Tiptonian

Maybe this might be something for pendolino project guys to think about?

I'm too small for this thinking I'm afraid.

Dave,

Thank you very much for a clear, definitive and rapid response; it is much appreciated.

I had to try!

Still no Hunslet Austerity/J94...................Waaaaahhhhhh, snivel snivel!

Hello Dave.  Thanks for giving us this opportunity to wishlist.

I've noticed that everybody's asking for rolling stock of some sort.  Well, in the wods of the Spice Girls, "what I really, really want" is some decent 00 track, rather than rebadged H0.  Something akin to SMP scaleway flexitrack, with say some 3' radius points and crossovers to suit.  Closer track centres (say EM standards) and points to a high standard of realism, so more like Tilig than PECO.

I'm sure that a man of your perspicacity can oblige.

Cheers,

Bob.

Whenever this subject is mentioned, the balloon goes up, but to produce something is the only way to resolve the issue. I would ask, as Phatbob has done, for one LH and one RH point matching SMP flexi track, but not 3' radius, as their plastic based point kit already uses this figure, but perhaps something nearer 4'6" or 5' radius, with slight flexibility like a Tillig point. If they attract sufficient sales, the range could be expanded. If they do not attract sales, then those who have asked for it for all these years could accept that it's a loser.

It needs someone like Dave to start the ball rolling. If it was a success, I wonder how quickly the Peco range would appear?

Move to an onboard power source as well and then direct radio communication has a killer advantage, no more rail cleaning and potentially total reliability of operation. EZ APP doesn't offer that, and can't on its own, which I think robs it of most of its potential benefits.

The Bluerail board does have provision for battery power.

http://www.bluerailtrains.com/faq.cfm

Scroll to the bottom of the page, last but one question.

While I acknowledge what has been said about choice of subjects, I cannot understand why the Jinty was chosen over the Hunslett "Austerity". The latter, initially designed for a two-year life, went on to have a unique story of multiple builders, industrial and BR use, experimentation and some examples working into the 1980's. Still, it does look different to a Jinty and could be produced in a variety of colours, so hope is not lost. Surely, in a series called Great British Locomotives, this modest unsung hero qualifies.  

You are adult after all.

I've never been so insulted in all my life!

The compartments of the Triang Hornby 4-wheel coach are about scale 7' (i.e. Super-Posh!). I never understood this. They could have made a slightly mean 4-compartment body in the same length and it would have looked more realistic.

PINNED ! How did that happen?

Could it be because it is an informative, high quality thread? Enjoying it very much. Many thanks!

On the same page, look at this one, No.12, England.

http://www.alangeorge.co.uk/Images_A-H/Dowlais_Locomotive_No12-England_Adj.jpg

For an 0-4-0ST, it has a long wheelbase. A possible use for the Hornby 0-4-0 chassis?

 

The Hornby Nellie body is a few mm too low so some sort of packing will be needed to lift it up to the correct height.

I think the boiler looks too fat, perhaps it could be replaced with one with a smaller diameter.

 

Don't worry about Nellie's fat boiler. Take a look at these.

http://www.alangeorge.co.uk/Images_I-M/Image-19_1909_LocomotiveNo40%27KingGeorge-V%27_DowlaisBuilt-1907.jpg

http://www.alangeorge.co.uk/Images_A-H/Dowlais_Engine_No44-Pant_AtDowlais_1938_JohnOwenCollection.jpg

Actually, I realize you probably know all about these. It's just my shameless method of bumping your excellent thread. Or, is it a plot by a certain small Hornby loco to get in on the "bashing" act?

Thanks again for a brilliant thread.

Can't see a reason why even a single rotor Wankel steam engine would not self-start. With two lobes on the outer casing and three flanks on the rotor, there are six power strokes per revolution, each stroke effective for nearly one quarter of a revolution, but yes, it would be better with two rotors. Also, it does not require admission and exhaust valves as such, as the movement of the rotor carries the steam round with it, passing ports in the outer casing as it travels round. Admission would be by a series of side and peripheral ports (small side ports for the equivalent of short cut-offs, a large peripheral port for maximum admission), The cut-off lever would open valves in an "induction manifold", thus determining which ports receive steam. If a reversing gearbox was felt undesirable, all ports could be mirrored for reverse operation, thus the large peripheral port forward would become the exhaust port reverse, the steam path again being determined by the cut-off / reversing lever. As fascinating as this is, after low mileages it would probably leak like a Leader!

