dibber25 Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Peco Code 83 track is widely available in the UK. It is not sold specifically for North American use, so I can see no reason why it should not be used to test any 16.5mm gauge model - particularly as most UK-outline models claim to have RP25 wheel profile, which is the North American standard for which the track is designed. I stand by my comments - my tests were done more slowly than those demonstrated by Kernow and my tests were initially conducted light engine. What I perceived as binding shows as a distinct slowing and surging with each wheel revolution. This looks to be evident in Andy York's movie, too, but may just be an aberration of the camera. Later tests after much more running-in with a four-coach load on a wider radius curve were successful. However, the symptoms described by the poster in post 738 are similar to my experience and they remain unchanged when tested light engine on the original circuit with the tighter curves (600mmplus) and four turnouts, two facing, two trailing. CHRIS LEIGH 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 What I perceived as binding shows as a distinct slowing and surging with each wheel revolution. This looks to be evident in Andy York's movie, too, but may just be an aberration of the camera. Youtube helpfully suggested my footage was a bit shaky and I took the option for it to be stabilised but it made the video as a whole more jerky, but yes it was a little tight even on the straights at first but that settled after a couple of minutes running. The clip was done when it was first run rather than later to try and be as accurate as possible in seeing if we could see any issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 ... I retested the original sample today and after a deal more running-in it now operates smoothly... For me that is the single most significant sentence in the whole 'O2 not running reliably' saga. For my own purposes no loco is assessed prior to any modification or a decoder installation before it has had an hour or more of running on my test circuit and has settled down to stable performance*. While it is very good to buy a RTR loco that comes out of the box 'RTR'; most need at least an hour to reveal their full potential, and four hours is still not unusual despite clear improvements over the last half dozen years. (The first OO steam loco purchase that I made which I consider fully lived up to the 'RTR' label was Bach's 9F; closely followed by Hornby's Britannia, and this standard has largely been maintained since, though I still do not take it for granted.) *For assessment of 'stable performance' I suggest three characteristics. Traction as the expected proportion of the weight on the coupled wheels. Mechanism quiet in operation at all speeds and through all track formations in both directions. Visibly smooth 'gliding' action at dead slow through all track formations, in both directions ,.. have shoved Acros under my heart, and pushed it back up to where it should be. I know less about anatomy than model railway mechanisms, but enough to suggest you might see your GP at the earliest opportunity for a better solution. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrox Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 For me that is the single most significant sentence in the whole 'O2 not running reliably' saga. For my own purposes no loco is assessed prior to any modification or a decoder installation before it has had an hour or more of running on my test circuit and has settled down to stable performance*. While it is very good to buy a RTR loco that comes out of the box 'RTR'; most need at least an hour to reveal their full potential, and four hours is still not unusual despite clear improvements over the last half dozen years. (The first OO steam loco purchase that I made which I consider fully lived up to the 'RTR' label was Bach's 9F; closely followed by Hornby's Britannia, and this standard has largely been maintained since, though I still do not take it for granted.) *For assessment of 'stable performance' I suggest three characteristics. Traction as the expected proportion of the weight on the coupled wheels. Mechanism quiet in operation at all speeds and through all track formations in both directions. Visibly smooth 'gliding' action at dead slow through all track formations, in both directions I know less about anatomy than model railway mechanisms, but enough to suggest you might see your GP at the earliest opportunity for a better solution. I think I will persevere with more running-in - so far the loco has had about an hour but maybe it simply needs more time - I will report back when some more hours of running have been achieved. Finally let me say that my comments about the model are not intended as a complaint or gripe - I sincerely hope that the performance can be improved to match the visual aspects of the model, which I think is superb - however at the end of the day the loco has to perform reliably. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted October 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 21, 2015 I have a layout that is about 4/5ths Code 83 - the Colorado bit - and the rest - the Devon bit - Code 75. I certainly find models that prefer the latter Code points. Hornby Bulleids come to mind. I am hopeful of getting to Camborne within the next couple of weeks with intent to purchase an O2. Nothing I have read so far gives me cause for concern. