Dominion

All of the A2/1 were in Black in LNER days with various Tenders as well.

 

509 Waverley which I am building 6 wheel GS Tender , 8 wheel Riveted tender as the A2's from 10/46

 

508 Duke of Rothesay had a 6 GS wheel Tender. 8 wheel riveted from 06/49

 

507 Highland Chieftain 6 GS wheel . ex A4 Streamlined Tender 12/45

 

510 Robert the Bruce 6 GS wheel tender . 8 wheel riveted 09/49

 

None were Green till 08/49

 

All originally had NE on Tenders. Between 03/46 3697(508)    06/46 510   10/46 509   05/47 507  all converted to LNER in full.

 

Three had Gold shaded lettering and numbers,  507 had Yellow Gill Sans as did 508 from 07/47 

Info RCTS Part 2a

 

 

 

 

Mine has had the Caratzzi finished  today inc body mounting holes and the Drawbar connector. I will post pictures tomorrow.

I put some photos on Graeme's LNER thread for the cartazzi arrangement, body fixing, and draw bar connection on my A2/1. Tom

Thanks Mick, I found the relevant section now, thank you.

It seems I can have either 60508 or 60509 in LNER green with British Railways on the tender if i interpret correctly (Sept 48 and August 48 respectively) .

But only 60508 if I want to run it with the 6 wheel tender.

Happy to report the rear wheels work fine with the modified A2 cartazzi arrangement under the V2 cab.  I am a bit surprised too because as you said thre is not much room under there !

Now I need to decide which A2/1 it will be and which apple green livery so I can decide which tender it will have.

Have you a  good source for the livery evolution for the 4 of them ? I am trying to figure out if British Railways is the only option for apple green or if any of them ran after black with LNER on the tender.

Graeme's method for the cartazzi wheels themselves may be better. I was mostly showing the cosmetics of shortening the back of the frame and moving the steps forwards for the A2/1. I am currently trying to modify the Bachmann A2 cartazzi arrangement to work under the cab.  I have removed a bunch of material from under the cab floor on the body and also from the top area of the chassis casting where the screw slides. I wont know if it is enough till I can test on the track. If not I will either break through the cab floor or try Graeme's method for the wheels

Please post some pictures. Have you seen Graeme's method?

 

http://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2443&start=3405

Hi Mick,

The first photo shows the single diagonal cut on each side and the repositioned steps, slid forwards. This method maintains all the original Bachmann A2 rear chassis structure.

Edit - the 2 diagonal cuts are visible to the left and the right of the rear mounting screws. (I wish I knew how to add the red lines Graeme and coach use on someof their photos.)

The second photo shows what they look like side on. It is almost the right length for the A2/1, perhaps 0.3mm too long.

But as I am using the Bachmann V2 body it will not be the only compromise. It shoudl work for your chassis under Graeme's V2 body too.

Mick, I am just doing my first GK conversion now, and it's an A2/1 as well. I know this is not your first one but I quite like the method I used on shortening the rear frames so I wanted to share it in case helpful.  

It keeps all the surface detail and lining, and also keeps the coupling boss arrangement too.

I put a diagonal cut (in plan view) from behind the steps angled out towards towards the flat featureless part of the frame just behind the springs. I deliberately used a thick cut using a hacksaw blade, and calculated the angle so that the removed triangular section with the steps could then be remounted slid forwards by about the right amount, because of the space made by the saw cut. The width of the saw cut was about .8 or .9 mm but because of the shallow angle the distance across the cut along the length of the cartazzi  was about 3.5 mm. I had to remove a little more by filing, and should have used a slightly more shallow angle to get a little more frame shortening, but it should work. I have not posted a picture before here, but if you are interested let me know and I will try to post one.

Hi Martin

 

I shall certainly follow the advice you have given about how to stop wheel wobble as my A4 woodcock has developed a nasty wobble and so has 1 of my A3s number 60049 Galtee Moore but I fear it is starting to happen on all my fleet.

 

Is the 0.002" shim made out of brass tube or a sheet of brass of that thickness.

0.002" is extremely thin. I was considering trying loctite before I read the idea here of a shim. I believe the original poster told me cigarette paper was an option for the shim material.

"Robert" to reduce the grade for a flyover I used a metal baseplate instead of wood, with the rigidity provided above the baseplate, not below, so the track runs in a channel. It might save you a few mm.

