47137

Nothing wrong with train station - its like a bus station, but with trains in it. It stopped being a railway station when the railway stopped being a common carrier. Fighting it is like saying font (typeface not baptismal) should be fount. Everything wrong with Kaydee though, but at least it's only in my posts in this thread. Sorry. It might be subconscious; the wife of a friend who models US railways is Kay. EDIT: It occurs to me now, this is probably why I couldn't find much on 'Kadees' on the forums :-)

I suspect I asked the wrong question in post number 1; but the replies all point to a Best Practice for 00, this being to adopt the standard for HO for NEM 362 coupler pockets; and (somewhat unrelated to this, but in a similar vein) to follow Kadee’s instructions for HO for their couplers. I started on the wrong footing because I happened to buy some Bachmann wagons which had the coupler pockets higher than the location standardised for HO. Perhaps Bachmann had already made a few thousand offset hook and bar couplers; or perhaps they made a mistake on this wagon chassis moulding and had to compensate for it ... but I doubt they were trying to define a standard for NEM pockets for 00. Their later models are ‘correct’. I do like the idea of the pocket as the basis for using Kaydee couplers because it lets you shim a coupler up or down or swap out a broken coupler. Or, you could replace a whole pocket/coupler assembly, without making a permanent alteration to the stock. For one of my Bachmann wagons I have cut down the hook of a Kaydee no. 6 coupler (metal, no offset), crushed it sideways and expoxied it into the NEM socket. This is then at the spec. height of 25/64 in. Maybe it will fail too soon (the pocket is a flexible plastic, the glue may pull out), I will wait and see. Incidentally I wouldn’t recommend the no. 6 for a standard install any UK stock with buffers, it is too short and the housing is too long. For my one and only Bachmann coach (a BR Mk1) I have drilled through the shank of a Kaydee no. 20 and used a small screw to fix it to the underside of the coupler pocket. This keeps the original close coupling mechanism. It works for a one-coach train, it might be too weak for a long train. EDIT: removed misleading description of fitting a coupling to a Hornby J94 I ran out of couplers at 5.30, just as the local model shop closed, probably a good thing for the time being ...

I ordered up a blue 'Western Venturer' from Dapol's online shop. The package arrived yesterday, but inside was a maroon 'Western Sultan' in a box for a blue 'Venturer'. Swapped box lids I guess. I phoned Dapol and the lady there told me "we have one blue one left in stock, I will post it out to you. Please could you send the maroon one back to our Freepost address". It seemed so nice to meet such a feeling of trust. The blue one was arrived today, just before I made it to the Post Office with the maroon one. This is surely the best "customer service" (without a name) you could imagine (the lady was in Accounts) ... Dapol full marks for service as well as this incredible model. And, if you are reading this thread pondering whether to actually buy one (as I was), do it soon.

I looked at some of my more recent purchases this evening. These models all have their NEM 362 coupler sockets at the height specified by NEM 362: Dapol / Model Rail Sentinel Dapol cement wagon Hornby R6561 horse box Bachmann 37-980W Conflat All four models also have the sockets at the specified offset behind the buffer heads. Plugging in a Kaydee no.18 immediately puts the coupler at or very near to the Kaydee height (25/64 in), and with vehicles reasonably close coupled but far enough apart to just about go round a no.2 reverse curve. I am glad I went for the NEM/Kaydee standard (the HO standard) last time, if not very permanently - I wasn't sure what the manufacturers were trying to do. I have six wagons (all early NEM-fitted Bachmann) which would benefit from me re-working their coupler installations, I agree the No.5 (which I have used on a pre-NEM wagon) looks the sensible way to go. I suppose ratification would be NEM 362 being up-issued to cover 00 as well as HO, S and O, but I suspect MOROP/NEM is concerned with Europe, not a scale peculiar to one of its member states. Thank you to everyone, Richard.