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium it's-er Posted October 21, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 21, 2015 I'm going to do a very unusual thing on here, and say THANK YOU. The various comments on here, expecially from those involved, have shoved Acrows under my heart, and pushed it back up to where it should be. "Your heart is beating out of your chest" - as the meerkats advert I keep hearing on Classic FM tells us! John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 21, 2015 Anybody tried it on 00-SF? (hat, coat an' all that - BTW Berlin is now part of Southampton, er sort of ). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Tim Dubya Posted October 21, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Anybody tried it on 00-SF? (hat, coat an' all that - BTW Berlin is now part of Southampton, er sort of ). No, but on 4-SF no problems at all YAY! Edit: or "EM -2" if you must (and thrice YAY!) Edited October 21, 2015 by Tim Dubya 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_R Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 My O2 arrived lunchtime - what a little beauty, ran like a sewing machine straight from the box in both directions even through a suspect Peco code 100 double slip laid many, many years ago. I will run it in later tonight but based on 5 mins basic testing I'm well pleased. Well done to Kernow and Dave Jones - brilliant! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrox Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 I think I will persevere with more running-in - so far the loco has had about an hour but maybe it simply needs more time - I will report back when some more hours of running have been achieved. Finally let me say that my comments about the model are not intended as a complaint or gripe - I sincerely hope that the performance can be improved to match the visual aspects of the model, which I think is superb - however at the end of the day the loco has to perform reliably. Looks as though at least some of my problem may be down to the age-old issue of the back-to-back being incorrect - a rough measure indicates the leading driving wheels are at least 15mm - I've always understood that for standard OO gauge (not finescale) that 14.5mm was the norm. I will now obtain a back-to-back gauge. Has anyone come across the same problem yet on an O2, and if so how easy is it to adjust? Or should I return the loco to Kernow for treatment? Any advice appreciated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-BOAF Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Looking at the videos KMRC posted online a while ago of the factory, I am minded to ask how precise the wheel quartering is. During the chassis assembly, it looks like one side of wheels goes at the bottom of the assembly, then chassis block, gears and chassis block again goes in, being pushed into place. Finally the second set of wheels go on. It appears that the first set of wheels are aligned in the jig in a particular way, but there seems no alignment of the second set of wheels (that I can see, other than eyeballing). Unless the split axle spacers automatically quarter the wheels, or the press tool does it? Perhaps Dave can advise how this is done (allowing for any commercial sensitivity). In my experience, wheel quartering, and alignment of drive gears on different axles can cause tight spots. I requartered and aligned the gears of a Bachmann 9f which had a destinct lurch, and problem solved) Edited October 21, 2015 by G-BOAF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgeconna Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Just got a mail from Kernow and my one is on the way!! Cant wait.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Looking at the videos KMRC posted online a while ago of the factory, I am minded to ask how precise the wheel quartering is. During the chassis assembly, it looks like one side of wheels goes at the bottom of the assembly, then chassis block, gears and chassis block again goes in, being pushed into place. Finally the second set of wheels go on. It appears that the first set of wheels are aligned in the jig in a particular way, but there seems no alignment of the second set of wheels (that I can see, other than eyeballing). Unless the split axle spacers automatically quarter the wheels, or the press tool does it? Perhaps David can advise how this is done (allowing for any commercial sensitivity). In my experience, wheel quartering, and alignment of drive gears on different axles can cause tight spots. I requartered and aligned the gears of a Bachmann 9f which had a destinct lurch, and problem solved) I'll say one thing - watching a video like that it amazes me how much assembly work we get for the price we are paying with Chinese assembled models - just think of putting that lot together on the kitchen table with none of the jigs and presses available (unless you could buy them with the parts of course). Edited October 21, 2015 by The Stationmaster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) 0-4-4 locos present some challenges as far as scale models go. In a general set up, say like a 2-6-2, the bulk of the weight is over the driving wheels with the ponies using only a small part of overall model's weight, via springs to keep the ponies on the track and avoid them bouncing off. As far as models go, the objective is to have as much weight over the powered wheels as possible. This is in