Tom

My comments are probably too late for most but they may help anyone who searches for this decoder part number and finds this forum entry [it is still on sale].  Apologies if this replicates info. elsewhere in these forums.

 

As noted by various parties and confirmed to me by Soundtraxx support, the decoder is an MC-1 in a 21pin package.  Accordingly the 'Soundtraxx badged' MC-1 technical guide applies in full to this product.

 

With respect to the comment about 'too basic' quoted above, I think Soundtraxx 'dropped the ball' on this aspect [that is the 'basic speed table' in CV6/5] by not including it.  The decoder is quite comprehensive in respect of speed tables since it supports 14 predefined ones plus the ability to 'code your own' in the standard speed table defined by CV64-94.

 

Accordingly you can achieve a Vhigh 'equivalence'in the following fashion:

 

1) Set CV29 to select 'Speed table enable' by setting the 'decimal 16 bit'.  That is, if it's 2 [no DC convert], set it to 18.

2) Set CV25 to 2 to indicate a predefined 'linear' speed table.  Obviously you can use a different number to select pre-defined 'curves' or a user table, but linear keeps it simple and akin to using CV6/5. 

3) For forward motion, set CV66 to a number n between 2 & 127, where n/128 gives the speed reduction ratio.  For example, using 64 will halve the speed curve's maxpoint [as if Vhigh was set to 128].

4) For reverse motion, set CV95 to a number n between 2 & 127, where n/128 gives the speed reduction ratio.  For example, using 64 will halve the speed curve's maxpoint [as if Vhigh was set to 128].

 

Julian

Thanks Julian,

I am still having a great deal of difficulty getting smooth running from a 36-557 in a Bachmann D11.

I have tried speed tables CV25 set for 2,10, and 11 int he preset speed curves.

I have turned down the forward and backward trim on 66 and 95

I have tried higher and lower values in BEMF on 209 and 210.

The factory reset values are quiet different from what the soundtrax MC1 manual says for those 2 incidentally.

The best running I get is with low values of CV10 which means the BEMF turns off at a low speed step. But  the portion BEMF is on at low speed is still lumpy.

And regardless of how high I set CVs2 and 3 for momentum changing direction on the run creates quite steep deceleration and acceleration, unlike on my otehr locos and chips.

I would love to know what combinations people are having success with.

Tom

A bit of side control springing on the bogie assisted both in coping with the bigger cylinders and in steadying the action of the loco on the track.......

Graeme, I would love to know how you set up the side control springing you mention above.

Can I have your record player if you're not using it? 

He is using it, it's protecting the furniture from his paints.

Very considerate I thought.

Ah, sorry I misunderstood, I had mistakenly thought you were talking about the TTS chip.  

When you say high frequency to low frequency is that referring to the CV150=0 or 1, or is it something else ?

would be easier to 'push out' the crank pins from other wheels and retrofit to railroad wheels. Assuming such pins will push out...

Or prise off wheels, and fit additional bearing...

Yes I think transferring the pins is easier than moving the wheels. I put the lined green wheels into a railroad D49 chassis. I think this was Micklner's idea I saw posted here but sorry if I am mis-remembering and not giving appropriate credit to someone else.

I used the lined wheels from Tornado rather than the Hornby A1/3s as that set has the extra bearing on the driven axle. I had to switch over the long crank pins in the wheels, but it was much easier than I thought and allowed me to leave the wheels, drive gear and 2 bearings all on the on the axle without disturbing them, without worrying about disturbing the quartering or the trueness of the wheels

. 

Simon, I think that means if you want lined green wheels for one of the railroad chassis blocks you could use the lined Tornado wheels and take advantage of the extra bearing on the drive axle.

Hi Keith,

            I am fairly sure that these CV are specific to this type of Hornby Decoder as I have never seen them on any other type either, so if you change the CV s that you mention it might do the trick as the ones that I have changed have certainly improved things no end and the loco runs much better, is the motor noisy on the model you have ?

 

Ken.

At-least 2 of my non-sound chip brands have 2 variables like the Hornby CV 151 and 152 for controlling back emf, they are just in different CV locations. The first one is normally labelled P and second one normally labeled with the letter I (not the number 1 as it looks in the Hornby notes). That is short for the P and I in Proportional Integral Control.  They are sometimes described as being like the spring strength and the damper strength on a physical suspension control system.  

I have used the revised Hornby settings of 255 and 1 for these 2 variables, and it did change the way the motor behaved. I would not say it made it better, I would say it made it less bad. My issue is definitely with this chip, as this loco and tender run very well with 2 other chips I have tried.

That was a fair description of myTTS. I made small plastic bushings for both ends of the draw bar so at least the percussion effect is mitigated.

I didn't have any polystyrene tube with the correct outside diameter, but I found a biro and cut 2 short spacers from the end of the ink tube, and drilled out the inside to just fit over the shoulder between the screw head and the screw thread. But it is only reducing one symptom of the underlying motor control issue.

Yes, on my TTS it was juddering very badly, on all the settings I tried.

The judder happens during acceleration an deceleration.

This P2 works well and smoothly with a non TTS chip in the tender.

Hornby gave me the same settings to try.

CV150=0

CV151=255

CV152=1

It is worth a try, and it is better than it was, but not good yet.

I hope to hear again from them tomorrow.

The open windows are great, but what really gets me is the roof which looks like it has been there for decades already.

Yes, I think you are correct. I have had a speaker in the past that sounded just like that and it turned out the black delicate face (I think called the cone) had a 1cm long crease in it.  Thats good news in a way, easier to replace than the chip !

Dominiom - was it you that Peters spares spoke to me of, a customer in Canada?  If so, they would like your feedback when the 5 pole is fitted.

 

The can itself is easy to open, just two weak looking tabs, but to pull it apart you will need to remove the worm and if that's as difficult as the flywheel to get off then it could be a problem.  I have a pinion puller for slot cars but their shafts are fatter.  The suggestion of dropping the can to weaken the magnets is worth a try though - a trick I'd forgotten all about, thanks.  Yes, it will weaken the torque of the motor but I'm not planning to pull a rake of more than 4/5 coaches on my layout and the new 'weaker' motor pulls 6 or more with ease.  BTW, I think Peter's spares sells spare P2 cans for around £7-8 +p&p with pinion/fly wheel attached so replacement costs are low when they wear out.  A 'King' motor was about £11 I think.

 

Today's mini project?  Having double checked the back to back on the P2 tender it still bobs around so I thin I'll try a little ballast!

Yes it was.

The x9108 is in the chassis now. Thanks for the early posters advice and sharing.

It was not a drop in fit for me. It was too long. It measured 0.1mm longer that the P2 motor which was already a tight fit in the chassis.

I first scraped the paint from the back of the can as I knew I could get a consistent thickness removed there, and it was easy. That was insufficient.

So like the earlier poster I then filed a little off the front housing of the motor. That was relatively easy too.

The loco runs nicely now.

The starting is smooth. The sound is different too. I think a little quieter and perhaps slightly lower pitch.

I am wondering if there may be a little tightness introduced somewhere from the sound, so I will remove a little more material and see if it perhaps alters the meshing of the worm and the top drive gear, or relieves some other introduced stress perhaps.

Incidentally when re-securing the metal block that carries the DDC socket and locks the front of the motor in place, there is a lot of potential lateral movement possible at the front, so just be careful to position it centrally when re-tightening the screw, (as well as not trapping the wires as referred to by an earlier poster.)

The down slide is that this motor does not have a flywheel, and one is conscious that the original did, so you think you notice its loss at extremely slow speed. 

So my current thinking is that the X9108 is a perfectly reasonable change to make, and I will leave the 5 pole in the chassis now that it's bought and paid for.

But I was also happy with the third P2 motor that worked, the loco starting smoothly, ran slowly very well, and performed well with great haulage capacity.

So if you are lucky enough to have a good original P2 3 pole motor and flywheel then I would leave it as is. (That is the situation with my second chassis)

If you have a 3 pole motor with an issue and someone offers you a replacement P2 motor for free, that is certainly worth a try and will probably be really good.

For Hornby, I don't think the decision to spec a 3 pole and flywheel was necessarily a bad one, as there are many examples of P2s out there that work very well. I would say the issue is variability and tolerance in the can, and that should be relatively easy to rectify at their motor supplier, and or for Hornby to test before fitting in the chassis. 

Hope this "journal entry" is helpful.

'Tis only an unsubstantiated theory, but drawing on experience with a very notchy Ringfield tender drive motor some years ago, I wonder if insufficient assembly consistency regarding the exact location of the pole pieces is causing the problems in these motors? Magnetic field intensity varies dramatically with distance from the magnet. If the pole pieces are marginally too close to the armature the motor will be very notchy. Unless anybody fancies pulling a can apart and fiddling with the assembly then there's not much that can be done. Deliberately dropping the motor on a hard surface a few times might weaken the magnets enough to get smoother starting but power would then suffer too. I had far more joy with the old Ringfield whose size and "open" construction allowed me to back the magnets away from the armature slightly giving much better running - well, er, better for a Ringfield anyway!

Yes, that is my hypothesis too. When turning the shaft by finger it is clearly only every second notch that is strong in a revolution of 6 notches and as I believe there are 2 magnets and 3 poles that suggests to me the location or strength of one of the magnets. I would guess location rather than strength. I can imagine for instance that a magnet not fully seated in or if they are glued, perhaps with too much glue behind it would end up a little too close to the pole creating a stronger magnetic pull. Guessing only as I have not opened the can ... which would not be full of worms, that is on the outside :-)

My sample size is up to 4 P2 motors now.

One chassis ran sweetly straight from the box.

The other chassis is now on its third P2 motor.

The first motor was notchy between the magnets as is described earlier in this thread by a few people (On DC, well run in, and on DCC with a  good chip and lots of programming and out of the chassis)

The second, a replacement from the retailer, started smoothly but was noisy, as described in my earlier post. I have since traced that to some form of vibration or resonance in the can on the flat side next to the terminals close to the plastic end end.  Slight pressure in the spot required stops the noise, but I have not figured out how to keep pressure on that spot, though i suspect that is possible. That has not become any quieter with running.

The third motor for this chassis arrived in Canada yesterday directly form Hornby. It starts fine and is less noisy, but it vibrates when out of the chassis significantly more than the others, and must be a little out of balance.  I may not have noticed if I had not been testing it for starting behavior and "notchyness".   It seems to run OK in the chassis though. If the chassis had come with this motor I would likely have been quite satisfied.

I would guess there must be some tolerance issues in one or more of the components in the motor that is leading to this variability. Even Gresley's designs were thought by their crews and sheds to differ in their steaming and running characteristics from apparently the same design so I will choose to view this as a bit of added modelling realism :-)  

However, I had already ordered the King motor as a spare and that just arrived so I am off to try that one.

Despite my motor issues I am still delighted with the model.  The one with issues ran well on the third attempt, and the other ran well from the beginning. I would have no qualms about buying another if it were a bigger class and there were an excuse to run them. Certainly if Hornby chooses to make variations of the class I would definitely buy them. I would also hope they fit a more consistent motor to those.

GK, risking the answer "enuff" how much we're you thinking the flywheel may need to be heated ?

I have a sample size of 5 current Hornby P2/Pacific 3 pole motors now;

- 2 originals in P2s, one replacement P2, and 2 more in an R3086 and a Tornado that have different flywheels and worms but look like the same cans.

3 of them are just fine, quiet and smooth

1 runs fine but is noisy.

1 is reluctant to start as it wants to sit between the magnet poles, but runs fine and slowly once it is moving and is not noisy.

All have been run in for at least an hour, and the symptoms are outside the chassis as well as when installed.

That is what I meant by variability between the motors.

I doubt I can fix either of the poor motors so suspect I will keep looking for one that is ok.

I had the same issue of the P2 running nicely after an initial start but that initial start needed too much voltage to get going.

This was true on DC or DCC. I had already run the loco in on DC before fitting a  chip. I eventually found a set of CVs on DCC that improved matters, but not sufficient for a nice slow start.

I disassembled the loco and traced it back to the motor itself, even outside the chassis. The magnets seemed quite strong or "notchy" turning the flywheel by finger, and so it took some oomph to get the motor to start turning. Watching videos of others P2s running without the problem made me think that there was a problem with my motor.  My retailer very obligingly got a replacement P2 motor for me X6644 and sent it to me in Canada, so you can tell their service was very fast. That motor turns by finger more easily between the magnets. Once installed it has cured the original problem, in that the loco now starts perfectly smoothly. (It always ran smoothly once it got going).

So one thing fixed.  However this motor is very noisy, much more noisy than the first motor.

So my current conclusion (forgive the pun) is that there is just production variability in those motors. 

I am not sure where I will go from here. Smooth starting and quiet would be the objective.

Overall I still can't believe my luck that Hornby produced a P2 and I am still very happy with it it overall. I would happily have paid a bit more for some upgrades, but I figure that their hope for volume from the railroad end of the market is the only way that I ever got to have a RTR P2.  I am quite happy with that.  The quest for a smooth quiet motor will continue however.