ChrisG

There's a message from Kernow in their Newsletter. Please stop phoning them unless it's to change card details!!! They're struggling to get O2s dispatched because they are spending so long on the phone dealing with customers asking about their orders. 

Chris  (waiting for 4 IOW  versions)

Not much to report as the latest offering is on the Watford and Districts Belmont thread.

 

I have today bought a set of common crossing and switch blade filing jigs, the common crossing jig is easy to understand, but do you file the head off first then the rear or start with the rear then the head. Will have to get one of the lads to down load the instructions

 

Also have been looking at what's available in the point roding and wire runs for signals. Picked up some wire and 2 different etched frets, also was given some printed stools from Modelu, they are excellent

Can I ask where you got the jigs? I am particularly interested in the switch blade filing jig.

Chris

The Bachmann 4-4-0s have a similar arrangement, as has the Beattie well tank.

That's interesting (as you can probably tell, I have little experience with modern R-t-R products). I am interested to know if these models are noted for their excellent performance. 

Thanks

Chris

It is possible that I have missed previous discussion on this particular topic, so my apologies if in fact it has been well-aired.... but no-one seems to be making very much of the fact that the O2's drivers are driven by a geared transmission. I had a couple of them (owned by a friend) trundling very sweetly around my layout, all as steady as a rock and ultra-responsive, straight out of the box. At this point I didn't know there was anything remarkable about the mechanism. Then I read that it was geared and the connecting rods were effectively cosmetic.  

Surely this is revolutionary for a UK steam outline model in OO? And it is surely the way that UK RTR OO needs to go?  

I have only had RTR locos on my IOW layout since suitable prototypes came to be available (a Bachmann E4 was the first, although I have had a Bachmann 08 shunter for some months now for testing newly built track). The 08 was my yardstick until now, and I have to say the O2, on first outing, has put it in the shade. Leaving aside any problems there may be with the weighting, I am very happy that the first IOW RTR loco in OO seems to be about the best that has ever been produced. 

Chris

To be fair, the Hornby Van Cs are not exactly free rolling, and my test train had one of those in the rake. The other items were the Parkside van I removed later, a CCT and two of Bachmann's new PMVs, plus the Bachmann BG. Overall a good test rake but probably not as free running a collection as , say, five or six free-running bogie coaches.

That sounds more encouraging, though I do build my rolling stock to be fairly stiff: a) so that it doesn't roll away on an incline and b)  because I think the trains move more realistically (though that could just be rubbish!). I was staggered by how free-running the new Bachmann PMVs are, and how hilly my layout was revealed to be!

I have just tinkered a little more with my O2, concentrating on weight distribution. Incidentally, what I thought were springs on the rear bogie were, in fact, the electrical pickups.

 

I decided to add spacer for the bogie pivot, using a section of brass handrail wire. This gives a small amount of springiness, and if wound tightly around the chassis pivot, won't be in danger of shorting out the pickups on both sides. I experimented with a double wound spacer but that lifted too much weight off the rear driver, so a single circlet of brass is proving sufficient.

 

At the other end, I added a small rectangular section of lead, wrapped in insulation tape and glued lightly to the bottom of the smokebox interior.

 

Finally, I cleaned the wheels to ensure that any dirt built up from the imbalance was eliminated.

 

I reduced the parcels train by one van (a Parkside kit) and sent it around. There was a small amount of wheel slip in both forwards and reverse orientations, so I seem to have cured the problem at the expense of slightly reduced hauling power in reverse, but stronger performance facing forwards.

 

It will certainly now cope with two or three free-rolling coaches.

"Coping with two or three free-rolling coaches" after additional weight being added is not great to hear when you are an IOW modeller and you expect one to be able to haul 6 coaches loaded with holiday makers at speeds of up to 60mph.  I had three of the mainland versions running very happily and sweetly around my layout earlier in the week, though we didn't hang any rolling stock off the back so I can't comment on my experience of the haulage capacity.

Chris

Regarding No. 24 Calborne, Kernow's website reports:-

"New release - currently on board "CMA CGM LA SCALA" due into Southampton around 1st November 2015."

