Izzy

I think the problem with an issue like this is that there are so many variables that it’s often difficult to pin down. My 04/08 for example have these Chinese 7mm motors, but whether they are the same production as David’s or just similar spec...... Mine are also fitted onto the chassis with a plasticard ‘box’ around them as well as axles moving in slots. All of this could affect how resonance vibrations are transmitted through the chassis/body. To restrict shaft movement I push the worm on as far as it will go. So when the end hits the motor body it acts like a limit stop. Very crude but it works okay. I still have stocks of the older, longer, black version worms with 1mm bores and I don’t know if this would work with the newer white type. Otherwise you could use the shouldered 1mm-1.5mm adapter sleeve but this isn’t a firm push fit on the shaft. Bob

Hi David, Is there much shaft end float? Just wondering if in the 'coffee grinder' direction it's the commutator bottoming on the back plate through force from the gears. With these motor types there is of course no end bearing so care needs to be taken to ensure they have little or no end float/pressure to stop them doing this or chewing up the brush 'fingers' by excess pressure. regards, Bob

Yes, many thanks Jim, you are of course spot on. What I failed to explain (the brain thought it but didn't act), was that I was specifically thinking about plain line Easitrac since that is the main type under consideration. Adding a check rail is of course quite easy with soldered stuff but I haven't worked out a way with BH Easitrac without making a total mess of it. How it could be done with FB Easitrac I wouldn't have a clue, never having used it. Perhaps I'm just not looking at it the right way and missing something really simple and obvious. It would not be unknown... cheers, Izzy

Don't know if it will be of interest but looking through Diesels in East Anglia (Dr Ian Allen) reveals captions stating the Norwich - Wells branch was the first in East Anglia to use DMU's, in 1955, while the Heacham line closed to passengers after the 1953 floods but freight lasted till 1964. There is a shot of a freight at Burnham Market and the way the caption is phrased suggests it may have come from the Wells direction. So perhaps either two separate freights from both branches visited Wells, Heacham-Wells/Dereham-Wells, or started at one (Dereham?) and finished at the other (Heacham?), reversing at Wells. Perhaps this is covered in the line histories mentioned, which I do not have, but I thought it worth mentioning. regards, Izzy

I have built a few small circular 2FS layouts in recent years that have used radius down to 12" as part of a parabolic curve ( the 12" portion being around 75 - 90 degrees). These curves have been laid using both Easitrac BH and soldered type (incorporating gauge widening). A simple test track I have uses just Easitrac glued down onto a sheet of 3'X2' hardboard and here the 180degree end curved inner radius is about 11" as you might expect to get within the 24". All of the stock I have, mostly diesel era up to 66's/156dmu's/freightliner flats apart from the 3F jinty/4F featured in a thread here, whether using 2mm 2FS or converted (re-machined) N wheels, has generally run around them without problem. This includes the odd few bits that still have standard N couplings I have not yet replaced - most use DG's. However... there are a few caveats to this. Rail joints through such a tight radius are not to be reccomended. Because of their tyre profile with small root radius 2FS wheels will 'find' the slightest kink/mis-aligned joint and de-rail as the flanges can ride right up against the inner rail face. With their much larger root radius (of the NMRA RP25 type now commonly used) N profile wheels cope better in this respect since the flanges generally run slightly away from the rail face. And I very much doubt whether most 2FS steam locos could cope with radius much below 18" as an absolute minimum. The 3F/4F were aquired/converted simply to see how small a radius a simple 6-coupled loco could manage compared to diesels. They can just make it with their N gauge chassis and plenty of sideplay. But lets be realistic, radii this small make stock running around them look, well, a bit silly. Okay for hidden curves where there is no other choice but otherwise........ So the general advice to keep the minimum radius around 600mm is based on the good practice of minimal grief with things not working out. That some of us choose to push the boundries to see what is possible is usually done based on past experience and the knowledge that it might not work out. I well remember reading an account of one of the late Andy Calvert's layouts - sorry can't remember which one now - where he much regretted using 15" radius curves at the ends, feeling them far too small and spoiling the whole 'look' of the layout, the illusion of the sweeping nature of the rest of it. In repect to the OP's very ambitious layout, and quite before there is any thought of the track construction and standards to use I have a more basic question. How is the layout to be operated? As I understand it the premise is to locate it up against a wall. Is this correct? (apologies if I have this wrong). If so how will the huge fiddle yard be used? Stock placed/removed from it? Simply by leaning over the rest of the layout? Not a very good idea to my mind. Usually the reason for gentle curves is to allow a central operating well, the room for a person to be between layout and fiddle yard and move around and I would think this is why Welton Down has them. It is really a basic part of circular layout design - whatever the scale used - as my experiments have shown to me......... My latest 2FS layout has reverted back to a 'straight' terminus/fiddle type! regards, Izzy