I work in engineering where it is sometimes said we love our standards - that's why we have so many of them. Kaydee specify a standard height for their couplers, a centre line 25/64 inch above rail level - say 9.9 or 10mm. This sounds like it should be really simple for everyone (including the main stream manufacturers) to adopt. Some years ago I converted some RTR wagons to use Kaydees and found that the NEM sockets on most of them (especially Bachmann) were about 1mm too high. I chose to reset the coupler pockets to give the "proper" 9.9mm, and pop in a Kaydee no. 18 or 19: I want to convert some more models. It is easy to undo the modifications on coupler pockets and set them to a different height ... but once I start cementing Kaydee no.5 couplers onto underframes they will be stuck forever. It would be easier to accept the "too high" setting of 11mm, and just tweak the trip pins as needed to work with uncouplers. After all, I don't "need" interoperability with other people's models, and I could set up a converter wagon to take along on club nights. My doubt is this. Now, meaning in mid-2013, are the UK 4mm scale modellers who use Kaydees setting them at the Kaydee height of 9.9 mm or what I might call "Bachmann UK height" around 11mm, or some other preferred height? I would feel happier if I knew I was going with the majority.

Here is a second photo to finish the thread off. The 'white' is Holts primer - this seems to dry matt if you just dust it on, but with a slight sheen after a heavier coat. I have never had a white engine before, but it seems to suit! I now have some aerosols of U-Pol 'Acid no.8' and Halfords grey primer no. 473116, but these will have to wait for a future model. Halfords range of primers was a bit overwhelming, but I am guessing this one will be suitable for most materials. Thanks again for all the ideas, Richard.

The paint is 'jarred' rather than 'tinned' so to speak, there is a use by date but it is around 5 years from now. I am sure the problem is grime or grease, and it is my fault. It is indeed an A1 Models kit (their p/n A18), but put together with sloping bonnet sides and grill onto a different body/chassis ... and I fiddled around a lot while I worked out what I wanted it to look like. It is a good kit for a beginner. I will post another pic when I finish it.

Well, my second attempt with the PQ32/31 was sort of less unsuccessful than the first. This evening (30 hours on), the primer easily rubbed off the top and one side of the bonnet (just like a lottery scratchcard), but held firm elsewhere. I can only conclude I have a modelling hygiene problem. Patience ended, I cleaned the bare areas, again, and applied three coats of the Holts acrylic primer all over. If we have an 'innovations' competition this year, I know what my suggestion will be ... for manufacturers of etched brass kits to put a base primer on the 'outside' face of the parts! Somehow I suspect small/medium batch production using an industrial metal cleaner or shot blasting, a larger volume mix and a controlled spray application has a better chance of success than me.

I Wally, this is an important point and I can only plead ignorance, the instructions mention 'top coats' but there is no mention of using conventional primer nor your single-coat rule. I saw it soften, but imagined it would set again. I had splodged some primer onto an unprepared bare brass fret last weekend, this stuck well ... indeed I cannot scrape it off. This tells me the mix was good, but second application and possibly the surface preparation was wrong. I had cleaned the surface with only PQ-17. I have now cleaned the model with white vinegar, then a glass fibre brush, then PQ-17, then the fibre brush again. Wet and dry seemed a bit harsh. Working in daylight I can see the PQ-17 evaporates quickly but leaves a residue on the surface. Hence the second working with the fibre brush. I have today made a fresh mix, this time about 55% primer / 45% thinner in an attempt to make it more brushable, 'painted' it onto the model and left it to harden. Tomorrow will tell. Meanwhile ... the Holts acrylic white primer stuck well on a flat surface but rubs off easily on sharp edges. It will be my second coat (tomorrow), unless someone steers me towards a different route! I will look out for the other products everyone has suggested.

Miss Prism: as Mike suggests, the thinner and paint are from Phoenix Precision. Ian: I have some Holts acrylic primer, I will try this on some scrap brass. I like the idea of an OHP pen. On the bright side, I have stripped the model very easily.

Hi, I cleaned a brass model using a cellulose synthetic thinner PQ17, then brushed on one coat of a two-pack primer sold as PQ32 and PQ31. This was very thin, so I applied a second coat the next evening (about 24 hours later). The first coat curdled up wherever I touched it with the brush, I left it to 'cure' so I could rub it down. Now, four days later, I can remove the primer using a finger nail and water. What do I need to do to make this stuff work? I have never used it before. For info, I mixed up about 5 ml, using a 2.5ml spoon. Quite a small quantity, and the mix was probably not exactly 50:50. Temperature was about 17 deg C. Thanks, Richard.