I thought I would indulge in the wonderful new hobby of on-line ship spotting, and as of today (1st November) it seems to be approaching Halifax, Nova Scotia....  i.e. a long way from Southampton!

Chris

I am not intending to add sound and using a plug in chip makes maintenance easier. My kit built E1 has suddenly developed a dead short - I can see nothing which has caused it and therefore suspect the chip. Which is hard wired so means a soldering job...

chris

Having been one of the first on this forum to criticise the Bachmann E4 for poor running I thought I had better chime in again now with greater experience and with what I hope are the solutions to the problems. The pictures show how I have shoe-horned in a DCC Concepts chip with a "stay alive" capacitor. It took direct correspondence with DCC Concepts to discover that for the "Stay Alive" to do its job rather than to cause the loco to jump around like a startled rabbit, you have to turn off the DC running capability in CV29 (it's a pity the instructions don't seem to mention that, and it mystified me for quite a while).

Fitting the "stay alive" meant removing the two capacitors, but DCC Concepts says they are completely unecessary, and I needed the space!  This saved making any modifications to or holes in the body of the loco. 

The additional pickups on the outer axles have reduced the problems with current collection. In hindsight I would have done better to put pick ups on the centre axle, because I am now pretty sure that it is the lack of up and down movement in that axle, plus the inherent unreliability of the pick-ups  which causes the problem when, on uneven track, the loco ends up balancing on the middle axle. By making this modification I have forgone the brake rodding, but I am perfectly happy as reliable operation is my goal. It was an easy modification. PCB was araldited on the bottom., left to set for 24 hours. .45mm brass wire bent to shape and soldered in place, with the connection to the motor via the brass studs on the Bachmann pick up strip. No need to dismantle anything at all.

On my track, the trailing radial axle does derail, particularly when running in reverse. I'm happy to accept some of the blame lies in my handbuilt pointwork, but watching it closely with a critical eye as it runs  it does look fundamentally poorly engineered. 

I also have general observations about the level of detail on the model (bearing in mind I am a newbie to R-T-R, having previously built my own locomotives). The detail is exceptional but the durability is extremely poor. Details which would be solidly soldered onto a brass or whitemetal kit are soft plastic items which are just clipped on and just as easily fall off. It seems to be a model to be displayed in glass cases and not to be handled or allowed to romp around a layout. Even the chimney is a clip on addition, and yes, I managed to knock it off! 

You'll never make everyone happy all the time but I would happily forego some of the detail for the sake of a sprung middle axle and better pick-ups. 

That said, now it is running reasonably well as a result of these modifications, it is a very nice-looking model and a good addition to my loco stud.

Chris Gardner

As I will no longer be posting progress on Wencombe on the old forum I thought I'd better start a new thread here.

As an introduction to the layout I will give a brief rational.

I have imagined that a proposed line from roughly Churston on the Kingswear Branch across the R. Dart to Kingsbridge was built, with a junction at Wencombe for Slapton.

The track plan was based on C. Freezer's plan Yarlington junc.

 

AMD layout plan.jpg

 

and the route

 

Route map.jpg

 

I've attached some of my better pix

 

Hall2.jpg

 

Signal wait.jpg

I love this layout - keep posting please!

Chris

Often too loose in some respects, (lateral, longitudinal) too rigid in the vertical plane.

 

Straight up, OO RTR is compromised by the need to negotiate tiny radius curves in set track systems that still dominate the customer base for the product.

 

I wouldn't claim for a moment that RTR steam mechanisms match what can readily be achieved with a hand built mechanism, especially when constructed to tolerances for a more generous minimum radius requirement. But once this is recognised it is usually possible to take the cheap RTR mechanism and with some small modification - and often limiting lateral freedom and introducing a little more vertical freedom is all it takes - to get a very satisfactory running result. I am in for 'the least sweat to get to this point' methodology, because for me a model railway is for operating above any other consideration.

 

The centre motor twin bogie mechanisms: these will typically run as well as anything hand built. Relatively little simple adjustment is required to deliver the last ounce from these. Beating this would be both expensive and demanding in my opinion.

