come into contact with the rail at any time. Furthermore, shoes on the real thing are higher when in contact with the 3rd rail and are sprung to provide downward pressure to keep good contact. Regardless of whether Hornby or Bachmann have modelled the shoes at the contact or non-contact height, it's not possible for us to model both shoes and 3rd rail at their correct height. So something has to give. Whether you choose to lower the 3rd rail, or raise/remove the shoes is one for each modeller to decide. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modern_min Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I think we have a catch-22 situation here. The shoes on our models are non-working so mustn't come into contact with the rail at any time. Furthermore, shoes on the real thing are higher when in contact with the 3rd rail and are sprung to provide downward pressure to keep good contact. Regardless of whether Hornby or Bachmann have modelled the shoes at the contact or non-contact height, it's not possible for us to model both shoes and 3rd rail at their correct height. So something has to give. Whether you choose to lower the 3rd rail, or raise/remove the shoes is one for each modeller to decide. I absolutely agree (and sympathise). Can you advise us modellers how to raise the height of the shoes? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Dread Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 The third rail can indeed be a curse. I have found that there certainly can be problems with clearances with non electrified stock. Usually it has been the units themselves which are the bigger problem. I started with a mixture of DC Kits and Southern Pride units and the white metal collector shoes had to go. The only comment I ever got on this omission, in some twenty years of exhibiting, was actually directed at a Lima class 73 when this person noted the collector shoes on it were retracted. I have used cast white metal insulators made by the Southern Railway group which I purchased many years ago long before the third rail became popular in modelling circles and the photo shows all I have left from the 500 purchased. I have also used Pecos products and apart from toning down the white colouring, I have had no problems. My conductor rail is 60lbs flat bottom, super glued into place and painted multi-core solder for connections. When Bachman introduced their 4-CEPs and 2-EPBs they sat on the track with only the minimum of contact with my third rail. So much so that a light dressing with a file on the shoes was all they needed. I am hopefully down loading a video which shows a pair of 4-CEPs with an un-powered Southern Pride MLV, and a pair of 2-EPBs running at speed on my Meopham East junction layout. Watch out for the flashes, now that’s another story in its self. http://vid1322.photobucket.com/albums/u580/MeophamEast/Videos/GreenEPBsandCEPs_zps8407d6eb.mp4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bigbee Line Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 As another owner of several EMUs in boxes, the question of third rail must be answered. I was flippantly going to suggest using sprung buffers as insulating pots. The third rail dipping under the shoe. Not a practical idea. The other idea in the 'many a true word said in jest' category is using larger wheels. I need to measure the wheels, then check what sizes they should be. I know that the wheels on the GLVs running with Network Rail are different sizes between the two bogies. I'll go and stand back in the corner........... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Dread Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 As another owner of several EMUs in boxes, the question of third rail must be answered. I was flippantly going to suggest using sprung buffers as insulating pots. The third rail dipping under the shoe. Not a practical idea. The other idea in the 'many a true word said in jest' category is using larger wheels. I need to measure the wheels, then check what sizes they should be. I know that the wheels on the GLVs running with Network Rail are different sizes between the two bogies. I'll go and stand back in the corner........... I don't think I made myself clear on my posting above. You don't need to do anything drastic to your stock, only perhaps file the underneath of the collector shoes so that they clear the third rail. If all else fails you may have to cut the shoes off all together. This will not be seen by the viewer at a reasonable distance. The video I am posting here was taken from the opposite end of my layout to the one above. It is from the rear of the scenic break. I realised that the public was taking photos underneath the scenic break where the track was not scenified or indeed it did not have the third rail. I used Peco products here but still with the 60lb flat bottomed rail. Looking from the left, the third rail has a gap in it, this is the start of the main scenery boards and the end of the Peco products. http://vid1322.photobucket.com/albums/u580/MeophamEast/Videos/Under%20the%20scenic%20break_zpsconeutkh.mp4 Incidently the 4-CEPs have their power cars in the centre of the formation and both run on the same decoder address, yes it is a DCC layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.