I have often used tbc with both fixed and downward floating outer axles. Either works well. Let’s face It, apart from probably P4/S7, or unless you have appallingly laid track, it’s as much about improving electrical pickup as it is road holding. If space for hornblocks, beams etc is at a premium then why not just slot the frames downwards for a bit of axle movement. A little is all you need. All too easy to get hung up over theory and lose sight of simple ways given the myriad options around. Izzy

You could always use some Neodymium magnets of a size that will fit between the sleepers and bury them at the required depth. They are available in a wide range of sizes/thickness quite cheaply. Not sure whether just two straddling one sleeper would stretch far enough or if three between two sleepers would be required. I presume it's for 4mm? Izzy

Unless the chassis etch has been re-done since I made a few of these the problem is that it's has cut-outs to take the 'standard fitment' X04 type motor common when the kit was first produced and this weakens it at it's narrowest point near the bogie. I would second the advice to replace it with another as I would to use all-insulated wheels. Saves all the hassle with insulating the chassis from the body since you are dealing with all-metal parts. I would also suggest you consider fixing the bogie pivot point/ride height to prevent the chassis being 'rear-end heavy' as is common with some 0-4-2/0-4-4 models. It might be the replacement chassis suggested does this. I also fitted split-axle current collection to the bogies on my ones, but as you are going to use DCC I would say fitting a stay-alive unit should be considered as part of the basic package to aid reliable running. Izzy

"Those Stay Alive installations both look really neat jobs, Izzy. I'm relieved my "encouragement" hasn't cost you a blown up loco, and pleased you're getting such good results." Thanks Nick. I do think it's soldering the wires onto the decoder where the nerves really jangle. Probably I'm quite lucky here as my normal/standard iron these days is a 15watt antex with a 1mm tip - I often file an oblique flat on the very end of them - and the pads on the DCX76 are huge....in comparison with those on the DCX75, as you can see here. I believe those on the latter are about the size of the four small ones between the wires.......... I do like Nigel's assessment - use another decoder. Cor, your class 11 install really is what could be called 'nip & tuck' isn't it ? Good job it's the association job with the resin body. As mine is the Farish body on the etched chassis conversion I did rather go to town with the masking tape to make sure there were no shorts. A smaller motor was also a big help here. cheers, Izzy

I have just installed my second tantalum stay-alive unit and would like to thank Nigel Cliffe for the all pioneering hard work he did on them along with Nick Mitchell for his recent posts giving the e-bay links to the parts needed. Having had the privilege of seeing Nigel's 02 diesel shunter glide around a layout of mine some time back I knew the advantage they gave, but just didn't have the courage to attempt making one for myself until I read Nick's account of his coal tank adventures and the bits he used. It was the shove I needed to give it a go. My first pack went into the Farish Jinty that is the subject of another thread here, and uses 3x220uf tantalums in a flat formation above the CT DCX76 so the cab is clear, while the second pack of 4x220uf's as a squarish block are fitted into the nose of my BR blue 08 with 2mmSA chassis & e-bay coreless motor. The Jinty has a 1st version (red) DCX76 while the 08 has a (green) version 2. The solder pads for connection are however in exactly the same places. The improvement gained is immense, and would seem to be related to loco speed from what I can see. I had worried that just (!) three 220uf's wouldn't make much difference but this is what I have found. It is based around the use of coreless motors, and a third pack will be fitted when time permits into the BR blue 04 I have which is still not finished and again has a e-bay coreless motor so whether the advantage will be as much with ordinary non-coreless Farish type can motors I can't say. Using 28 speed steps, and when power is completely shut off, on steps 1 or 2 about a spoke of movement is made. At step 5 this becomes about a 1/5th of a wheel revolution and at step 10 almost 1/2. Above this speed it's like having a bit of a flywheel action. This is about the same for both locos, and I presume the extra 220uf with the 08 is offset with the higher gearing of 49-1 against the 40-1 in the Jinty. But going by these results even fitting just 220uf or 2 x 220uf would seem to be worthwhile if space is at a premium. Working out cost-wise at just a few pounds each they are definitely worth the effort. Here are a few shots, regards Izzy