All good points, and well made. I must admit in my ponderings over the E4 I failed to notice the fundamental difference with the 08, which is of course the vertical movement (sprung) of the middle axle. If that has had to be sacrificed on the alter of low prices, in my view that is a shame, because, like a fellow commentator, operation is the name of the game for me. I suppose every element adds cost to the model but it doesn't strike me that a small metal disc with a peg and a spring should make THAT much difference, and I would definitely value it more highly than some of the fine detail which makes the model look perfect on the outside.  Bogie diesel/electric locos are of course an entirely different kettle of fish....

Thanks 34C and Chris G for taking the trouble to give me help with my E4 problem. Once I have finished the domestic chores I've been allotted (decorating and putting a sound system into the conservatory) I shall set about the E4s. Getting the running gear 'looser' sounds good and I will have a go at that first. 

Interesting that others have had problems with E4s  as well.

Thanks guys.

Part of the problem is surely that the mechanism is already too loose? The amount of sideplay on all the axles contributes to the loss of pick-up and the slop on the connecting rods causes a strange "surging" movement from the loco when running above a certain speed.

Chris

I'll admit to not having much experience of Bachmann (until recently all my locos have been handbuilt kits), but that which I have had has been bad, at least from an operating perspective. They look lovely as they come out of the box, but the detail is fragile, and the steps to go through to get to any kind of maintenance (such as cleaning the pickups) are fraught with difficulty. My 08 shunter for example required removal of sand boxes, which appeared to be glued in place - with the result that the mountings were broken in the act of removal.

Engineering for performance in my book includes the need to make routine maintenance easy.  My experience has been on small steam and diesel shunter prototypes and I am happy to accept that the diesels and bigger steam locos are a difficult kettle of fish. But I stand by my statement about the E4, that it's pickups are inadequately engineered. I had two examples before throwing my warranty out of the window and deciding to build my own pickups. I have done the same with my 08 shunter. 

Meanwhile the kitbuilt locos are fully detailed but completely robust, perform like a dream and have easy access to the mechanism for maintenance.

Chris

Generally i would say the reverse, and somewhat emphatically. Their introduction to the UK market of the centre motor flywheel drive to both bogies first seen circa 1991 in their 'Peak' and standard on all their twin bogie locos is a simple and robust performer that just goes on forever; and take a look at the excellent drives in the WD 2-8-0 and 9F, both the best things available in OO steam mechanisms at time of launch, and still as good as any competitor offers. Good features like sprung driven axles, compact, concealed and reliable wiper pick ups, soldered wire connections between wipers and motor, long lived motors in sturdy mounts, low wear drive trains.

 

There has emerged a tendency to 'fiddle' with some of these proven features. Dropping simple wheelback wipers and fitting split axle collection on some recent twin bogie types, the elimination of a sprung driven axle on the more recent steam model introductions, clip on rather than all soldered connections. There's likely justification in 'cost containment' figuring in this: personally I would pay the relatively small extra to retain the 'right stuff'.

 

I have posted this before and will doubtless again: they are following the market's desires. A flaw in appearance - see the moodlified Hall - creates howls of protest - but the loss of really good features from their steam mechanisms - such as a sprung driven axle - not a whisper. This is 'the UK customer' in action; it would appear most value appearance far and away over any aspect of mechanical performance.

My Bachmann E4 arrived as a poor runner. It was in fact the second, the first having been returned from whence it came for being completely non-running, even when power was applied to the pick ups. I asked the retailer for a repair but received a replacement, which exhibited the same problem. As I gather is usual with Bachmann, the pickups were not making contact with all the wheels at all times, especially when the wheels were moved from side to side.

However, more seriously, what appears to be a generic fault is as follows:-

The strip of plastic insulation on the r.h. side busbar interferes with the conductivity of the rivets which secure the pick ups to the bus bar. My second E4 was in fact running on 3 pickups on one side and only one on the other!  I ripped out the insulation, soldered the rivets to the bus bar and I now have a perfectly-running loco. I reinsulated with thin narrow masking tape over the bus bar. 

p.s. if you are removing the pick up strip, the sand box pipes are a b nuisance, as are the guard irons at either end of the loco. 

