Izzy

Hi Clive, Yes, I think that goes for quite a few kits of for all manner of things. My feelings are that in itself this can be a deterrent to making things when it is not realised that it is the kit that is poor rather than any lack skill on the part of the person trying to put it together. Izzy

Yes, I think that is the big drawback today for many. That what they might make will be judged against the current crop and found wanting. No such problem when I first started out, anything you made wouldn’t be worse, but could usually be better. As you so rightly say, it’s having the nerve/confidence/not botheredness to attempt making/wrecking something in the first place that is key. Izzy

I think quite a few people make their own, but perhaps mainly in scales other than 4mm where it is relatively easy to get RTR bodies to bash about. I found this site when trying to work out how to make my 2mm class 15 and looking for ideas. http://cyberskive.com Izzy

I don’t think the images do them any favours at all, especially with the poor bottom post joint/the paint lifting off. All you can hope is that they look better and not too overscale in the flesh. Do wonder if the rather large head is down to trying to squeeze both the LEDS and resistors into it to simplify the wiring. The Dapol N gauge semaphores are more suited to 3mm and perhaps these are another example. Would be a shame if they are, although there are decent alternatives still around, CR & Eckon/Berko - which Gaugemaster still have for sale on their website, if you don’t want to make your own, where N brass have decent kits if scratchbuilding isn’t your scene. Izzy

A few shots of Frinton prior to the upgrade. Might help with ideas even if you need a LNWR flavour. Izzy

Yes. It is on the line(s) that were the test bed for 25Kv, the Colchester to Clacton/Walton branches. I’ll sort out a few shots over the weekend that might prove most useful. Izzy

Sounds like Frinton-on-sea would fit the bill. On the Walton branch, until the recent upgrade when the crossing gates were replaced by barriers and cctv - a right furore over some years as many interested parties objected to them being done away with - they were still hand worked with a small crossing box, were at the end of the platform, and protected by home signals in both directions. In recent times the station had reverted back to single track, the loop being taken out of use, so the crossing was double track width with a single line. Now it’s LED colour lights along with the rest of the upgrade. All worked from who knows where, I suppose someone does, an area signalling centre, Colchester maybe, I haven’t a clue. I have plenty of photos I can post of the various aspects if it would be of any help in giving you ideas. Izzy

Yes, totally agree. You will find the profile at the top of the list. Have fun! Hope it works out. Izzy

As you might see from other threads on here, new TTS decoder definitions are being generated. Although I have the latest current version of JMRI installed I’m not sure the 60 is there. And as you so rightly say, if you use any definition it will only feature the cv’s that it has been written with. So, in order to find out exactly what cv’s might exist on a decoder, the way is to use the generic/standard NMRA profile, select the ‘read all cv’s’ tab, and then do that. This will then search for and read all/any cv’s that exist, in order from cv1 on. If there is no cv to read then it returns the ‘loco not detected’ response. * Note that Hornsby TTS decoders must be read in direct and not paged mode. Having done this the only cv’s returned are those Hornby detail in their instruction leaflet. CV3 & CV4 exist, but no others related to speed setting as per RAFHAAA96’s post above. As I say I don’t know if this is standard across the TTS range, or if what cv’s exist vary between decoders. It’s a shame, but I suppose considering the price something has to give. Izzy

I believe the large prairie is the tank version of the 43xx, is that correct? In the copious instructions for the loco chassis there are details on cutting off the bits needed for the 2-6-2t version, apparently at that time to suit the Airfix 61xx. I am not sure/can’t really remember if the Castle chassis was ever available. I just built several of the 43xx for people - mostly with RG4’s since they nearly all went overseas - but non of the others. When I replaced the central beam compensation this time I tapped the front two loco horn guides 14ba for screws to set the ride height and then used top tread wipers to provide some springing, so several conversion possibilities seem to exist. Just don’t try using the Gibson pickups. The chassis is made to take them, but using them removes any vestige of sideplay in the wheel sets. (I have a long term policy that any loco must be able to run perfectly through a A5 crossover - up to flat out - or it fails. This is to try and ensure that they won’t fail in use due to tight/ less than perfect track work). If there is any interest and it would help anyone I could do a few posts on its construction somewhere. Izzy

