Izzy

Yes, I know this problem only because I hit it recently when making a single-slip in 2mm/2FS and had to change the template I had made to move the tie-bar/blades one sleeper further in to get the required clearence. Just like I presume Peco have had to do to for the OO standards. It's all nip & tuck with model pointwork when allowance has to be made for electrical isolation for the track/wheel standards which the real thing mostly doesn't have to consider! Izzy

What you need depends on whether you drive off just one axle, either the centre or rear, or both. The chassis has been cleverly arranged to give these options. Mine, which I am just completing, drives off just the rear axle, ( because of my keeper-plate arrangement so I can drop the wheels out). So 2 axle muffs plus 2 gear muffs. For the jackshaft I used a smaller 2.3mm muff which gives a bit more wiggle room. Izzy

If the motor is a Mitsumi could I suggest you try using the decoder set with the kind of Cv settings used with a coreless motor. I don’t know about the decoder type/make you have fitted ( I have never tried them), but I recently used a Mitsumi+60-1HL gearbox in a loco and found it much preferred these settings when used on DCC via a Zimo MX600. It was fine on DC, but very ‘stuttery’ on DCC on basic/default settings. Izzy

Yes, but the two blades need to/will be of opposing polarities. If they are positioned too near the crossing then the gap between them can be less than the clearance figure the particular gauge standard -in this case OO - uses. Okay for straight across passage, but could cause shorting issues re the wheel rears when through the curved route. Izzy

The nearest match I can find would appear to be the LMS heavyweight design. Thanks to Chris Higgs the 2mm association produce a wide range of etched bufferstops and this is one of them, although the Peco one does look a bit skinny. Perhaps there is another that is a closer match. Izzy

Could I firstly thank all those who have posted shots for those of us unable to get to exhibitions like this for many differing reasons. There seems to have been not only a wide selection of stands and layouts to suit all tastes, but to a good standard too. In respect to the frequency of running, and based on my past experiences of both exhibiting and viewing, I now have no expectation of what I will see if I am lucky enough to manage to get to a show. No two layouts can be run in the same way, and if you operate a layout scaled to the size of the prototype, then speeded up time isn’t really feasible simply because a stock movement of any kind should take as long to do as in ‘real life’. Yes, the gaps between trains can often be eliminated, which is where a sequence rather than a timetable can be an advantage, but as the model gets bigger and more complicated, so this becomes harder to achieve. I do sometimes get frustrated when layouts and their operators run a layout at a show as if it’s a club night, spending more time chatting with friends than operating, but generally I find most layout owners/operators try to show layouts off to their best advantage. While entrance costs might be high these days, linking these to what a layout is expected to do seems wrong to me, simply because while travelling costs etc may be covered it’s not paid employment, being done for free, the pleasure - and often the pain sometimes - of exhibiting being the reward. Izzy

As has been said this question has arisen before, and I think I posted the photos below, but it doesn't hurt to do so again, so here they are. This is the PCB from the Heljan W&M railbus but I believe they are the same for all the railbuses, can't see any reason for them to differ. The socket is CN6, and it's easy to just cut away the top of it with a scalpel and solder the speaker wires to the pins. Better/easier than trying to solder to the decoder pins I think. Hope it helps anyway. Izzy

With all the talk about comparison between the gauges perhaps it might be handy to mention for those that are unaware, and particularly if you are challenged on the space front, that as the gauge width increases so does the length of pointwork. Individually it isn't massive, but as with many things it all adds up when multiple items are involved. Just something to bear in mind when making judgement calls as to whether moving to a wider gauge is for you. Here is a comparison image generated in Templot. As far as Pendon goes I believe they use their own wheel standards - they are often referred to as such - which are a cross between the normal OO/EM profile and P4. I think some commercial wheelsets use similar/the same standards these days. Izzy

Trying to open pages/links things just hang and then seem to time out. Signing in seems to make it worse than signed out. Was okay for a while this morning but now back to what it has been for the past few days. Other website browsing is normal. Izzy

I can understand that premise... but, if the MX600 which has most of the features that would have to be removed can be sold at £20, then surely leaving them in place and adding the sound features doesn’t cost an extra £79, except it seems it does. Okay, I understand that the SD’s are generally higher spec, (although most don’t have the stay-alive circuitry which has to be added just like you do for TTS), and production economics must play a significant part... but still...does make you, well me anyway, just wonder a bit. As you say, it’s not going to happen. Nevertheless it would be nice to have a ‘middle ground’ sound decoder, better than the Lambretta TTS but not as expensive as the Mercedes Zimo. One can but live in hope. Cheers, Izzy

I don't know about other makes, but my Zimo & TTS don't need a motor in circuit to work. Obviously they work in response to the throttle along with the inertia settings, but not the actual motor control BEMF responses. Otherwise the sound would alter depending on the motor/gearing used and the current draw. As a consquence I have been able to 'piggyback' TTS decoders onto locos where they can't offer decent enough motor control and use another make (Zimo) for this, so in effect they are just function only decoders, which I believe were how early sound decoders were. Izzy

