orford

Thanks for the wire length info, guys. Confirms my own thoughts on the matter. Appreciated.

Just coming back on this topic for a moment, here's a question for those who already use juicers: Two wires to the track power and one to the frog....Does anyone know if the length of these wires makes any significant or detectable difference? Particularly the wire to the frog. I have a situation where it would be useful to mount the juicers on the baseboard surface hidden under a nearby building....ie run the wire from the frog under the baseboard and then up under the building in question. Power wires from the juicer down through the same hole and to the power bus......but the building in question is about 18 inches from the point/frog in question. Or should they be kept as shorty as possible (ie mount the juicer pretty much directly under the turnout in question?) My own tests suggest there is little discernible difference but I was just wondering if anyone else has any experience of wire length in relation to these gadgets?

To be honest, I did hand build two turnouts for this layout, both dual gauge (32mm/16.5mm) but I wanted to try the new Peco Setrack turnouts, ostensibly to save time (which they did, despite the hassle) and just to see how they performed. Here are the two which I scratch built, prior to ballasting, detail painting, etc. The first takes the standard gauge off to the right whilst both gauges continue straight on, whilst the second allows the narrow gauge to leave the dual gauge track. No moving parts in this one! Don't think Peco have gotten around to dual gauge yet!

Got my O Gauge Setrack points today and given the cost, have to say I'm less than happy with Peco's quality control. One was delivered minus both the spring and the cover plate (yes I checked very carefully in the bag), which in itself isn't a problem as I remove the springs anyway. But it's bad form on Peco's part. Then, whilst my 0-6-0 Ixion Hudswell Clarke ran through them without problems, both the Minerva Peckett and the Walsworth Models Sentinel (both 4-coupled) stalled on the dead frog every time, small though that is. Again, not a problem as such since I fully intended to power up the frogs in any case. However, this is where the second bit of Peco's quality control came into play...both of the frog 'wires' provided for this purpose fell off and they are the very devil to solder back on as there is only one tiny attachment point right up inside the hollow sleeper. If they should ever part again once they have been laid, ballasted, etc., then you're completely scuppered. Next, one of the frog check rails was found to be sitting a little proud on one of the points, causing locos to 'climb' over it and this had to be very carefully filed down to correct. Finally, the moving blades rely on blade contact with the stock rail and rail joiners to the adjacent rails for power conductivity and given that these points are supposedly designed for DCC, this is really not good enough. For the price, the blades should really be bonded to the adjacent rails or to the stock rails. This has now also been done. Overall, they look nice on an industrial layout and with the modifications I have done, now perform well. But (and I hope I'm not being too harsh on Peco here), as they came out of the boxes, I have to say they left much to be desired.

Hornby sell a little tool specifically for removing these plugs. It's simple, it works - and I wouldn't be without one.

Oh- How I wish I'd been there to witness that !!

Hi, pctrainman, Yes - it is possible...........just. But you will need darned good eyes to be able to read it. I just had a go at this on my PC using a font of Arial 3pt, which is about as clear as you will get in such a tiny size - The finished writing measures 4.63mm wide and the depth is less than that, so it would fit on your 5mm x 5mm board OK. Through a magnifying glass it reads perfectly clearly. No problem at all. I can actually read it without the magnifying glass in good sunlight. The format is like this: THE END IS NIGH If you don't have a printer yourself, personal message me with your address and what colours you want (black on white background would be best in such a small size) and I will print some off and mail them to you, no charge. Any other writing you might need can be easily added, for other signs, etc. Regards Don Mason

Good grief ............. I wouldn't DREAM of using these to actually spray models. I too always use a good quality airbrush. I do however use them for giving newly laid trackwork an overall base colour prior to detail painting and for scenic work. And that is where I get problems. Once another few yards of track are down I reach again for the can and there it is, all blocked up solid.

Anyone use Railmatch spray cans? Anyone know how to stop the nozzles clogging up after every session? I must have chucked away dozens of 90%-full cans over the years because no matter how long I invert/blow the air out after first use they always seem to be gummed up completely solid whenever I go back to use them a second time. I know that spare nozzles are available for them - but that's hardly the point. Anyone got a good method for keeping these things clear so that they can be re-used at least once or twice? I never seem to have this problem with (for example) Halfords rattle cans - or Humbrol ones for that matter...but Railmatch cans seem to clog up every time. I am just about to chuck another can with at least 75% of the paint still in it...and they're by no means cheap. Or am I just doing it wrong? Thanks for any help on this.

Someone gave me these for Christmas last year. Have no idea where they came from (possibly Squires, knowing the person who gave them as I do). But they are superb.