Yes, almost as long in the tooth as I am...... In truth they were really well designed and produced kits which if still around today may have been revised for hornblocks or CSB. I particularly like the pivoting brake gear rodding and other bits so the wheels/axles can be dropped out at any time. All well thought out. Must admit to being impressed with the HL gearbox. Were I ever to build another 4mm loco from the chassis up it would be my first choice. Izzy

I don't know whether the diesel stand alone TTS are different, but the class 31's I have don't have any speed adjustment at all past the motor control and acc/dec. The cv's just don't exist according to the interrogation of the decoders via JMRI/decoder pro. Izzy

A strange locomotive was spotted at All Saints East over the weekend. Apparently it was on running trials....... This loco is actually the reason I built ASE, or rather the start of things which led to it, the discovery while carrying out a (sometimes!) regular clear-up in the loft of not only a complete Mainline 43xx - in it's box - but some now very old etched loco/tender chassis to convert it to P4 with all/most of the other bits needed to complete it. Why I had them when I have never modelled or had interest in the GWR/BR Western region lies rooted in the distant past, in what is often referred to as 'another life'. Discoveries like this are often a slippery slope...in this case one I seem to have gone a fair way down now.... I suppose this RTR conversion could properly be described as 'extensive', using only the RTR loco & tender bodies, so I am not sure whether a description of the goings-on is proper to this forum section or thread. But the odd shot should be okay I think. The chassis are Whitbourne model ones, revised after construction/testing to replace the central beam 3-point compensation on both with a simple/crude sprung alternatives as well as providing current collection, and uses a Mitsumi motor with Highlevel 60-1 gearbox driving the rear axle. Although I have tried to make a few basic improvements to the body I am sure there are probably more that could be undertaken. As it stands however, being neither a loco I need or will use much, I think it's not too bad. Some weathering will hopefully help to improve the look - I hope. Izzy

It looks smashing, and the 3D columns just seem to be the icing on the cake. Wonderful work by all. What a lovely design it is too with the curvature and diamond lattice work. I am a bit bemused that for such a nice symmetrical design it was offset over the tracks, it’s noticeable that in it’s new location they have been able to sit it centrally. Izzy

Totally agree with the motor being probably the main issue. As I have remarked on another thread it would be interesting to try using another larger, more powerful one, to see what might result. Whether it would be able to ‘power through’ any off/on resistance caused by the slack gear train etc. Fitting another might be a challenge though given the solid nature of the chassis - getting a worm/the original worm to mate at a usable angle. Izzy

Glad to find your getting there. I remain puzzled as to why the TTS couldn’t be piggybacked, perhaps the answer will be found someday. It is awkward that there is no way of altering the basic TTS speed, leaving no alternative but that which you are trying. Izzy

Having 'piggybacked' a 31 TTS decoder like this with a Zimo MX600 which works well there are a couple of points that come to mind. The first is, are you using the same address for both decoders? This is pretty essential to get them working in unison. I am sure you have, but still worth asking. Next up is, I wonder if the same firmware issues exist with your particular decoder as affected the 31's, i.e. on certain DCC systems they will only respond when in one particular direction. If this is the case then you might just try turning the loco around, or if you want it running in a particular direction, reverse the black and red wires connections. These are all the connections you should need, no others are neccesary. Indeed you should be able to just hook these wires up directly to the rails - no loco needed ! - and get the TTS sound chip to work. This is how it is possible to use them as function only sound decoders. ( I assume the amplifier/speaker is the load). Perhaps you could try this first to determine whether the decoder works either way around on your ECoS system. If none of these work I can only think that somehow there is a compatibility issue with the ECoS. I have no experience of this system, using a Prodigy PA2, but perhaps it can't 'see' both decoders at the same time if they have the same address. It's all I can think. Izzy