Thanks. Just noticed the MX638D 21-pin MTC is now also £20. Perhaps increased sales are driving more reductions. Welcome whatever. Just a pity the sound decoders don't come down a bit as well. TTS prices would be nice... I suppose they might well do so now I've obtained the last Zimo SD I need....... Izzy

Sorry you have difficulty with it Justin, perhaps it does just come naturally to me, I have never had training of any kind in the engineering or construction fields, or much else come to that. Mostly self-taught whatever has been involved, which usually shows quite easily! I wonder if a couple more shots of the latest install on Priory road might assist. I dug it out of it's storage cupboard to take a couple. Firstly I don't use omega loops or Z springs to take up excess travel. You can see the rod is bent a few times and then held loosly in place with Peco track pins bent into a U shape and driven into the baseboard ( handy when it's mount board, they go in nice and easy!). This shape adds a bit of 'give' in the rod but also prevents it twisting and the end falling out of the tie-bar. Had that happen...... Generally the rods/switches are placed in a fairly straight line from the tie-bar position as the layout is built/track designed and laid. The DPDT switches I use are from Expo tools, also available from local model shops which they supply, and where I normally get them. They are quite large, but have a softer, sprung type action. I drill a hole though the middle of the handle bit so whatever size rod I use ( either 1mm if short runs or 1.5mm if much longer than 12") is a nice easy sliding fit. I then add two short lengths of tube (round or square - whatever is to hand/available) over the rod each side of the handle. These are then used to 'set' the limit of rod travel. Set the switch one way, push the tube up to the handle just so it holds the blades under tension in that direction - you have to be pushing/pulling the rod through the handle at the same time, easier to do than explain ; and fix with a spot of solder. Reverse the switch and do the same the other way. By adjusting just where these tube limiters are fixed in conection with the spring nature of the switch it is possible to get them to set the blades firmly without them being under too much tension. Please ignore the brass bar. That is a simple locking idea to prevent both the switches to the single slip being set the wrong way causing a short. This is problem with a single-slip that doesn't occur with a double-slip. Hope this might help a bit, regards, Izzy

It is only the 6-pin version that’s now £20, all other MX622N variants are at the more normal (expensive) prices. The ‘ basic’ 8-pin MX600 - so mostly aimed at 4mm use - is the same price. I believe these prices, like the £99 across the board for all Zimo sound decoders, are a way of encouraging sales, (and very effective to my mind). The motor control aspects are the same throughout the Zimo range, whatever the decoder, and to me far superior to any other make save CT. Izzy

Similar units to the association one have been used in P4 for quite some years. I am not aware that anything other than attaching the droppers to the blades in the same way as mine is needed. However, I developed the simple sub-sleeper design initially back in the early 1980's in P4 because I did find the tendency for the long tubes to allow give/movement if they were very long, i.e. the baseboard through which they went was deep. If I recall correctly both the association and P4 has similar designs as well in the past for this reason. Mine is just a simple/cheap/easy to make version. I attach the droppers to the blades once the unit is in place on the point and fully bonded to it. This ensures the droppers and tubes all line up and there is no/minimal friction. It's all a bit nip & tuck with tie-bars with code 40 being 1mm high and flange depth of 0.5mm leaving just 0.5mm to make a good strong bond with the blades at their thinnest juncture. Izzy

Okay, here's a few shots of the build of my under-sleeper tie-bars. Self explanatory really. Some 4mm pcb sleepers drilled to take 1mm Albion alloy tube, a short central one for an operating wire, the others to connect droppers to the blades. The ID is 0.5mm. Two plain sleepers either side glued to the ply base to which the lower cover is glued. the droppers are long to allow small tube to go on the ends and be crimped to prevent the blades rising up. I make them up in batches for the layout concerned. Catch points just need one dropper of course. Sinking the design into the track base means it takes up little depth and it's easy to sit servos over if you want to use them to drive it.The sub-sleeper design also means it's helpful when adding cosmetic details, rodding, FPL's etc. as per that on Priory road. Currently I use 1mm brass rodding with DPDT's under the baseboards with short lengths 0.5mm to give a measure of spring take-up, ( this is soldered into the 1mm via drilled holes). this all varies according to needs/location. Can't get to Priory road at the moment. These are from the initial test one. Hope this might help give a few alternate ideas for tie-bars. I often think there are as many floating around as there are modellers as we all have our own preferences. cheers, Izzy

Generally I just solder a wire to the outside edge to connct up whatever I use to move them. Mostly it's manual operation via DPDT switches and rod/wire. Either sunk into slots in the cork base if on top, (which can then be covered over), or mainly underneath. Having gone through several different designs with the 2fs layouts I have bulit in the last few years trying to find a workable solution ( i.e. that can be driven by different means without issue), I would now strongly recommend a type that can be repaired or is so substantial it will not fail, or perhaps a mix of the two which is what I have tried to produce with my under-sleeper design. Some work involved when making and installing them, but hopefully then a case of fit and forget. I'll try and gather some photos of them along with what they look like installed on Priory Road and post them later to give you a few ideas. Izzy