Ah-Hah. Gotta love that, Olddudders. I cheat all the time. I have a washing machine which is completely automatic, a car which doesn't have to be crank-started or double-de-clutched, and a home heating system which doesn't actually need any coal at all. Loads of other stuff too, which all cost way more than the alternatives. So although I've been at this modelling lark for some 45 years or more, embracing modern technology on my model railway just sort of comes naturally. I don't have enough years left to still make track from pipe cleaners and matchsticks and get it to work. Beat me with sackcloth and ashes. I don't care! I'm doooomed! Now, where's my pen? I need to write a strong letter to The Times protesting against these new-fangled and expensive computers!

Ah but then you have to have a means of actually throwing, or 'switching' them, whenever you change the direction of the point, or link them in some way to your point switching mechanism, as mentioned above - whereas frog juicers are completely automatic.The micro-switch also has to be hidden somewhere, not easy on an industrial layout and right at the front of the baseboard where 'scenery' in the accepted sense is non-existent. Frog juicers can go underneath the baseboard. Also, unsure why so many on here suddenly keep emphasising the 'cheaper' option. That is not a consideration. I want the best or most appropriate option for the rather peculiar circumstances of this layout, as clearly detailed earlier in the thread. The cost is completely irrelevant. Having said all that, if people were to read the whole of this thread, rather than just jumping in on page 2, you would realise that my initial question and the question which started all of this off was how to switch the frog polarity automatically, on a single, specific dual-gauge point WHICH HAS NO MOVING PARTS AT ALL (photo on Post 1). So no moving blades, no turnout motor of any kind, no pull-rod of any kind and nothing of any kind to link any micro-switch to anyway. That is why I asked about frog juicers. Whilst this has certainly been an interesting discussion (and nothing whatsoever wrong with any of the views expressed, which are all entirely valid), we have in fact got wildly off the original topic/question. We are now on Post 41 and everything from Post 7 onwards has actually been irrelevant to the question I originally asked, which was in fact, quickly answered. For the record (and with thanks to those who answered my original question in Posts 2-6), my frog juicers have now arrived and do the job absolutely perfectly.

I was talking about two different layouts Butler. My OO layout uses Cobalts and uses their switches. There is indeed no need for juicers with those. My O gauge layout is using frog juicers with hand thrown turnouts, because there is a steel beam running directly under two of the turnouts, meaning Cobalts cannot be used.

Indeed, Mallard - it's easy to forget that fact. I'm lucky in that I am now retired and able to indulge in my hobby to a certain extent now that the mortgage, car, etc., are paid for. But believe me, there have been many, many times over the years when I too struggled to find the price of a yard of 'streamline', or even an urgently needed packet of rail joiners, so yes - it's very easy to forget that. It is probably true that a degree of penury can actually help in developing modelling skills as it can focus the mind on the need to do it yourself, rather than just popping to the local model shop. I've done that many times too and never regretted any of it. But your comment was a timely reminder and I apologise if I offended anyone. I did not intend it that way.

Hardly expensive, Mallard. At least, not when you consider that my 'OO' layout uses Cobalt turnout motors and has over 30 of them at around 20 quid a piece! As it happens, the 'O' gauge layout has only four turnouts but the underside of the baseboard is inaccessible for two of those, as there is a long metal beam running all along it's full length under the front edge to support the O gauge layout over the top of the OO one without having to have any intermediate supports. Directly behind that and also underneath the O gauge baseboard, is the lighting beam for the OO layout below, further taking up room. So the juicers are essential in this case as fitting Cobalts (or anything else) directly underneath the turnouts would be impossible.....this was the specific reason for my original question.

Thanks guys. That's pretty much confirmed my own thoughts. Gaugemaster frog juicer duly ordered. Less than a fiver from Coastal DCC.

Hello all, My latest project features some dual gauge track - O Gauge (32mm) with 7mm Narrow Gauge (O-16.5). The turnout shown below splits the narrow gauge and the standard gauge at the end of the 'dual' track run and works perfectly. It has now been fitted with 'cosmetic' chairs, to greatly improve the appearance. However, it has no moving parts, so no need for a turnout motor or motor/switch. Power is 'DCC'. I am thinking that the use of a single 'frog juicer' would be perfect for reversing the frog polarity on this turnout but never having used these before I was just wondering if anyone can confirm that this would be appropriate? Obviously the frog is completely isolated from the remaining rails in the normal manner. Comments would be appreciated. Thanks.

