Izzy

Having built/modified the odd 08 in both 2mm & 4mm could the brass spacing washers behind the flycranks be there to prevent them from catching on the raised details such as the springs as they revolve yet allow a measure of axle sideplay? Just a thought as they are so obvious. Izzy

I've seen/read it using a Win 7 laptop/Firefox earlier today but now get the same message. Izzy

If you don't mind computor or phone app throttle control then a Sprog3 + JMRI/Decoder Pro (£75 with power supply from Coastal DCC) would possibly be the cheapest way into full DCC control - the Sprog IIv3 is cheaper but just 1amp against 3amp of the former. Not sure how easy it would be working the higher function numbers for sound - same for many handsets of course - but there's Decoder Pro whch is so much easier with which to program decoders than banging away at individual cv's in many cases. It's something you might like to consider anyway. I wouldn't like to be without mine even with another DCC system for main use. Izzy

As the OP is using decoders with the cobalts, maybe, just maybe, there is a conflict between the cobalts and the points as regards point/frog settings since the question seems to involve initial setting up rather than this happening in actual use, if I understand the original post correctly. Could it be that the point sits one way, but the cobalt/decoder is set the other. Does that make any sense? Could that be the issue? It's just a thought as I don't use DCC for point control myself but reading the post the frog feed seems to be connected to the decoder and not directly to the cobalt. cheers, Izzy

A bit off-topic I know but what decoder defintion did you use if I may ask? There isn't one for the Bachmann/Soundtraxx 21pin/4 function which I have down as a MC1H10421P so I used the nearest I could find, but having found issues with the lights don't know if a particular one in the Soundtraxx MC list is a better match than another. thanks, Izzy

Could I just note a little word of caution with regard to using the standard Bachmann 36-557 21 pin chip? Not sure about the current draw levels, and don't know if it is an issue at all, but with regard to the lighting. A while ago I fitted one into a 4mm Heljan W&M railbus and despite my best efforts using Decoder Pro via a sprog ( I found it needed much cv changes to get decent motor performance - well to what I was happy with regarding slow speeds - but that's another matter), I just could not get it to dim the lights as is apparently default with these Soundtrax decoders. Personally, if you can find/afford one, a better 21pin from the likes of Zimo might be more worthwhile in the long term, both from a lighting and motor control perspective. Izzy

Split gears are a fairly common but random ocurrance over the years and have afflicted various makers products at times, and I fear it is an issue that will continue to occur at times. I have read recently of Heljan Railbuses and 05's with the issue for example, but presume it to be just the odd loco. It's bound to happen now and then with moulded gears and especially when they are used as a force fit on a shaft/axle. It is most unfortunate when it occurs and isn't helped these days by the nature of current production where spare parts are difficult if not impossiblle to obtain. On the one hand it does seem annoying that it should appear to be such a well known and frequent problem with Bachmann Farish/Graham Farish locos more than some others (or maybe there is just more publicity about it), but this does seem to have led to plently of spare gears being quite easily available with which to replace them. The cost of doing so might be an issue for some owners unable to effect the replacement themselves, but at least the opportunity to do so exists in some form. I feel very sorry for those where it doesn't and proves impossible to rectify one way or another. Izzy

I often think that in Minories CJF designed a layout that is almost universal in application in respect of the basic concept even if it isn't followed in exact detail as far as the actual track plan goes, as it seems able to transend era and be buildable in most scales. Mansfield Market Place (I don't know if such a station existed so forgive) rather reminds me of a slightly simpler Sheffield Victoria, the track plan of which has been posted somewhere here on RMweb (but I can't find it at the mo), with separate arrival and departure platforms and central storage road. Izzy

Afraid I don't, but the Farish ones seem quite happy driving my 3FT and 4F at all speeds using the 40-1 ratio the locos have whether running light or under load. Not sure if the ones obtained via ebay have exactly the same specs, hard to tell just test runnng them out of a chassis but comments I have read suggest they perform just the same when used as replacements for failed Farish ones. Izzy

Ah sir, one of our other departments can help there, a new line in quite easy to make points to match the wheels.... The gauge is different? Oh that's easily solved! They have some rather nice matching plain track that goes quite well...... Izzy