Thanks. I was wondering if that would be a way to go, even if it wasn't really correct, so it's helpful to know it could be like that. Now the fun begins with obtaining small SMD bi-colour leds for the searchlights and white ones for theatre indicators. Someone kindly provided links a while back with which I will start..... Once again thanks to all, and especially Mr Stationmaster Mike, for all the helpful advice and suggestions. regards, Izzy

As it's rated as 12v-24v why not just test it with a 9v PP3 battery? This would show whether the controller is the problem. Izzy

You are of course completely right and I appreciate what you say. My aim is simply to understand how far it would be possible to push the operating envelope in respect of train types/sizes to give the widest possible variation potential to choose from, since I have more than enough stock that I can use, originally meant for a larger layout scenario that will now not be possible. But your reference to a GUV +BG for parcels does illustrate the dilemma I come upon regarding train length, platform B, and movement permission, since once the loco places them in the platform it will be placed forward of the starter. And I did have a thought that one/two possible moves were that a short parcels trip working could arrive via a type 1/2/3 (15/24/31), place the vehicles in B, then wait as another loco hauled 3-coach train arrived in A from say 1, couple up and haul it away to direction 2 while the train loco then took the parcels stock back via 1. All just thoughts and musings which raise questions I can't easily answer. regards, Izzy

Thank you both for your interesting and informative posts. As usual I'm learning a lot. I have re-done the original track drawing following the advice from Mr Stationmaster Mike, and added a broken line where the scenic break will be - probably the common road bridge since both roads actually lead to a common sector plate fiddle yard and space is very limited, as you might discover ( perhaps I aught to post an actual photo of the layout to illustrate), but I would like to pose a few more questions arising if I may. I have also labelled the approach tracks. 1 leads to a nearby 'main' town station - so B might host DMU shuttle services between them at times - and 2 goes away to the branch to distant towns, just as happens at St Boltophs. Perhaps I should just explain at this stage that I have lived for most of my life on the North Essex coast, with the Clacton/Walton - Colchester branches being my local lines. This is the main reason for trying to replicate/represent a 'flavour' of them, which is all I have the space to accomplish. Since they are of course 25Kv AC, eventually, should it prove possible to make 302/308/309 EMU's, the main lines will acquire catenary so they could be used. It is a long term plan.......... Anyway, here is the revised plan. So, firstly the home signals. Would they be before the bridge at 7/8, or infront at 5/6? I suspect the former but given the subs and minature yellow just wondered if I am mis-reading this aspect. " the only real problem is likely to be enforced constraints on train length but that is a consequence of the amount of room there is, or isn't, between points and signals. a bit more interesting will be shunting stuff out of Siding C!" Oh dear, you are so right. Platform A is just 4 MK1's in length, and as adjusted B is 2. This is fine for shuttling 2-car DMU's in and out ( and a 4-car 309), and I had thought that perhaps with a sub on the homes a second one could always coast up to one already in A. When they are comming and going in different directions and 'crossing' in the terminus. Might be feasible/possible? But loco hauled trains are quite another matter. The loop will also just clear 2 MK1's so either very short trains are all that can be run, or a shunter or other must be used to release the train loco or haul the train away. The same general issues apply to parcels/freight. But this then raises questions as to whether any of it would be feasible/possible/correct. Could a spare engine sit in the loop in the B road roughly opposite the box ready to perform it's duties when a train arrives in A? If so should there be a signal of some kind, shunt/advanced starter, at 4 to give movement permissons? thanks again, Izzy

I have had this problem with what you could call the 'cheaper' decoders at times, and especially the Bachmann branded Soundtrax N gauge ones - the 6-pin blue sleeve type. The sightest error with the signal to the decoder, poor current collection etc, and they seem to re-set to zero and start off from scratch again. Just poorly written/basic firmware/components IMHO. I had cascaded these down to just lighting in DMU trailer cars but they seem useless even for this, the lights constantly going out when the driven car lights stay on, so they are just spares for basic testing now with new installs/re-builds, anywhere where if they go phut it will be no big loss. As has been said many times it does come down to the 'get what you pay for' scenario. Use Zimo/CT and the difference is clear, they seem to remember their last settings and generally carry on. With the current availability of the Zimo MX600 & MX622n at @£20 using anything else just seems to me a total waste of time and effort unless you need really small decoders for 2mm when CT are supreme. Izzy

I think the J15 & E4's ran with the same size/type of tenders at times, but as for the loco I don't believe that trying to convert a J15 would be the way to go. It's not just the larger driving wheels and splashers but more importantly that the boiler was pitched higher with a different style cab. These two aspects alone would make it a no-no for me because it just wouldn't look right with a lower pitched boiler and nothing would match up either, cab, splashers etc. Izzy