Whoa. This one could go on for ages and become quite contentious. The point here is that we are all model railway ENTHUSIASTS, regardless of any particular individual's skill and abilities in terms of actual model making. There are those who can create the most exqisite models from scratch using the finest metals and materials, those who are adept at modifying, improving, altering or detailing ready-to-run models and those who are simply content to buy out of the box and get great pleasure from just running or admiring those models as they are. All contribute to the hobby in their own way. Not everyone has the same level of skill and experience. I count myself as a reasonably competant model maker in many areas and receive many plaudits from around the world for many of my efforts (probably quite undeserved) - but the skills, tools and experience which enables me to build models to the standard which I do, took me some 45 years to aquire. The level I have reached did not come overnight by any means. Even so, I am still nowhere even remotely near the standard of many, many fine modelmakers around the world...and never will be - for instance I never have had the ability to scratch build a locomotive chassis which actually works and I still struggle greatly with any kind of brass kit, which others find completely straightforward.The point being, everyone is different. What one finds easy, another finds hard. But they are all railway modellers in their own way. When I was chairman of The 7mm Narrow Gauge Association, which I founded back in 1979, we had a member (sadly no longer with us) who was very probably the worst railway model builder on the planet. He produced narrow gauge model trains by the dozen from what was essentially scrap - bits of card from cornflake boxes, lollipop sticks, string and whatever else came to hand. The resultant models were truly diabolical, devoid of paint, mis-shapen, out of scale, of inconsistent scale. bearing no relation whatsoever to any known prototype and so on. They were truly horrific. He was as a result, the butt of many jokes from other modellers both within and outside of the Association. However, the guy had a lifelong mental disability, no fault of his own, he was born with it. He lived in a mental hospital in the midlands for most of his life. But to him, those models were perfect and he didn't hesitate to enter them for Association competitions ot to put them on public display. More than once as Chairman of the Association, I was taken to task over it... "Why do you allow that?", etc. But I always had a lot of time for that person because he tried. And he produced 'models' to the best of his own very limited ability. And he got great pleasure from thereby being part of the railway modelling community. One year, I awarded him a cup for 'best effort' or something of that sort, I forget now the precise details. But it made his life. I tell this story because he was just as much a railway modeller as the guy scratch building an LNER Garratt from brass in 'N' gauge! So let's not argue or debate about what constitutes a 'modeller'. Life's far too short. Just enjoy your hobby at whatever level you choose.

The biggest problem is actually coupling two or three locos together 'on-scene' with DC unless you have several loco length switched isolating tracks in the appropriate place so that you can park one loco on the front of a train whilst running the other up to it, before moving off ........and it probably works best if you do this 'off-scene. This is just one of the things which is so much easier to do with DCC, although I fully appreciate that DCC is not for everyone. Personally I would absolutely hate to go back to the 'dark ages' of DC now.

Deleted.

Personally I would use small BA countersunk screws and just tap out the receiving model accordingly. Admittedly this is mainly because in my own case I have a supply of most sizes already to hand - but the point is that you will get a much better connection than you will by using self-tappers and it doesn't take any longer to do. Also BA screws are probably available at your local model shop (or at least, they should be if the shop's any good) and freely available from any one of a score of different outlets on the internet. BA taps can be bought at any model tool supplyer, such as Squires.

Bear in mind that with Kadee couplers, whilst NEM pockets are certainly useful they are by no means essential. I have been using Kadees exclusively for well over 30 years and with the vast range of different types, configurations and mountings available from Kadee (as opposed to the 'few' types typically stocked by UK model shops), almost any British model loco can be fitted with Kadees regardless of whether it has NEM pockets or not, although the degree of difficulty of fitting does vary from 'ridiculously easy' to 'absolutely dastardly'. In fact I generally prefer to use non-NEM types on locos wherever possible as the NEM type Kadees operate slightly differently to the non-NEM type and are also slightly more bulky in terms of visual appearance. They don't 'swing' in quite the same way as the original non-NEM types and in some situations this can have a detrimental effect on delayed uncoupling in particular. For sure, go with NEM pockets if the loco has them but I just mention this as it is not necessarily a prerequisite when chosing your loco. Good slow running is a far more important consideration.

Cheesy - It's in RCTS Locomotives of the LNER, Volume 9A. I have a copy which I no longer need. If you message me with your snail mail address I'll pop it in the post for you, no charge.........or message me on Face Book. - Don Mason

Sorry but I had to laugh. Are you seriously telling me that there are railway modellers out there who do not keep several pairs of old trousers specifically to wear whilst modelling? It's a dirty hobby. Here's one of my better pairs. Hope you manage to get them clean though. LOL

Hobbycraft sell very good pin vices with large thumb-swivel heads already fitted. I have several and find them very good. They also come with 4 different size collets as standard.