I think it might be an advantage if you were to post this as a question in the DCC questions thread where I am sure you would get plenty of helpful advice. Izzy

Although I understand the call for better pointwork designs to go with the new bullhead track, given that it is a mainly British used design I would have thought that sticking/matching with the current code 75 angles was a primary need. While many British Railway OO modellers will probably look forward to having the opportunity to lay this type of track it doesn't follow that they will also have more space available with which to do so. Izzy

These motors would appear to be used in several Heljan locos, certainly in the W&M railbus I have as well as a Class 15, and I believe they also feature in the Class 16, other rail bus versions, the 05 and so forth. From what I have read, motor failure has afflicted all these models at times, and some modellers have tried other motors to solve the issues, especially when replacements from Howes have not been available, see here: http://www.emgauge70s.co.uk/ and look at the November and December 2015 pages This would seem to indicate that it is the motors that are the primary problem, and exacerbated by the locking valve gear.

I do think that like so much else 3D printing is just another tool in the toolbox to be used as and when needed where it is found suitable for the job in hand, and it's a technology that is still in the early stages and developing in response to the needs of those trying to use it. There seems to be this idea that when something new appears all that went before somehow suddenly becomes redundent rather than it compliments what already exists, and this attitude has gained ground in more recent times with the advent of computor technology, where indeed it is often the case that new generations of designs of hardware and software do actually replace and make redundent the previous ones. But this doesn't apply wholesale to all aspects of life. I am sure a mix of etched/cast/3D printed and yes, hand made parts made from card/plastic/metal, will remain in existance for as long as modelling itself exits. Izzy

Historically coreless motors have been seen to have the advantages of being more efficient (drawing less current) and quieter (due to a lack of 'cogging'), but size for size not as powerful as iron-rotor types (continuing development - more powerful magnets etc - mean this is changing). In modelling circles this led to the RG series having modeller friendly spur drive gearboxes because without them the motors could not produce the power levels to shift a loco through normal high ratio worm drives at low revs (which by comparison consume greater levels of produced motor power) without overheating. The RG gearboxes can tend to be noisy because straight cut spur gears are such when revolving at higher rpm's due to the on/off nature of the load transference between teeth. Helical cut spur gears are far less noisy because of an even load transfer and I would hazard a guess that it's the helical gearbox that is the main ingredient in the performance levels rather than the Maxon, and that while say a Mashima hung on it might possibly be a bit noiser, it might also be a just as powerful combination, perhaps more so. Of course if the Mashima range are now no longer available, then plently of modellers are going to be looking for usable alternatives so perhaps we will see more coreless and spur drive gearbox combinations arrive. Or maybe newer design/more powerful coreless motors with higher ratio double reduction worm/spur gearboxes will prove a suitable alternative. Izzy

The biggest problem I have found with foamboard is that there appears to be not only a wide range of thickness but different paper surface covering types/qualities/thickness. I used a small amount for backing a framed clock hanging on a wall for my son, thought, this is quite good stuff, and back home got some A1 sheets from both Hobbycraft and the Range only to find them totally different save the overall thickness of 5mm. The original could be coated in glue and stuck down no problem, while the newer sheets warp like the proverbial banana if glue is waved anywhere near them in more than small bead lines. Seems you have to be very careful what you buy/use. Izzy

If the last two new Farish diesels are anything to go by then the 40 will probably have correctly sized (1-148) wheels rather than standard sizes. I'm keen to see what the motor/drive arrangement is. Double-shafted coreless motors are quite rare, as are coreless designs fitted with flywheels. Izzy

Couldn't agree more. I have always thought that the motors and gearing used need considering as a whole package/unit, but having said that there is no doubt there is a lot of misunderstanding in my view with regard to gears and gearing ( 'efficiency' etc), and is as much the proverbial can of worms as other aspects, probably more. However, with the recent demise of Mashima I do wonder at present where it could all be heading, given that they have become almost the 'de-facto' motors used these days in kit/scratchbuilt locos thanks to the performance and wide range of motor sizes produced. No doubt time will tell. Izzy