contrast to real machine which seeks to distribute as much weight as evenly as possible over each axle. The model has to be designed to cope with far more varied track conditions compared to the real thing facing tighter radiuses, steeper inclines and - more importantly - sharper changes in radias and inclines compared to the real thing. The ponies on a normal 2-6-2 (or any other model where the drivers are in the middle of the model) can therefore have considerable play to cope with these conditions. Now if we take an 0-4-4, the driving wheels are at the front of the model, some distance away from the centre. The centre of gravity of the model is no longer sitting above the drivers but some distance just behind them. Even if the drivers still carry a large proportion the weight, a fair proportion will still be carried by the trailing bogie. This means you can no longer give it generous vertical play which means the model has less flexibility to cope with varied track conditions. I do not have my O2 yet (snif), but Hornby's M7 has barely 1.5mm vertical play on the bogie. As a model accelerates, the centre of gravity shifts slightly rearwards, which increases the probability of the front drivers lifting slightly as weight is transferred from them to the rear bogie. In simple terms, the chances of the model riding over the rail and derailing have increased. Contrary to what some may believe, a model designed to cope with points all the way down to set track types, have a far greater probability derailing on very fine streamlined gentle points than they do on set track ones. At the speeds most people will run these models at, the G force is not enough to throw models off (an exception is smokey Joe!). So what counts more is actually the angle of attack when switching from one railway line to another. The more perpendicular attack used by set track points, is likely to ensure the loco goes decisively down the right line, than the more oblique or gentle attack of a streamlined set of points where the loco faces two very similar options and does not know which to choose. Check rails help a lot, but with a front pair of drivers just lifting slightly, that is enough to cause the model to derail. The problem is compounded on a new model with a minor tight spot. This will cause the centre of gravity to switch back and forth, if it switches back as it goes through a very smooth set of points then bingo, off she comes. Real 0-4-4s will not suffer from this as again the weight is distributed evenly, and all the wheel sets have suspension. Edited October 21, 2015 by JSpencer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrox Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Looks as though at least some of my problem may be down to the age-old issue of the back-to-back being incorrect - a rough measure indicates the leading driving wheels are at least 15mm - I've always understood that for standard OO gauge (not finescale) that 14.5mm was the norm. I will now obtain a back-to-back gauge. Has anyone come across the same problem yet on an O2, and if so how easy is it to adjust? Or should I return the loco to Kernow for treatment? Any advice appreciated. Further & final update - managed to get the leading driving wheels nearer to 14.5mm back-to-back - this has improved the running on curves significantly, although still some very slight hesitation in one or two spots - will get a gauge & check all wheels (& some other locos as well!). A pity that the QC procedures in China didn't spot the problem, but anyway the loco can now be weathered, crew & headcodes added, ready for service on the St. Petrox branch - just need the Gate Stock now! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozzer models Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Peco Code 83 track is widely available in the UK. It is not sold specifically for North American use, so I can see no reason why it should not be used to test any 16.5mm gauge model - particularly as most UK-outline models claim to have RP25 wheel profile, which is the North American standard for which the track is designed. I stand by my comments - my tests were done more slowly than those demonstrated by Kernow and my tests were initially conducted light engine. What I perceived as binding shows as a distinct slowing and surging with each wheel revolution. This looks to be evident in Andy York's movie, too, but may just be an aberration of the camera. Later tests after much more running-in with a four-coach load on a wider radius curve were successful. However, the symptoms described by the poster in post 738 are similar to my experience and they remain unchanged when tested light engine on the original circuit with the tighter curves (600mmplus) and four turnouts, two facing, two trailing. CHRIS LEIGH the test track is made with code 83 now as this is not set track has the gauge of the flex track become narrow as its been curved no longer the right gauge real railway need to wided the gauge on sharpe curves so can you check the gauge on code 100 2nd rad set track & compare it with code 83 curved to 2nd rad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