Am I right that Bachmann engineer their products for appearance rather than performance?

All that said - it is now running nicely on DCC and handles all my challenging track work including small radius curves.

Chris

Hi Chris,

 

I saw this product through Hattons in Liverpool and although it may well work I would need to re-mortgage the house to afford it. I think its about £20 for half a metre, I had about 15 metres to travel up hill at both ends and on top of that I would have to add magnets to all the loco's, not for me I'm afraid. I have solved the problem now so once again thanks for the timely advice.

 

As it stands the R/H 'ellipse' (not a 'spiral' any longer) is now at the desired level and awaiting the special joint board for it to meet the layout level which I will do tomorrow. Talking of mortgages I need one for this option also as it now takes 65 yards of Peco to get from A-B and that is at both ends! That is for both up and down routes.

 

I was hoping to complete one end this weekend to post a few pic's but will definitely do so when the joining board is in place so you can see the whole job.

 

I am really grateful to Chris for his timely advice, I shudder to think what would have happened had I carried on only to find this problem at the bitter end.

Mike - it seems to be around £25 for 5 metres worth and several magnets - an extension pack of 5 metres with fewer magnets is £15.  In other words a fraction of what you quoted above.

Chris

Hi all,

 

SUCCESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!  - well partial success anyway. My friend John and I have raised the new spiral to the third level and I can get a 9 coach train up the gradient with the Clan that would only pull six previously. The Black 5 and K3 both managed six and a selection of diesels have shown no problems as yet.

 

I think that following a little overdue maintenance on the coach axles and perhaps a bit of weight in some loco's we should be satisfied with the outcome. I'll post afew pic's over the weekend but as things stand I'm a happy man - ish!

Hi Mike,

I was at the Farnham show this weekend and met the guys from Elite Baseboards who showed me a product called "Power Base" made by DCC Concepts in Australia, and imported here by Elite Baseboards. It is made up of metal bases which fit under the track and magnets which are fitted under the locos and give a significant increase in pulling power.   Once again, I am merely a satisfied customer of Elite, and have not actually used the Power Base product myself. They did show me the evidence on video, though.

Chris

I'm going through the same process on my layout right now, and I have become convinced that conducting proper tests is NOT a waste of time. More an investment. It is difficult to put effort into setting something up that will be undone, but in the long run, it's the road to a successful layout. When I first commented, for some reason I didn't see the photos of the Helix - it certainly looks good (like the rest of the layout which looks magnificent) and I hope you can silence the doubters! 

 

I shall follow with interest and fingers crossed!

 

Chris

Oh dear, I seem to be exceptionally good at failing to see what has already been written...........:-(  And as I now see, you carried out the test and weren't happy with the results. What prompted my original comment was a friend who had a loft layout (now dismantled) with a short radius helix, who put me off the idea for my layout currently under construction. In fact the planning process for my layout was a long drawn out affair and what started as a grand plan with 4 stations, hidden loops and a helix is now two stations and no helix.....  But a much better chance of a) being "finished" one day and b) running reasonably well.

Chris

Time will tell Chris!

 

I am now tempted to bodge something together just to give it a test. Trouble is I detest doing something which I know I will inevitably undo as it seems a total waste of precious time but logically it seems worth it at this point now that a few doubts are niggling me.

I'm going through the same process on my layout right now, and I have become convinced that conducting proper tests is NOT a waste of time. More an investment. It is difficult to put effort into setting something up that will be undone, but in the long run, it's the road to a successful layout. When I first commented, for some reason I didn't see the photos of the Helix - it certainly looks good (like the rest of the layout which looks magnificent) and I hope you can silence the doubters! 

I shall follow with interest and fingers crossed!

Chris

This is a bit late in the day and things may have moved on a lot, but I found this post just now and wanted to flash warning lights at the thought of a 2ft radius helix in Finescale.

I don't know if being Finescale makes it better or worse (I suspect worse), but that's a tight radius which will impose a severe gradient (I'm too demse to work out the maths)  and I am doubtful that any loco would be able to haul trains of the length you seem to be contemplating up such a gradient with the resistance caused by the curve......

Chris