Thanks Edwin. I had looked at some of the exGE terminus plans on John Hinson's site and noticed several had electric tablet release GF's for loco release crossovers but wondered whether it was feasible for my particular plan given it's small nature and the impact on the rest of the pointwork. My very grateful thanks for that Mike. It helps an awful lot in that I now know what I need to have and where to place it. This is doubly useful as it now also means I can plan out the point rodding runs etc. Wonderful. I will use colour lights of the exGE searchlight pattern, indeed your suggestion for that on the main platform road pretty much replicates the 4mm one I made here : http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/116233-theatre-indicator-on-platform-starter/ I know that a lot of lines had semaphores until quite late, in fact my local one went from them to LED's just recently, but using C/L's is easier for me on a constructional level with this particular layout, which is 2mm/2FS, although I do hope to make the theatre indicator work this time, but not perhaps the position light. kind regards, Izzy

Thanks Ray, Part of the problem I have arises from the small size of the track lengthwise, e.g. the distance between positions 1 & 2 being just one coach length. This seems a real issue with Platform B where if as you say the starter needs to be clear of the fouling point ( which I had wondered about), then it's only just long enough to take a 2 car DMU or a couple of MK1's. It is these kind of aspects where I really get stuck and don't have the knowledge to come up with a solution. Perhaps there isn't one and it's just a consequence of squeezing the track layout down too much to fit the space available and it's too 'wrong' to work reasonably correctly. As far as platform usage goes, like Bodmin St Boltophs has always been a single platform, but with a couple of carriage sidings. As well as local services between Clacton/Walton - Colchester (North) calling/reversing there, some services have originated there, e.g. Brightlingsea branch trains, and still do today, (some Sudbury line services at weekends now I think). Thus while the main platform A is intended to cover most passenger trains and B parcels traffic, I had thought that at peak times B could be used with occasional DMU services using the upper line to the 'main' station. You will understand that I am using St Boltophs as the general basis around which to run/use the layout, but being totally fictitious it's just 'somewhere in Essex'. I had thought the ground discs were in roughly the right places to cover moves regarding the release and sidings, but perhaps this is not so. regards, Izzy

Hello all, I have recently started building a small secondary town terminus station layout after spending a long period trying to come up with a design that meets my needs of being small and easily moved around yet gives some scope for operating. It is intended to be exGE in the 1960's/1970's with (hopefully) early searchlight colour signals rather than semaphores. The ground discs will still be mechanical and all the pointwork worked by rod from a box. The general premise of the design/location is based on St Boltophs, Colchester (Colchester town) exGE, along with Wells-next-the sea exGE and Bodmin General exGWR, in that it is served by two separate single track lines but which like St Boltophs form a triangular junction with a 'main' branch line, a bit like I believe was once proposed with Bodmin if perhaps with longer lines. It has a rather unusual track plan of a main platform with a shorter second one for (mostly) parcels traffic with a siding (C) accessed from the main platform head shunt via a single slip. I doubt any such design ever existed in the real world, but has been used to enable the maximum use of limited space. Since getting the track built/laid and working I have struggled to work out how best it should be signalled. Can anyone offer any advice as to where signals should/might be placed? Here is the track drawn as best I can. I am not sure if it is correct. I think I might have the ground signals where they need to go, but as to the main signals for the two platforms well, that is where I get stuck. Would main platform A have a starter/route indicator/junction on its end at 1, or at 2, or a starter at 1 and an advanced/junction at 2? It's a similar question with B and 3&4 and the relationship with the siding behind it. As far as the loco release/access to siding C goes I presume a fouling bar would exist on the Platform B road to prevent use when stock sat in it past such a point. Would any of this be feasible or am I way out with my thoughts. It would not be unusual! thanks, Izzy

I believe motors need an odd number of poles to enable slow controlled starting, 3,5, or 7 being most common. When I saw these I did wonder, if the spec was correct and not an error, just what kind of slow speed control they would have. Izzy

I find that track designs in one scale don’t really easily convert to another whether it’s say, 7mm going down, or N going up. Partly it’s because it’s all done in the same scale real world at 1:1 so always looks different, but also as a result of fixed sizes, our hands etc, needing the same space to operate things. Generally with any layout I find you need a balance of about the same length of track in the off-scene fiddle areas as you do the visible parts, otherwise it might look pretty, but the limitations on what you can actually do when you ‘play’ with it become very limiting if not unworkable. One downside of using a smaller scale is that things often look smaller/tighter/cramped compared to a larger one and this is most noticeable with smaller curved track and points in N, so what may look good in say 4mm might not in N. In the space you have, a visible area of about 100cm/40” and a fiddle of 60cm/20” ( a sector plate will probably be easiest to make in my opinion) would be my suggestion, and coupled with a run round loop and/or a shunter to marshall the trains brought in by another loco. Izzy