10800 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Strangely, after no communication about my 30182, I looked at my 'order history' on Kernow's website and it's no longer showing on my list! The cancelled 30225 is there, and I know replacement 30182 was there at one time so it's a mystery. I'll leave it for now though as my wallet is suffering at the moment after the Met Bo-Bo and S15 ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) the test track is made with code 83 now as this is not set track has the gauge of the flex track become narrow as its been curved no longer the right gauge real railway need to wided the gauge on sharpe curves so can you check the gauge on code 100 2nd rad set track & compare it with code 83 curved to 2nd rad The track is a layout not a test track. The gauge is perfectly correct and the curves are not second radius (438mm) they are over 600mm radius. Modern British-outline models usually have RP25 profile wheels which are specifically designed to run on North American code 83 and code 75 rail. It now appears that the wheel back to back on my samples was over 14.5mm and that this may have contributed to the problems I had. CHRIS LEIGH Edited October 22, 2015 by dibber25 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted October 22, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2015 Strangely, after no communication about my 30182, I looked at my 'order history' on Kernow's website and it's no longer showing on my list! The cancelled 30225 is there, and I know replacement 30182 was there at one time so it's a mystery. I'll leave it for now though as my wallet is suffering at the moment after the Met Bo-Bo and S15 ... KMRC have themselves stated that when they changed their web site some customer orders ceased to be visible to the customer in their order history. The order is still visible at the shop however so I'd not be unduly worried as I understand they still have more than a few to pack and send out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
autocoach Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) The track is a layout not a test track. The gauge is perfectly correct and the curves are not second radius (438mm) they are over 600mm radius. Modern British-outline models usually have RP25 profile wheels which are specifically designed to run on North American code 83 and code 75 rail. It now appears that the wheel back to back on my samples was over 14.5mm and that this may have contributed to the problems I had. CHRIS LEIGH Little code 75 in North America modelling. Only UK prototype modelers using it to my knowledge with Peco imports from UK retail suppliers. I think I saw a Peco ad in a US model mag recently touting their code 75 line. Peco does not make HO code 70 track so it would be logical for them to use it to compete in the North American HO market. Much more common is Code 70 from several manufacturers which has been widely used for branch line, sidings and narrow gauge for as long as I can remember (1960's?). Micro-Engineering also makes code 55 HO and HOn3. I notice some code 40 in HOn3 as well. Anyway the RP 25 profile wheels while used mostly on all North American models will work well on UK track as well. It is the engineering specification of slightly coned tread, the fillet transitioning from the tread to the flange and the rounded flange that make it a so successful specification. I notice a lot of otherwise excellent new UK locomotives (Hornby are you listening?) still use pizza cutter flanges and no fillet. The NMRA does not manufacture wheels or track. It is up to manufacturers to follow the specification or not and most of the North American HO modelers expect this specification whether the wheel tread width is .110 or more scale .088 inches. Edited October 22, 2015 by autocoach Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leavesontheline Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 For the record, my K2103 (30182) ran very smoothly straight from the box around Hornby second radius curves and through Hornby standard (short) 'points' laid back to back, which many loco's seem to struggle with due to the rapid resultant change in direction and uneven plastic frogs. No problems with derailing or hesitation due to lack of electrical pick-up. I haven't run it in properly yet either. Very please with mine. The detailing, particularly the pipe-work around the push-pull equipment, but also the cab interior, is just exquisite! Well done to DJM and KMRC! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted October 22, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2015 And I'll be able to let you know how my first one goes quite soon as I've had the email to confirm 30182 is on its way. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mevaman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 For the record, I have had some back to back problems with new locos and stock from all the main manufacturers. Most recent Hornby stock derails on my code 100 streamline curved points due to this. Most Bachmann stock doesn't derail. I have rakes of Hornby Pullmans and Mark 3 coaches which I cannot run until I fix the problem. This appears to be a problem for some 02s and will be exasperated on fine scale track. Andrew Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
70E Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Has anyone had any issues with haulage capacity on an incline. My O2 had two maunsells on a barely noticeable incline and stalls. Has anyone taken the body off to see where additional weight can be added ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Does it stall or does it slip to a stand? If it's stalled, then adding weight would only make the problem worse. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now