Thanks P. So, they are the same size as used in the new Farish stuff. I'm stunned. They are powerful, but I would have never considerd them suitable for 4mm use. Were available on ebay from China/Hong Kong recently, might still be. About £2-3 for batches of 4 IIRC - I got a few, along with some of the Mitsumi ones. Search for micro-motors or 7x16 coreless. cheers, Izzy

I have always considered that motors need matching to the overall gear reduction, since in general torque is proportional to RPM and the smaller the motor the lower the torque and the faster the RPM (for the same rated voltage). It is only in more recent times that makers in general have started to employ multiple gear trains and larger total reductions thus reducing the need for large and powerful motors. it is noticeable that the tram seems to have two worm gear reduction stages, and it would be interesting to discover what the total reduction actually is, along with the size of the small coreless can motor, as it looks almost identical in size to that now used in the latest Farish N gauge steam locos, but can't be since they would far too small. Can anyone state the size and shaft dia? Izzy

If your concern is mainly with the use of the AAA batteries have you considered using re-chargeable ones? I now use Maplins Hybrid brand and they seem very good as regards power output and length of use/how long they hold a charge. And of course with a separate charger and a couple of sets you can use one set while the other charges. Whether the 4.8v output would be enough for the Dynamis against the 6v of non-rechargeables might be a factor, perhaps someone who knows could advise. Izzy

Although I have only ever used ply sleepers, not having been able to get along with plastic sleeper track in any form, I have never used anything other than poster paint to colour them and the finshed track. I tried stain but found that it tended to prevent the plastic chairs from grabbing quite as strongly to the ply grain as to bare sleepers if applied beforehand, and still affecting the joints if used after fitting the chairs. I now only paint the poster paint on the sleepers after building the trackwork, whether pointwork or plain track. Watered down black PP to give an initial faded creosote colour to the sleepers, which seeps well into the ply grain, followed by various combinations of Burnt Sienna, Burnt Umber, and more black, applied mostly via an airbrush after ballasting, to give a muted tone to the whole trackwork area. Somehow I find that ply sleepers seem to give a different 'look' to trackwork which I prefer. Izzy

You would have to take 0.42mm out of the roller gauge to get back to 9mm gauge as 2FS is 9.42mm. However, another issue would be that the current standard Farish/Dapol wheels have a nominal 0.5mm flange width and are thus really too tight a fit through the 2FS flangeways, quite apart from the differing b-t-b measurement that would be needed. Finetrax would be a good practice for building easitrac 2FS pointwork since with the new easitrac point kits construction is virtually identical but of course Finetrax takes N gauge RTR wheels. Izzy

Over the last year or two I have been making layouts in two different scale/gauge combinations, neither of which can really be considered 'mainstream', 4mm/P4 and 2mm/2FS, along with of course providing rolling stock either from converted RTR or kits. Getting them to run means providing wheelsets of the correct standards either by replacing those provided with ones to the standards or machining the originals to suit. An interesting aspect that arose has been the discovery with both that all-metal wheelsets in a lighter vehicle seem to produce a better running combination than a heavier vehicle with lighter wheelsets - i.e. metal rimmed/plastic centre types. I can only think that perhaps the fitting of heavier cast W/M bogies (with all-metal Romfords perhaps?), has had a similar effect with Tony's coach, the lower sited mass/weight giving a more surefooted ride on the rail. Izzy

As the 2FS wheel profile is in my experience less forgiving of rail joint differences on tighter curves than the normally used N gauge RP25 one - any slight error leading to derailment (flange riding up over the rail), the fitting of an inner checkrail across each joint seems an excellent idea as does the use of PCB sleepers at regular intervals. Whatever method/glue I have used I have found easitrac to keep lifting sleepers on track with anything other than gentle curves i.e. above 24", so make sure the track is well stuck down at 16". I have not found any real issues with hauledge capacity around curves above about 18" but below this as the radius reduces there is certainly increased drag which becomes very noticeable once 12" is reached. This is all on the flat, what effect the addition of an incline would have I'm afraid I have no idea. Izzy