Ah, here’s where differing construction methods come into play which often affect/dictate how things are done. Whatever method of track construction I have used I have never built track in-situ. It has always been produced on the bench, (complex formations as sections are easier this way I find), tie-bars added, (so the point is placed over the tie-bar with the pins in it on a flat surface and the blades soldered to the pins when this type is used), the track checked and proved okay, and only then laid. I never use the ‘pin’ type tie-bars with central holes for operating, I find it weakens them too much and they then tend to fracture. But In general I only use them for when quick/temporary tie-bars are needed anyway. If you are building straight onto the baseboard then my advice would be to use under-baseboard tie-bars such as the 3D printed ones the association sells. These allow re-jigging/re-attachment of the blades should joint breakages occur as do my under-sleeper ones. I don’t know how you would/could easily add the pin type tie-bar to a point already laid. It can be done with the sleeper-on-edge type. Izzy

I think that possibly tie-bars are one of those things where either you manage to get them to work easily without issue, or have endless problems until you find a design/solution that works for you. This accounts I believe for the wide number of differing ways of producing some that work reliably without frequently failing. My preference has always been for a type which allow the blades to pivot, even if it is just a little bit. One simple way is to turn the sleeper upside down, drill two small holes ( 0.5/0.6mm) about 7.5mm apart and insert Peco track pins as pivots to attach the blades. They don’t want to be more than 0.5mm above the sleeper to clear the wheel flange but can be filed down afterwards. Putting the non- copper surface on top stops solder creep. Either make sure the solder doesn’t run down the pin to the head and lock it all up, or remove some of the copper around the pin heads first. As an alternative drill the two holes 0.3/0.4mm, stand the sleeper on edge, and loop fine wire through the holes to which the blades are then soldered. Again I removed the copper surface near the loops to leave them flexible. I have used both designs with success but the latter needs clearance cutting into the track surface. Don’t forget to cut a middle isolation slot, it’s easy to forget if the sleeper is on it’s side or upside down........ I actually use an under-sleeper tie-bar system now, (different to the available under-baseboard ones but using similar principles), mainly because it looks better and can be hooked up to different ways of operating, manual, servo, etc. Do try and find something reliable first though, whatever it is, because having blades constantly break when trying to progress a layout or get stock running does get very annoying/frustrating over the long term. Izzy

Ah, that's the loco I had the issue with the roof. Perhaps it's just that particular one for some reason. Izzy

Perhaps he has as much work, or more, than he can reasonably cope with and thus doesn’t need any more. I have known of several small/virtually one man businesses in the same situation. That answering a continuous stream of enquiries of one kind or another stops them actually being able to produce their products. I appreciate it’s hard for others to understand the situation that can arise. I used to build locos to commission for a couple of decades and worked solely by word of mouth. When new customers ‘found’ me a common comment was I should advertise. I then had to explain that I already had as much work - more really - as I could deal with, (the waiting time once reached several years). I do know that one much regretted ever having a contactable phone number, this was in the 80/90’s pre online era, getting calls at all hours of the day, and night, 2/3am was not uncommon, ‘ just wondering about my order’ ....... It’s one thing when it’s retailing others products, quite another when you actually produce the goods yourself. Izzy

I have ‘pulled out’ quite a few RTR wheelsets when converting them to P4 - which also involves skimming them a bit in a lathe - so really they come right off the axles and then go back on again. Some need new axles, some don’t. I have just converted a new version Bachmann 03 and re-used the original shouldered axles. Yes, they now only sit on half the axle length they did before, but are still quite okay and concentric. Be aware that these shouldered axles are splined so the wheels stay put and don’t loose quartering, so don’t attempt twisting them on their axles. They have plastic centre bushes and the axles are an easy/gentle tap out of the wheels, so dropping the wheelsets out of the chassis and adjusting the btb this way using a vice will be easy. The thing to watch for is whether the coupling rods hit the rear of steps etc when pulled out to a wider gauge ( this applies to diesel shunters as well as steam locos), and of course clear valve gear when this is also involved. Izzy

I found this issue with the J15 I bought. I assumed it affected all models with the later raised roof since it appeared to be the way the roof moulding fitted. Some details here under J15 mods: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/124592-some-rtr-rolling-stock-for-all-saints-east/ Izzy

That seems a very good idea. I have not allowed mains power anywhere near my layouts built since the 1980’s. But the question that is raised in my mind is what the amperage draw might be, and especially if more than one device, phone or tablet, was being charged at the same time. Could the DCC system deliver enough to do this as well as run the layout? Most chargers seem to have a nominal 2amp rating, although I guess the actual draw might be less, depending of course on the size of the device. Large tablets will draw the most no doubt. Izzy