Izzy

Okay, I'll see what I can do, and try and make sure I take a few shots as I do things. I often use them for reference (wiring runs or colours) or to check bits as I go along but forget at other times. I am glad I am not the only one to find the lowest level quite loud enough for home use. Interesting to discover that the individual levels are relative to the overall one. That is very useful, thanks. Izzy

They have correct sized wheels, traction tyres on one side each of the geared power bogie axles, and have 2.5mm axles. I don't know if EM/P4 conversion packs are available from either Ultrascale or Gibson (they may be for the full fat Hornby versions which appear to use different standards), but I have re-machined mine to run on P4. The axles are a force fit in one wheel and splined with a plastic bush in the other. It's currently being detailed. I'll do a thread if there is any interest. Izzy

There is a full listing of all the various cv's and their settings in the instruction leaflet, which I have to say is quite comprehensive and informative. You can adjust all the individual spot sounds - separate cv's - or set an overall sound level for all using cv182. There are 8 levels (actually nine, but 0 turns the sound off). The default for all sounds is 4. For home use I actually found I needed to reduce mine down to the lowest of 1. At 8 you could hear it down the road........I actually thought it was real one coming past - well nearly, as we still get the odd diesel tootle along the branch behind us, a noticeable change from the normal swish of the EMU's. Izzy

I have no idea whether the Prodigy is NMRA compliant, but that's not the issue or the problem, but whether using the sprog/jmri equipment somehow causes damage to the TTS decoder sound output. I can't see why it should, but this is what appears to have happened. The TTS has 8 levels of sound. At the maximum level 8 the decoders output is now no louder than it was at level 1 or 2 previously, as well as being much poorer in quality, hissing and muffled, as if the amp has been damaged, which I think it has. Izzy

I have been fiddling around with the TTS decoder settings in my new railroad 31 for the last few days. I can change cv's etc using POM with my Gaugemaster Prodigy no problem. But while I can initially read/write to it using my Sprog 2v3 and DP, it won't run using a JMRI throttle, and then returns wierd readings if I try to carry out further reading/writing. DP just can't see/identify it any more. Says the manufacturer dosen't exist - returns a code of 1. But put it on the layout and it runs just fine............except the sound quality and volume has decreased to a marked degree, and full resets - cv 08 to 08, don't make any difference. Hooked up different speakers - all 8ohm - and it's the same. Much poorer quality output compared to before using JMRI the first time. Leave it a while.close down JMRI etc, then restart it all, and blow me, it reads it again.. until you try running it using the JMRI throttle, where the same sequence starts again, although thankfully the sound degredation hasn't got any worse. I keep reading that a lot of Hornby stuff doesn't always truly conform with NMRA standards in all respects, and somehow I wonder if this is another case. Basic compatibility issues. But why it would degraded the sound output I can't say, just that it seems to have, which is very worrying and extremely annoying. Izzy

According to the spec sheet with the 31 TTS there are two motor control algorithms that can be used, 1 & 2. 1 is non-linear, 2 is a linear curve. These are set with cv150 the choice being CA1 = 0 and CA2 = 1. The default is 0 (CA1). This gives the slow speed control via cv's 151 &152. The range is 0-255 for both and the defaults are 8/8. For CA2 the cv's are 153 &154 and the settings are 215/115. This gives very fast running at these values at low speed steps. I am just wondering if when the Tech 6 is used in analogue mode with the decoder somehow it is setting CA2 instead of the default CA1. Izzy

Having tried and used most makes of decoders in both 2mm & 4mm it has to be said that while some decoder makes motor control can be made to work well with some locos with in some cases a bit of effort with cv tuning, it is only really the likes of Zimo, CT, and mostly Lenz, that can work well 'out of the box' with any loco/motor type they are mated with. In the recent past this came at a price premium, but with the current advent of the budget offerings from both Zimo & Lenz this is no longer the case, and using others now seems false economy to me. The Hornby 8249 decoder is a prime example,(and the basis for the TTS Sound decoders). Works quite well with some motors, but has virtually no adjustments if it doesn't i.e. no speed adjustment settings/ speed table. Izzy

Mine is now quite happily running around on my P4 layout/test plank. Some 'adjustments' to the body/underframe is now being started. The sound is quite good enough for my needs, indeed it seems quite impressive. It is the first sound loco I have bought, but how it could be bettered I am not sure. However, the slow speed running quality isn't perhaps all it could be. It is supposed to have a 5-pole skew armature motor - which I can't confirm because it's a sealed can motor - but the gear reduction is just 16-1 and the motor/gearing judders at a particular rpm, around speed step 3 on the 28 step scale, and worse in one direction than the other. This isn't the Hornby decoder motor parameters because it does the same on Zimo decoders. Perhaps some running in will help because tweaking of motor cv's can't eliminate it, and removing the capacitor across the motor terminals made no difference. Still happy with it though. Izzy