Hi Nigel, I have now checked the gears for any discrepency between them and can't find any, the overall OD and tooth depth being the same with all of them. I did wonder if this might be another area where the problems might be, given that gear forms can be over or undercut where needed for a particular situation. However, in going through all this I feel I might have discovered what might - I can't prove it now - have been the cause. It is simple, and leaves me feeling rather red faced. The P/B wiper pickups. Those on the 31 are wide flat strips which run horizontaly along the bogie moulding. In fitting the 2mmSA 7mm carry wheels I had to modify them behind the centre axle to prevent shorting against the axles. Whether this was a contributing factor I don't know but the rear of the 2mmSA geared wheels have a large boss on which the wheel is fitted. I think the position of the pickups were such that their lower edges pressed down on the top edges of these bosses and allied with the slop in the axles in the bogie allowed them to act as springs, raising up the loco as a result. Mostly the weight of the loco compressed them, but not all the time. Had I realised this I could have tweaked them to stop it. It is noticable that the second 31's pickups sit slightly higher up, not by much, but enough to show. The original's ones don't seem to have been fitted/soldered on as well, the same level of quality, and I will now redo them. So another little lesson learnt. regards to all Izzy

Thanks for the gear tooth thought Chris. Just double-checked this aspect - used a white gel pen as the gears are black - and the 31’s are 16 tooth, and so are the 24’s. Should also say there is nothing wrong with the 2mmSA drop-in wheels. The geared 7.5’s have been re-fitted into a recently bought Farsh 24 where it works as expected and they run absolutely fine. It’s all rather bemusing. I feel I must be missing something quite obvious, but I just can’t see what. Thought it was the disparity between the geared non- geared wheels re the size difference error, but with the centre carry wheels removed it stayed the same. Ah well. Cheers all, Izz

Class 31 conversion Some while back I posted details of a 2FS conversion I had undertaken on the new version Farish Class 31 using the 2mmSA 'drop-in' diesel conversion wheels. This loco uses different sized wheels in the bogie as per the prototype and so required the use of 7.5mm geared wheels and 7mm un-geared ones. These were very slightly larger in diameter than the Farish originals at 7.35mm and 6.75mm respectively but otherwise the conversion seemed fine, the difference in overall diameter seeming small and something which it was supposed would make little real impact. The use of the non-geared wheels with their smaller diameter axles (1mm v 1.5mm) did mean however that the centre carry wheels needed springing via fine wire to ride properly on the track At the time a question was posted as to whether re-machining the Farish wheels to 2FS would be an easier/better route. Later on I acquired another new version 31 and machined the wheels to see if this was indeed a better solution for this particular model. With a lathe it was, for me, an easy task to undertake and the results proved that it did work well. Without a layout at the time a couple of differences between the conversions went unnoticed and have only recently come to light under the testing of a newly finished layout, (well the track is built/laid/wired and it all works but that is all). The re-machined wheels converted 31 works fine, it sits at the correct ride height and the body is firm and upright on the chassis. The original 31 using the 2mmSA wheels however, while it ran fine, had body issues in that the ride height was about 0.5mm more, and the body would keep leaning/listing to one side or the other. A complete strip-down of the chassis did not reveal any reason for this. The springing to the carry wheels was removed in case this was the issue, lifting/raising the chassis/body. It made no difference. Finally the original wheels were re-fitted. This cured the problems, the loco now sitting at the correct ride height with a stable upright body. I am now currently machining these wheels as per the second 31 conversion. I have no idea why fitting the 2mmSA wheels gave these issues as it doesn't seem logical - especially the increased ride height since the whole diameter difference was only 0.15mm - but there we are. Finding these problems I thought it best to warn others wishing to convert their 31's. regards, Izzy

With my PA2 the lights flash when there is a short, and will do this for a while as it tests/re-tests whether the short continues to exist. If the short is temporary then the lights and power return to normal. However, if the short continues to exist then after a while the unit stays with both lights on. When this happens I usually either switch of the at mains power, or hold the red ‘stop’ button on the handset for a couple of secs, which cuts track power. I then sort the short out, and pressing the red button again restores track power. This latter method prevents having to shut the base/command station down and I have read somewhere that it is not a good idea to leave the base station with both lights on under a continuous short. Izzy