I did not know about the Garratt but I have found a copy of the Hornby magazine for June 2012, which carries a six-page article. I have also listened to the painful explanations of a model shop owner who had to provide support to buyers of a class 17 model. The Garratt could provide a wonderful spectacle on larger exhibition layouts, and the marketing method using a single model shop seems a sensible approach in case there are returns from customers. It would allow fitting of DCC before sale too. And of course I am glad to hear of a well-running railbus.

The last few pages of this thread read like a catalogue of faults and I wish a few more people with satisfactory models could say how happy they are. From what I remember the manufacturer could not find room let the passengers have feet. This might be relevant if you want to look at the interior detail you add. I sold mine in an online auction in mid-April, it made just under £70 as a runner with damage. I will look at this manufacturer again if they tackle something a bit more challenging e.g. perhaps some outside valve gear.

One of the nice things about this sort of forum is the way it reveals the diversity of aspirations of different modellers of a particular product. Good engineering design, including design for manufacture and design for maintainability, is an art bounded by science and economics. A manufacturer can clearly choose to minimise the cost of their initial design effort, and spend relatively more on cheap Far-Eastern labour to assemble a relatively complex design, without making much difference to final retail price. Those different aspirations will make it hard for any manufacturer to please everyone. Nevertheless, a manufacturer may find it difficult to obtain repeat business from customers who paid for such design economies (revealed by a manufacturing error such as incorrect lubrication) with their first purchase.

I suggest there are three categories of faults: 1. Manufacturing problems, like grease jammed against a flywheel; 2. Design errors, like a model which cannot be taken apart and reassembled; 3. Faults occurring during fair use, like worn-out motor brushes; 4. Damage by the owner. Item 1 might be dealt with by a straight swap with the supplier after purchase. The others become irrelevant if the model is a throw-away item to be disposed of at the first hint of trouble. All impact on the useability of the model and the pleasure (or otherwise) of ownership. An unconnected red wire is sloppy but is not a fault, because it has no bearing on the useability of the model. I have my railbus back. It runs beautifully, but the scars left around the doors from re-assembly will need extremely careful work with a scalpel and selective weathering to hide. I do not relish lubricating the motor spindle end bearings, let alone changing the motor brushes ... I guess I will try to enjoy it until it fails.

Agree entirely - and, I suggest, the ability to take apart and put back together without damage is a requirement for every scale model (meaning something more than a toy) containing mechanical assemblies like motors and gear trains which will need servicing long after the guarantee has expired. Such a model should consist of a 'body', being pretty but fragile, and an 'innards' being robust but ugly. By all means make the body shell in as many pieces as needed to suit the injection-moulding machine - but please make it a complete sub-assembly. The sandwich-style mechanical design of the railbus is unsuitable for a serious model; and it would take little effort to design the model so the complete chassis able to be dropped out of the bottom of a complete body. When I get my chassis back together I will look for a way to do this for a one-off (possibly discarding the below-roof casting and most of the wiring), so I can get at the inside from time to time. If the model had a smaller, perhaps N-gauge size motor, there would be room to provide a chamber with an external access cover below the chassis for a DCC chip too. But reviewers tell you nothing of fundamental design failures, being content to write about the screw couplings and hoses and flush glazing evident from a simple inspection. [/rant]

Here is a photo of the motor and flywheels inside my railbus after cleaning. I stripped the model this far because the running was so lumpy. I found a blob of white grease in the gap between one flywheel and the chassis casting, while the end bearings on the motor axle were bone dry. The model seems to have been designed as a sealed unit, to be thrown away when it goes wrong with no regard for future serviceability. The mechanical design is inconsistent: vulnerable parts which need strength for longevity, like axle guards, are plastic mouldings held by tiny plastic dowels, while the buffers, which will never do anything, are metal and sprung. The model seems to have been built to have the power to haul a train, when what was needed was something which was fun to own, use and maintain. I will need to get professional help to get this model back together again and I suggest that if anyone has another model that runs badly, return it for repair or exchange without touching it further. These models are, after all, supposed to be 'ready to run'.

My current layout project is a narrow gauge line in 1:87 scale called 'Castell y Bwrdd', built on a hobby table from The Range. I have written a page of notes on the railway at http://www.castellybwrdd.co.uk and there is some discussion of it on the Layout Topics forum: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/52540-castell-y-bwrdd/ At the moment I am concentrating on building the layout ... the trains are for the future, and will probably start out as Roco and Liliput RTR. Regards, Richard.