Although the waistband is raised and you can feel it quite easily if you run your finger over it, in real life terms it doesn't appear obviously thick, perhaps thanks to the way Hornby have applied the paint to it. This is of course a Railroad model, but it's interesting to see how basic it is, no makers plate or overhead warning patches as per the earlier Lima issue of the same number with the half yellow ends - as per a later post. But all credit to Hornby, the sound aspect is probably worth it alone at this price point, and even better at the prices Rails & others are asking. And it does allow you, if like me you like that kind of thing, to do a little modelling to add, as someone recently remarked, a little 'polish' to it, well maybe with a fair bit of elbow grease! Izzy

Just a few pics to illustrate the basics. From my brief time with this model I believe the body is nicely moulded, the waist level strip being a point in question, and will repay any time spent adding the kind of details most models have these days. The cab handrails and glazing being prime candidates for replacement along with adding the buffer beam cowlings and discs. Putting cabs inside will involve moving the speaker away from the end it's at. I think it should fit in the middle over the weights, but not sure if this would alter the way the loco sounds, knowing zilch about such matters. No doubt I shall find out. As this thread was started by Oliver from Rails - and my grateful thanks to him for starting it and bringing the loco to everybodys attention, as I intend to carry out the mods outlined above, as well as conversion to P4, I will start a thread in the Modifying RTR section with any other info/pics and will not clutter up this thread any further. cheers, Izzy

Just received mine from the BVR shop. First impressions are that the loco is fairly light, the chassis is a plastic moulding with a central weight, fitted with traction tyres, is a pretty basic one piece body moulding with just glazing and separate plastic cab handrails for the cab, and no bits to add like headcode discs etc, what you might expect from a Railroad badged model, but runs quite nicely and sounds good on my limited length of OO gauge track. How it might stack up against others from whatever source and standard (with regard to the sound) only others will be able to judge, but I am pleased I got it, and for a first sound fitted loco it certainly does encourage you to think, this is nice. The slow speed motor control is decent and the body looks to be a good basis for a bit of detailing as well. Izzy

Unfortunately it seems to be hosted on photobucket..........or is there another way of seeing it? Izzy

Perhaps you could alter the track a bit at the junction - I can't remember how far it had got when I saw it - and fit in a small exchange yard in lieu of the station. Or even off the long top siding in the plan. I was sort of thinking of the sidings at Haughly where the MSLR joins. So wagons coming of the Bury branch could be left to go on to Cambridge etc. Goods trains could reverse, Bury to Cambridge and visa versa. And of course Passenger trains could be 'held' at the junction signals awating the road to overcome the lack of a platform in which to pause. Anyway, very glad it has survived. especially considering all the care that went into the baseboard construction, which is beautifully made to a high standard. Thanks for sharing more shots of it. Izzy

It must be said that reading about locos with differing motor arrangements to that which was expected and provided with magazine review samples, one flywheel, two flywheels, motors fitted reversed, does not give complete confidence in those offered for sale. One could be forgiven for gaining the impression that the factory ran out of parts with which to assemble the locos and found an ad-hoc work-around to complete them, just missing in the process the fact that the motor wires were not reversed to suit and the locos thus run the opposite to normal convention. However, reading further comments about poorly placed/executed printed details made down to a price rather than up to a quality seems to resonate with me. Indeed this is the overall view I am left with after reading all the comments posted on the various threads relating to the Oxford locos, Radial, Dean Goods, etc released to date. This might be unfair and the fault is poor assembly/QC, but the end result is the same. Izzy

Total height is about 24mm, width 10.5. Should mention that all HL gearboxes now use grub screw fixing for the final drive gear. I believe I am correct in saying this, and I don't think it alters the final size of any of the designs, but some ratio's are slightly different. The roadrunner+ I got recently is now 60-1 rather than 54-1 for example. Izzy

Hi Londontram, In order to try and help until HL's site is up and running again I have attached the gearbox planner PDF you can normally download from there. If you have the means to print it out onto transparent sheet of some kind - I have even used tracing paper - then it's quite good putting it over a loco drawing to gauge how things might fit. gearboxplanner.pdf cheers, Izzy

Could I offer a bit of perspective/history to perhaps help explain how things got here. When I first dabbled in 7mmFS a few decades back I too was surprised/disappointed by the amount of wheel drop I found with shorter stock with smaller wheels, so 9'/10' wheelbase wagons mainly. At the time S7 was just emerging and it was mostly a question of the Coarse scale or Finescale standards then offered as the normal ones by GOG. However, allied to the emergence of S7 was the arrival at around the same time of wheels from both Slaters and Alan Gibson which used a finer profile (for FS) than had been available until then, finer flanges, narrower treads. It was these that showed up/exacerbated the wheel drop with FS which until then had not been seen as a problem/issue. Indeed many O gaugers back then felt that FS was 'too fine' and pushing things, but you have to remember that very tight radius curves ( by todays general standards) were quite normal and getting longer wheelbase stock around them was the challenge. Being a bit thick I didn't think of the clever ruse of just narrowing the gauge a bit, and instead adopted my own standards of the Slaters/Gibson wheel profile along with a wider b-t-b of 29.8mm, so 0.6mm more than the standard 29.2mm, allowing the flangeways to be tightened up a bit to overcome the wheel drop. So basically the same result as using 31.5mm today. This wasn't too much trouble, and of course you can forget compatibility with RTR, because at the time it just didn't exist, except I seem to recall for a couple of Lima offerings at odd times. Today the situation with O gauge has changed completely, large amounts - comparatively speaking - of RTR in all shapes, sizes and standards, most of which is aimed at 7mmFS. Personally speaking I think 31.5mm/ O-MF gauge should now be considered as the defacto standard to use given the compatiblility with RTR stock and using anything on 32mm gauge. Izzy

I have ordered one, perhaps I didn't compose the sentence very well, sorry. Oh, it would be nice to get it tomorrow. Then the fun will really begin........ Izzy

Could I add that I believe that the Prodigy express handset speed control is either by Rotary knob or buttons, as per the Prodigy advance wired/wireless versions, any of which can be used with the PE command station. You can swap between which method you prefer as often as you like, just by using the particular control. Perhaps of equal advantage is that any system that uses buttons for control, (and in conjuction the rotary knobs are encoder type rather than plain potentiometer), that 'picking up' the speed control of a loco - when controlling more than one at a time and swapping between them - is easier than with simple rotary knob speed control types because they remember the loco speed setting. Izzy

Yes, many thanks. Just trawled through the GER society PDF on loco allocations to discover 5551 was allocated to Ipswich in 1960/62 and it suits me very nicely if it was later at Stratford as I am modelling the ex GE 1960's based around North East Essex. regards, Izzy

Er, no, I'd be re-machining the Hornby wheels to suit. As per here - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/124592-some-Hornby-j15-alterations/ Well I will be, I hope. On the other hand......... Your pointer to the BV site tempted me, but the postage - classed as courier - was a fiver. Still, as they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained. And at least a skinhead would be an East Anglian loco in it's early/later life. Trying to find where 5551 was mainly located in the '60's. Anyone know by any chance? cheers, Izzy

Hornby price all their TTS separate sound chips at £39.99 here - https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/shop/power-control/tts-sound-decoders.html But I do not know whether this includes the speaker. I kind of assume it's all wired up together and ready to plug in/ go, but not sure. I rather fancied taking a punt on one of these skinheads (for conversion to P4 and see what sound was like in the flesh on a home layout) until I read they have traction tyres. Never mind, saved some money. Izzy

I can't say I have found the conversion muffs any different as regards axle fit. I do twist the wheels as I press them into the muff, (I am afraid I have never used a wheel press in any scale), and also dress both the axle end and the muff bore to aid initial egress. It's just a thought, but did you assemble them during the recent spell of hot weather? It might be that the parts expanded very slightly, just enough to make a tighter fit. Izzy

I am afraid I haven't being following this saga very closely as GWR locos don't really interest me ( I know - sackcloth and ashes!), but looking at Andy Y's underside shot in conjunction with those posted by Quarryscapes on the other thread I can't but help feel that there is a lot of what could be termed 'common ground' in design between this loco and Hornby's J15, even down to where many of the screws are positioned. Looking at both the stripped down loco and tender shots you could almost believe they came out of the same factory.........but the J15 does seem slightly more refined overall, which may be a mistaken impression on my part. As such it might again be the case that room between the splashers is tight even if the tender doesn't prove too much trouble. See here to get an idea of how I did it. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/124592-some-Hornby-j15-alterations/ cheers, Izzy

New Crankpins. Just a small update with regard to the J15 crankpins. The Hornby ones are 10ba hex head bolts with part of the head reduced to 2.3mm dia where they enter the coupling rod. They do the job, and are easy to fit/remove, but the hex heads look a bit big. I did consider replacing the coupling rods once the loco was up and running and proven to be okay, but comparison with some spare Gibson rod etches I had to hand indicated that while they might look slightly better there wouldn't be much in it, the Hornby ones not being too over scale. It would also mean bushing the wheels (fitted with 10ba brass inserts) to fit the finer Gibson crankpins. So instead I made up some new crankpins with rounded heads. Trying to keep the machining simple I turned the heads in steel, tapped 10ba and then soldered to lengths of brass 10ba studding then cut to length afterwards. It's just a small change but I think another slight improvement which adds to the general look. Izzy