Many thanks, I had a theory ....... which clearly doesn't have legs....... Totally agree that building a replacement chassis is the easier/more reliable outcome in the long term. Just seems a annoying waste of time and effort for a OO RTR that isn't being converted to a wider gauge that should run as it is. Such a shame. If you do just bin the original chassis and don't experiment with it, ( being an inveterate 'fiddler' I would be tempted to fit a bigger motor as well as driving off just one axle just to see the results), don't bin the little motor if it still works. If it is the same size - 7x16mm - as those used in the latest Farish steam locos then you may be able to re-coup some cost as currently replacements from Bachmann - quite a few seem to fail - are costing £20 a pop for those needing them......... regards, Izzy

Just to assist further with identification the original 36-557 soundtraxx version has the number and name printed on it thus :- Izzy

With the Zimo MX638D basic 21pin currently at £20 using these now seems hardly worth the bother, even if it is the newer version. And the older one certainly isn’t. Izzy

I wonder if I may, as someone who is extremely sceptical about the benefits of rolling roads, ask whether the running problems/issues/poor performance you have encountered was the same on a length of track as it was on the RR? Thanks, Izzy

When I returned to modelling in 2010 after a decade long break I thought I would use only acrylics and dump all my old enamel paints. After spending a considerable sum on trying them, Humbrol, Tamiya, Railmatch. They all seem thick and go on like tar, yet appeared opaque and wouldn’t cover in one coat. This was via brush painting. I didn’t bother trying to use them in any of my airbrushes. A friend going through the same process at around the same time had similar results and eventually discovered Vallejo which he found the only ones worth using. I gave up and went back to enamels. I then discovered that thanks to the latest paint formulation rules most enamels aren’t what they used to be. By a stroke of luck I had not dumped my decades old enamels, which still flow/thin/cover better than anything that I could get today. Precision seems to be the best of the bunch when I have to buy new today, while railmatch do seem to blend closely with much RTR but skin over/ dry out in the glass jars far too quickly, sometimes after just one use and with the jar still almost full. Realise this isn’t probably what you want to hear, and you’ll understand I am not at all impressed with present day paints while others seem to get along with them quite okay, so maybe it’s just down to my personal taste. Izzy

It could be almost anything really, but my thoughts are directed towards the chassis where the two halves might not always fit together in perfect alignment. Unlike the new Farish N gauge split-axle chassis design for their steam locos which have separate drop-in bearings, which it would seem thus make allowance for any slight mis-alignment, with the design used - which seems to mirror that used in the Dapol N gauge GWR pannier as well as other recent 4mm offerings - the bearings are pressed into the chassis halves and therefore it would appear the individual wheels have to be assembled into the chassis/onto the gear muffs rather than the wheelsets/bearings/muffs being built and then just dropped into place. With less than optimum alignment this could lead to excess friction in the wheel bearings area causing, when coupled with the backlash in the spur gear train, on/off loading on the little motor and the resultant, hesitant/jittery/less than smooth performance that some are experiencing. This is all speculation of course, but based on many decades of struggling with building locos in a variety of scales. Often something which works quite well in one scale or particulation situation doesn't always work in another, and I think that this design concept might just be one such. The thing is nothing is sure or certain until it is proved one way or another, and doubly difficult when it concerns items produced in quantity rather than just single builds. That many work quite okay only adds to the puzzlement........ Izzy

Yes, many thanks for the heads-up, and sorry for the error. I've now corrected it and added the Zimo specs on this so there is no confusion for anyone. regards, Izzy

The difference between DC feedback controllers and DCC decoders BEMF as I understand it is is that the former use quite low frequency, while the latter (although early ones didn’t), use higher frequency which doesn’t impact coreless/high efficiency motors in the way that low frequency does. Many decoders such as Zimo’s also have a choice of frequency levels/coreless settings - usually either 16khz or 32khz (Zimo is 20khz or 40khz ) - to assist with this aspect. Using DC feedback controllers with the better/more efficient motors, can or coreless, is still something to be avoided in general whenever possible in my experience. Izzy