Love the Nellie!  It's amazing how plonking a body on a chassis can result in a loco that looks so right.

Stuart, I would urge you to study the Deltang website, particularly the receivers Rx60 and Rx61, and transmitter Tx22. (You, and everyone else on this thread, will understand it far better than I do!). The latter controls 12 trains independently when each are fitted with one of the former, thanks to the selecta feature and the 2.4Ghz binding technology, if I have understood it correctly. To me, it looks brilliant, more so to see it fitted into Fallen's tiny tram engine.

There is a thread currently on the 3mm forum about the feasibility of RTR 3mm scale models by Hornby. Perhaps R/C should be considered from the outset for this, as British outline TT scale has no commercial history recent enough that needs to be taken into consideration. Just a thought!

With radio control 4mm scale, we could go back to steel wheels, steel rails and ........MAGNADHESION!

No need to add weight to a loco for better grip = more free space inside loco body (and possibly lower power motor needed) = more room to fit electronics or same electronics fit in smaller loco.

I am now going to hide behind something very substantial!

(Sorry to say this), ........ not really, because it is crude, dated and frankly rubbish.

In technological terms, you, being experienced in the field, are probably right on the first two, but as no other manufacturer makes a dedicated model railway r/c system, I think the third is harsh. DT has spent money and put its toe in the water, and it is more than likely perfectly good at the starter level. Those interested in this thread would like to see r/c available from an exhibition stall as a system the same as DC and DCC is today. We will probably have to agree to disagree on this, but I feel this is unlikely to happen if the start is at the pinnacle of the technology. The cost alone would put people off. Starter sets are a necessity.

One great beauty of r/c, and infrared for that matter, is there are no compatibility issues, forward or backward (we have had so many of these with track powered model railways). When one wishes to progress, none of the old stuff has to be converted or scrapped, simply added to.

Thank you gentlemen for spelling it all out in language I can understand! The DT equipment looks excellent and a very reasonable price, together with a little flexibility for accessories; in fact the dedicated railway package to which I earlier refered.

Unless I am very much mistaken, few people who have not looked in depth into radio control will have heard of this equipment. There may be people who, if they saw an article or advert for this range in the model railway press, will consider it just what they want. True, it does not have the styling of Spektrums etc. which may be desirable to add to the popular appeal of a train set, but the retrofit buyer will probably be less concerned in that aspect. It needs a collaboration between DT and a forward-thinking model manufacturer to put a starter set together, and who knows? 

Thank you, Stuart, for the definitions. I think I need a duffers guide though, as I cannot figure out why two-way communiction is needed to simply control the speed and direction of a train.

I did once upon a time go to a shop which sold R/C and model railways, thinking they would be best qualified to advise. After a series of grunts, they offered me a transmitter, receiver and speed controller, total cost £420 for one loco. On further pressing, it wasn't even 2.4Ghz, ("we only have the transmitters"), and he couldn't understand me wanting to control more than one receiver/ speed controller from one transmitter, even though the shop sold model railways! That was my cue to leave. During more recent quests for knowledge (the net), I have just become confused by the tech and jargon.

So my basic question remains, can I buy a 2.4Ghz transmitter that will control four separate receivers/speed controllers, (i.e., locos),  one at a time, without needing an on/off switch on each loco?

While I appreciate the desire for sophistication, 12v DC didn't start with inertia or electronic feedback control, and DCC didn't start with plug-in chips and "stay alive", so even though it may be crude, commercial model railway R/C will probably start with simple direction and speed control, and a 2-loco starter set, similar to what Bachmann did with DCC. Once that hurdle is cleared, I feel it will advance very rapidly indeed. 

When a different control system is introduced, there has to be a basic starting point. DCC did not start at the level it is today, and basic systems remain available for those who want them. The overall impression I get from this thread is that R/C would be unacceptable if it does not do everything immediately. There also seems uncertainty if the products are already available or not and at what cost.

It is probably a safe bet that many people who are considering R/C want independent loco control, anywhere on the layout, no track or wheel cleaning and no layout wiring, and are not the least bit bothered about lights, whistles, sound, let alone bi-directional comms and 2-way protocol. I for one do not even know what the last two mean,let alone what they do or how they enhance the enjoyment of my models. Equally, when I look at R/C equipment on the net, I cannot understand if it will do what I want it to do or not.

Even though the basic equipment may all be available at a reasonable price, the problem may be the lack of dedicated railway package as a starting point. By this I mean, from what little I can understand, current car/aeroplane/ boat systems seem to be one transmitter controlling one receiver in one model doing a number of different things. A basic railway system would be one transmitter controlling several receivers each in its own loco, each of which has to simply accelerate and decelerate forwards and backwards. I would like a 2.4GHz R/C railway one day, but I still cannot work out if it can be done.

In the meantime, the 0-gauge industrial shunting layout I am building is controlled by the Lego "Power Functions" infra red system.  Though it only has 7 speed steps in each direction, it controls 8 locos independently. From the lego online shop, the transmitter (8879) costs £10.99 and a combined receiver and speed controller costs £11.49, all plus P&P.

http://search2.lego.com/?q=power+functions&lang=2057&cc=UK

If one day a 2.4GHz R/C railway package is provided which can do what Power Functions does (with more speed steps!),  I feel we will start to see R/C in model railways. A lot of young people come to this hobby via a basic starter train set. We saw them for DCC, so why not the equivalent for R/C?

As for Power Functions "going back to clockwork", well, yes, they are both unaffected by a bit of dirt on the track, but on the whole, I disagree .........you try getting a new clockwork loco that cheap!

Thanks for that, Michael. I can order with a bit more confidence now, and hopefully soon join the "bashers". May also try a Shinohara point or two.

-Al.

I am very interested to know how the Scalelink problem is going. If you reach any conclusions, good or bad, please let us all know.

Good luck and thanks!

-Al.

Most layouts on this forum, including the finest and most expensive, get a steady trickle of replies. Then along comes this one! The number of responses to this thread says it all. So many of us on this forum can identify with low skills and less money (Dave 777, however, has completely disqualified himself from the first). These simple low cost methods show just what is possible.

Congratulations on a brilliant job superbly presented. Many thanks indeed.

-Al.

I am not a 3mm modeller, but I could easily be persuaded. At nearly every model railway exhibition, someone will be heard to say, "Ahh, TT gauge; the perfect size!"

Some years ago, I joined the 3mm society after reading the website, as the one thing we all need is good wheels that look reasonably fine. I felt misled by the website as the reality at the time was that supplies of fine wheels were in limbo and the Finney and Smith "Bespoke" wheel service in the "Starting in 3MM" section, which would have been essential to my efforts, were not to be produced due to practical difficulties, though even to this day it is still on the 3mm website. I let my membership lapse and started dabbling in 0 gauge. With newer developments on the wheel front, I am very tempted to re-join and try again if I could be certain just what was available. The clincher would be if 13.5mm square-ended axles were available for the new society wheels, and fine 13.5mm gauge wheels for stock, as that would be my chosen gauge. (It is the 3mm version of EM, I like fine wheels, have questionable skills and little time).

I am slightly saddened by the postings of Phil Copleston, who implies that there are too many standards, criticises the 3mm society for supporting them all, but seeks to introduce yet another one which would be incompatible with the new wheels produced by the society. It is logical that "true scale" standards should be laid down by agreement between those who want it; I hope that this forum encourages like-minded people to get into contact and an S3 group formed, but I feel this should not be to the detriment (resource-wise) of the current 14.2, 12.0 or 13.5 users in the 3mm society. After all, when viewed separately, few people can tell the difference between fine-standard 0 and S7, or EM and P4, so would the same apply to S3 and 14.2 or even S3 and 13.5? After all, model railways as small as this are all about creating a convincing image. Like Phil, I have seen 14.2 models that do not look right, but as I would like to support the society and would need to use its products, 13.5 would be my choice.