thegreenhowards

Tony, I agree with the problems with heavy kit built stock - as we discovered with my Aberdonian rake! However, tension locks are pretty reliable on fairly long rakes of RTR coaches. 12 seems fine on my layout, and the closer coupling they allow while still negotiating tighter than prototypical curves is useful. Andy

Very well put Mick, Tension locks are horrible, but they do work, and no other system is perfect for British outline. Tony’s method works very well for fixed formations, and I’m gradually converting my fixed rakes over - particularly those with kit built coaches in them. However tension locks are almost invisible in the middle of a rake of coaches especially when gangway connectors are fitted. To me, a see through gap between coaches is a far greater ‘crime’ than a relatively discreet coupling. So I would campaign first for corridor connectors and then worry about the couplings. On goods, it’s more of an issue, and I’m slowly trying to convert my fixed formations goods trains over to 3/screw link. However, this causes a problem whenever I want to take them to the club as it takes forever to recouple a train. My compromise for the time being is to permantly couple four wheel wagons in groups of three or four (to fit in my carry box) with tension locks in between. Does anyone have a better idea? Locos, being generally the prime focus of attention, are worth extra effort. Obviously the coupling should come off the front unless it’s needed, although for me they tend to stay on the back where it’s less visible. For tank locos which need to run round their train or shunt, I tend to go for the ‘TW’ goalpost working with tension locks on the ends of the coach or goods rakes as the best compromise. The person who invents an automatic screw coupling for 4mm might get quite rich!! Regards Andy

Why is it unfair,? You said yourself that Tony had to fix it. Andrew, That’s a reasonable point, but, as Tony says, I don’t think there was much wrong with it. Just a bit of bent valve gear which can happen to any loco. Andy

I think that’s unfair on the Heljan O2. I bought mine from Tony as a seconds return which he had fixed. It has run for two years on my 45 wagon coal train with no problems and no bits have fallen off. I appreciate that one swallow doesn’t make a summer, but I think it’s pretty good (apart from the chimney which definitely needs replacing).

This one works for me Gilbert. The earlier really bright one with clouds detracts from the subject matter which we wouldn't want.

Tony, If you'd asked me this 2 years ago it would have been a resounding YES. However, now that I have one of each A2 variant, with a Graeme King A2/3 still to build, I'm not so sure. Selfishly I rather like the exclusivity of having the kit built versions, even if I only built one (largely) myself. I think Bachmann (or whoever) should be encouraged, so I'm sure I'd have one, and £200 is cheap compared to the price of a DJH kit, even if you build it yourself. In practice, I would do what I always do with new releases and wait a few months until the price had dropped a bit. Now if you asked me about an A1/1, then it would still be a resounding yes! Regards Andy

I believe that Stay alive is a DCC product. It may be possible to do something similar for DC, but I've never seen it discussed.

I've fitted a lot of these stayalives. You are correct in connecting blue to blue and black to black. I've never had the buzzing sound. I would say that the stayalives are pretty useless if they're the same as the ones I fitted a couple of years ago. The energy stored is insufficient to get the loco over an insulfrog point. DCC concepts have introduced a higher capacity capacitor, but I haven't made that work successfully as yet (still trying).

Ray, There is quite a lot of confusion about stayalive on DCC. It ought to be a big selling point, but I think is rather underdeveloped, expensive and not well marketed. It can work very well to help short wheelbase locos over short interruptions in power from, for example, insulfrog points. It also works well with sound fitted locos where even a very minor stutter which you wouldn’t notice without sound is very annoying. I have tried several different versions. From my experience, the TCS version works very well, but is so bulky that you need a big loco to fit it in. Mine sits in a Hornby N2 which I use as station pilot and used to stall regularly. It can now run for over a yard with no power! Far more than is necessary but quite impressive to watch.i have tried the DCC Concepts stayalives. They are useless in my experience and make no discernible difference.I would be delighted to be proved wrong as these would be good value if they worked. I have also tried the you choos super caps (http://www.youchoos.co.uk/QuickHelps/pics/SuperCap68.jpg). These work very well Combined with Zimo sound chips to give very smooth operation. I haven’t yet tried them on non sound locos. Stayalive shouldn’t be seen as a substitute for good pick ups and track (as I’m sure Sir would remind us), but for locos where no more pick ups are practical and smooth slow speed running over unavoidable short interruptions in power is essential, then I think it has a place, and can really enhance DCC’s ability to allow super slow speed control. Hope this is useful. Andy

You’re so right Tim. Every system has its strengths and weaknesses, and it’s so easy to post rationalise one’s choice by selectively remembering all the strengths and none of the weaknesses. I know I’m guilty even when I try not to do so. Protocab sounds like a great solution to me apart from the price and maybe the battery issues. I hope it survives long enough to iron those out. If it does, it could become the default system in time. Andy

I agree completely. You can, or course, have increases greater than 100% - whether that be wires or prices. However, there are many instances where you can’t have more than 100%. My particular bugbear is ‘we gave 110% effort today’ or similar. That has me shouting at the telly!

Gilbert, We'd all miss our daily PN fix, but I'd quite understand if it's becoming a drag. Why don't you spend more time running trains as St Enodoc said, but give us some occasional highlights - maybe a weekly post? Regards Andy

Love the five set Gilbert. Very GN.

Tony, You are, of course, annoyingly right! Although, I would say that a knocking engine is much more noticeable. While I can see the difference in the bogie wheels when you post them together in close up, as above, they're not that noticeable when bowling round on the layout - at least to my untutored eye. IMHO there are much bigger and easier 'wins' in terms of improving my rolling stock. Perfect track is a holy grail to which I aspire, but realistically I will never get mine as good as yours; I doubt many people get to your standards of reliability - cue howls of indignation! I've not given up on getting my track right...it's just an extremely frustrating and time consuming job which I can only do in small doses. Of course, I should have laid it better in the first place, but this whole layout has been a learning curve - my first layout for 30 years. Andy

Tony, I’m sure you’re right about the track. It’s mainly in one or two particular spots that the loco derails, and the track there is not perfect. I meant to say that in my original post. However, original Hornby wheels go over the track fine, and given all the other imperfections in my layout and stock, resolving this is not going to get to the top of my list very soon. I also have to consider running my locos at my club where the track is even worse - old style streamline frogs are the main culprit. You could say, get a better club, but there are other considerations! Andy

That’s a good idea. Now I need to convert that thinking to non corridor stock (Kirk quad arts, Hornby Thompsons and Bachmann non corridor Mark 1s), which is the only type which terminates on my current layout. Could be difficult!

In my opinion, for terminating stations, it’s far better to have a lamp on both ends of a rake of coaches than to have no lamp at all. The front lamp is largely hidden by the loco until the loco runs round, at which point it’s needed. I wouldn’t advocate the hand of god moving the lamp from one end to the other - too fiddly for my clumsy fingers! Does anyone have a better solution? