Dungrange

I should be there with Edinburgh and Lothian MRC, probably on the Saturday.  At least four of our club members regularly post on RMWeb, so I'm sure there will be a few more from the West of Scotland, who just haven't noticed this thread!

.... Has Challenge 2015 now become Challenge 2016?

A quick question for those who use the #14X couplers in the #242 draft gearbox.  Does the rear of the draft box serve any purpose or could it be cut away if necessary?  I'm looking at these as the likely candidates to affix to the Bachmann 158, but notice that there is a body screw around 11 mm back from the front valance, which ideally I don't want to cover up (hence the potential need to remove part of the back of the draft box).

It looks like an over-set coupler would be preferred in this instance, although I'm undecided on the length.  All of the dimension data seems to be from center of the pivot to the rear of the knuckle whereas I'd actually like to know the distance from the part of the knuckle that needs to sit forward of the gangway doors to the rear of the draft gear box.  Does anyone know if this data is published?  I'm assuming at the moment that the pivot point is in the middle of the draft box and I can measure the knuckle on one of the NEM couplings to calculate the required distance.  

I don't think the rail height should matter (code 100 or code 75) provided the underside of the gauge is resting on the rail and the locating pins are not touching the chairs (and causing it to be lifted slightly).  It is obvious in the images with code 100 rail that there is a space betwen the gauge and the chairs, but it is less obvious that this is the case with the gauge sitting on code 75 rail.  There may well be a small gap, but it's not clear in the photographs that you posted.

The height gauge is resting on the rails. It seems to have a (lateral) position where it "locks" between the sleepers preventing its movement back and forth. That is state shown in the picture.

It looks like it is resting on the sleepers rather than resting on the rail.  With the gauge mounted on the top surface of the rail, it will slide back and forth (at least my one does, which is the all metal one - yours looks to be the same).  The six little cast pieces on the underside of the gauge are designed to fit over 16.5 mm gauge track with the rail passing through the grooves.

Having just opening the #322 gauge that I bought last week, I note that it does indeed state that the top of the magnet should be 1/64th inch (0.4 mm) above the rail heads.  I initially wondered if this was a misprint, but looking at the #734 gauge (which i purchased at the same time), it is clear that the top of the magnet is meant to sit higher than the tops of the rails.  Looking back at the coupler specifications, it appears that the tails of H0 couplers should be 1/32nd inch (0.8 mm) above tops of the rails, which of course means that if the uncoupling magnet and trip pin tails are correctly set, there should be 1/64th inch (0.4 mm) between the trip pins and the correctly adjusted trip pins.

For some reason their is a misprint in the Kadee catalog in terms of the NEM couplings, which incorrectly state that the trip pins should be 0.08 mm above the top of the rails!  They should of course be 0.8 mm just like the rest of the H0 range.

One tip with these kits is if you are going to use the thin plastic timbers then be careful to fit them as soon as possible to the track bed insuring both ends of each timber is stuck down well. The common fault of these timbers is that as the solvent dries it shrinks thus curling the timbers slightly. This does not occur with either the thicker plastic timbers or the Ply timbers

I'll be using the 'thick' point timbers (another requested change when I ordered these kits), so that the finished turnouts will be compatible with the thick sleepers used in the Exactoscale Fast-track range, which as it so happens should also be the correct height for the new Peco track, which leaves me no excuse not to buy some.

I'm also new to using Kadee and have just bought several types of magnets for test purposes.  My understanding of the #322 is that it is designed for Code 83 rail and as such if used with Code 75 it will be 0.008 inches too high (ie 0.20 mm).  Therefore, I think you should technically be removing 0.20 mm from the top of the sleepers before installation.  If you are using thick sleepers (1.6 mm depth), then I see no reason why you can't just file the sleepers that it is to be glued to first, since you are only looking to remove 1/8th of the sleeper depth.  Obviously if you are using thin sleepers, then more of the sleeper depth would be removed.  However, given that the bottom of the trip pins are supposed to be 0.8 mm (1/32" or 0.031") above rail level, I wouldn't expect issues if the trip pins are set at the correct height, provided you can ensure that the top of the magnet is around rail level. If I'm not mistaken, the height gauge has a facility to check the height of any magnet installations (it's the opposite end from the one used to test the coupling height).

Edit: trip pin clearances edited to avoid confusion.

... be careful which 00 standards you chose if you have pre-made common crossings...

Yes, I'll be using pre-assembled common crossings and I deliberately didn't buy the roller gauges that come with the C&L kits (ie DOGA Fine) so that I could buy separate gauges for the standard that seems to provoke war on this forum!! :-)  Of course I appreciate that makes the supplied templates useless and I will need to produce new templates in Templot, but the advantage of planning to build my own turnouts is that I can build them as large radius curved points (ie the 'straight' route will probably be something like a 12' - 15' radius curve).

Maybe Peco will go for a modular geometry as per their existing range, but that would still leave a 'gap' in the market for prototypical geometry, which Joseph may still choose to pursue.

In any case, I can see me buying at least a few lengths of this new Peco track when it is available to create the overgrown sidings and to lay in the fiddle yard (especially if it is cheaper than the Exactoscale Fast-track option). I know that i could use anything in a fiddle yard, but I might as well give Peco the 'reaction' that they want to produce turnouts.

I agree with Martin, Peco are looking for the 'reaction' of modellers who want 'better' 00 track.  They want to know whether the new flexi-track 'hit's the mark' before they announce turnout details.  Who is going to buy the new track and do they want turnouts that match PECO's existing geometry (ie small, medium and large radius turnouts) or prototypical geometry (say an A5, B6 and B8 or whatever is likely to be most popular with the intended market)?  Personally, I would think PECO should adopt prototypical geometry, insofar as I don't see a need to make the new range compatible with their existing range of track.

I think it looks like PECO's new track range will be popular.  It's just a pity that I have bought a load of C&L kits to build my own, something I probably wouldn't have done if this announcement had been made last year.  Still, I'm sure that there will still be benefits constructing my own point-work.

Taff showed CAD on 'Oxford diecast collector.Facebook'. Google that, and you may find you can access it. Which generation - well, Oxford said 1938! Try Googling BMW 328 1938 Mille Miglia (I see I had a typo - it is 328, not 325) and you will find such as this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_328

 

John

Thanks John - I'm definitely not interested in one of them.  I thought the 1938 Millie Miglia was an ancient car that I hadn't heard of.  Turns out it was an Italian road race and the BMW 328 was a class winner in 1938! However a BMW 325 would be much more to my liking.  There will be another announcement later in the year and something on that list may interest me. 

In the past I have been able to see the Oxford Diecast Collector group pages on Facebook (even although I haven't signed up), but it now seems to be a closed group (which I don't think it was before).

From the Oxford Diecast collectors Facebook pages, Taff has advised the following new castings:

 

1/76

Fire - Fordson Haevy Pump

Haulage - Noteboom 3 axle

Construction - JCB will be forthcoming, as trademark and design agreements made

Automobile -

Hillman Imp

BMW 325

1938 Mille Miglia

Aston Martin DB2

MGB GT

Commercials - Bedford QLT Post Office Telephones (the QL with largish lorry body on a 4 wheel chassis)

Military - new liveries, and Taff expects "to get tanked up the next release"!

Showtime - nothing new now, but designs are completed for a ploughing engine.

Was there any more information on the BMW 325?  They have been around for over 30 years, so I'm interested in knowing which generation this is?  Third or fourth generation will definitely be on my purchase list (as will any JCB).  Apart from that I might not be purchasing too much.

With all this talk of problems using permanent magnets for uncoupling, I'm surprised nobody has used electromagnets. Kadee does one which is big and unsightly; there must be a way of making something a lot smaller that would work.

I would have thought that electromagnets would have been the cure to most problems with permanent magnets and that was my assumed approach if I eventually decide to adopt Kadee couplings.  Why you think the Kadee electromagnet (#309) is big and unsightly?  My understanding is that this is mounted under the sleepers and apart from the three screws that seem to attach it to the underside of the track, I don't see anything unsightly with this.  Does anyone have experience of using these?

Interestingly the NEM specification for 'S' is the same as H0, which implies that the same standard should apply to 00 (1:76), which lies between these two scales (1:64 and 1:87). It is therefore unsurprising that the 00 Gauge Association (DOGA) chose to adopt the H0 standard.

I suppose the only case for a stepped NEM Kadee would therefore be in 'S' where the height of the Kadee knuckle in 'S' is higher than in H0.  Of course, those that work in 'S' generally don't buy models with NEM sockets, so I suppose that market must be tiny.

Anyway, thanks for all the answers to my question about the need to permanently fit the magnets.  It appears to be unanimous that simply placing the Kadee magnets between the rails won't work.  I may just have to set up a test bench - ie nothing more than a plank to test operation. 

I had contacted Kadees regarding over & underset NEM couplings. He wasn't sure what I was talking about and as such said there probably isn't a market for them. Perhaps if enough dropped them an email? 

In theory, there should be no need for over or under-set NEM couplings.  If the manufacturers of UK outline stock simply designed their NEM pockets to the NEM standard there would literally be no market for Kadee to fill, and I doubt that Kadee want to be in a relatively small market of correcting other manufacturer's incompetence.  Are the European manufacturers as poor at following the NEM standards, because the NEM Kadee couplings are aimed at them as much as at the UK market?

We'd probably be more successful lobbying UK manufacturers in the importance of following standards.

A couple of quick questions for existing users:

1. Those who use the between the rail magnets - do they have to be glued down, or do they still work if simply placed between the rails (and held in place by gravity)?

I ask because although I intend to use electromagnetic un-couplers on my home layout (when I eventually get it built), the only place where I can try out Kadee couplers is on one of my club's layouts, which are not equipped for Kadee operation.  The tension lock still reigns supreme in my club.  As such, I'd be interested in whether the between the rail magnets can simply be placed on the sleepers for in the club operation and then removed when the layout is exhibited?

2. The NEM couplings all come with spare springs in the pack.  I assume these are all the same and I do not need to keep the #18 springs separate from the #20 etc.  They certainly look the same to me and I'd prefer to store them all in the one place rather than keeping each individual packet.

What I have found from the few wagons that I have tried to convert for a trial is that whilst a stepped tension lock coupling is a give away that the NEM pocket is at the wrong height, a straight tension lock coupling doesn't appear to be a guarantee that the NEM pocket with a NEM Kadee matches the Kadee height gauge.

Presumably 07001 carried HNRC Orange livery between 1989 (when it was purchased by HNRC) and 2012 (when it was sold to the Heritage Shunters Trust).  Rail Express indicated that this shunter was on hire to Mayer Parry’s Snailwell scrapyard (1989-1993), where it acted as yard shunter, and Creative Logistics at Salford (2001-2009).  (see http://www.railexpress.co.uk/news/heritage-shunters-trust-acquires-pioneer-07).

I suppose that a repaint into HNRC Orange was probably most likely in 1993 and it seemed to still carry that livery into 2013, even if it has apparently been repainted since.  Although it was clearly working in the Manchester area during my favored time period, come 2017 I may have a "just suppose it was hired elsewhere theme".

I assume that these are designed to fit to flat bottom rather than bullhead rail?

That's what I thought and as such, models from the World of Stobart collection will probably not appear on the Stobart site unless the base model is being produced by Oxford Diecast.  I'm not sure how many are / may be Oxford models.  The Komatsu is listed on the Stobart website as coming soon - ie once the Oxford Diecast model is released.

I certainly wouldn't pay £80 for a Unimog in 1:76 scale, no matter how good a model it may be, so e-bay may have to wait.  I understand that Oxford Diecast intend to expand their construction range, so hopefully there will be another model announced next month.  When I spoke to the representative from Oxford Diecast at Model Rail Scotland in February, he was unwilling to confirm or deny that they may be producing any road / rail equipment in the near future, so I have my fingers crossed.

I'm not a collector of Stobart merchandise, so I was only interested in the truck collection for a couple of 'scenic' items and decided to go for the 'loss leader' and see what else was in the series.  It was the road / rail vehicles in the World of Stobart collection that I was most interested in, so I'm glad that you think that the Unimog is worth waiting for.  To be honest, the Komatsu is probably a little on the large side and if I was going to part with £25, I'd probably rather purchase the slightly smaller version that Oxford are producing, but I'd probably be happy with the Atlas version at £2.99 - if I ever receive one.  I notice that the one on the Stobart shop is advertised as being form Oxford Diecast, but I was under the impression that the Atlas version may have been produced by someone else.

Anyway, I'll just wait and see whether anything is delivered in the new year (apart from payment reminders).

After hearing of the problems people were having with Atlas with regard to this series I was seriously considering cancelling my subscription. However yesterday someone obtained a list of the forthcoming models and put it on Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1503751889920863&set=p.150 Several interesting models there including road/rail excavators and a roadsweeper.

I'm certainly not impressed by Atlas Editions as a company and judging by a number of reviews on this site (https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.atlaseditions.co.uk) there seems to be lots of people have had problems with Atlas Editions, not specifically this collection.  Numerous people seem to mention a debt collection agency!

I ordered the introductory models from both the the World of Stobart collection and the Stobart trucks collection in July, but so far no models have arrived at my address and e-mails seem to go unanswered.  All I have had is a reminder to pay for the first delivery (which was never received) and an invoice for another model, which again I have not received.  I am sure that the invoice should have been dispatched with the model to which it relates. Strangely my account on the Atlas website indicates that I paid the invoice for the Komatsu, although I have never received the model and haven't paid for it either.  I've cancelled the Stobart trucks collection and if it wasn't for the road-rail vehicles, I would take the same approach with regards the World of Stobart collection.  I'll hang on in the meantime, but if I don't get something delivered next month, then I'll be looking on e-bay!

I agree that we don't know the facts and a union view point is usually biased.  What I'm not clear on is exactly what happened after the woman tried to board.  The trains in Merseyside may be different to the ones I am used to in Scotland, but is the door closing procedure not in two parts?

I'm fairly sure when watching trains depart at Haymarket that the guard closes all doors but the last whilst standing often half in and half out of the train.  Once all doors but one are closed and the guard can see that all on the platform are standing clear of the train, the guard then boards the train via the only open door and signals the train to depart whilst doing so.  If the train moved with the woman caught in the door then it only makes sense if the door that she tried to board was the one where the guard was standing having already given the driver the signal to proceed.

Unfortunately there are plenty of passengers with little common sense.

Also the CAD drawings of the Ford Galaxy shows the tailgate as a separate item from the rest of the body casting but incorporated into the glazing, it looks as if it either might be opening or very easily modified into the open position.

The Ford Galaxy has been around for around 20 years now.  Any idea whether this is the original Galaxy of the current version?  It's a late 90's version that I'd be most keen on

The great majority of British layouts using handbuilt OO pointwork are  built to the traditional 1.25mm flangeway of BRMSB OO, such gauges having been readily available for decades. These are also (just) within the tolerances of the OO Intermediate DOGA standard, and therefore compliant with it.

 

All modern RTR will run properly on such track , with check rails properly effective and no drop in. The repeated suggestion that modern RTR will only run reliably if the gauge is reduced to 16.2mm is wrong. OO-SF is not , repeat not, "the only way to get reliable running of modern RTR". Several hundred layouts built to a different track standard already have that, and can demonstrate it at shows across the land every weekend.

I haven't built any point work yet, but have already acquired 00-SF track gauges and just need to get to grips with Templot to create the templates that I require (once the baseboards are constructed).  However, it wasn't the claims of reliable running that have attracted me to 00-SF (or 4-SF).  What attracted me to this standard is the narrower flange-way.  I like the appearance of EM and P4 track-work, but don't have the time or money to convert the 00 stock that I already own (and may not have the necessary skills either).  As far as I am concerned, the next best thing is to adopt a 1 mm check rail gap but to stick with a '00 type' standard.  My initial instincts were to look at DOGA-Fine, but what put me off this was learning from these threads of the need to adjust the back-to-back dimension of all of my stock, which would create issues with running the same models on my model railway club's layouts (which are generally to the BRMSB 00 or Intermediate DOGA standards).  As such, my decision to select 00-SF was based on two factors:

1. A desire to use a 1.0 mm check rail gap (for aesthetic reasons); and
2. A desire not to have to alter the back to back dimension, so that my R-T-R stock can still be used on my model railway club's layouts (which is the only place they are used at the moment).

These two points, when taken in combination, point to 00-SF (or 00 plain track and 4-SF point work with an appropriate transition between these standards).  In fact the second of these two points also contributed to my decision not to go EM or P4.  The claims of reliable running are not, in my opinion, a reason to dictate that one must move to 00-SF, but that it is an acceptable way of meeting both of the points highlighted above.

I'll agree that could give a good distinction between 00-SF and 4-SF.  As you say, 4-SF can be interpreted as the 16.2 mm standard throughout (EM-2) and 00-SF is reference to guidelines for those who mix 00 (16.5 mm) plain track with 4-SF point work.  That is, the term can remain as meaning a combination of 00 (plain track) and 4-SF (point work), in which case I agree that there should be advice on where the transition between standards occurs.  However, I'd prefer if we used the term transition between standards rather than gauge flaring.

As for Templot, it would be correct that the software would refer only to 4-SF since that is the standard that point work would be constructed to on both 4-SF and 00-SF layouts.

It would also clarify to me that I intend to use 00-SF rather than 4-SF standards as I intend to make use of 16.5 mm gauged track bases on straight sections.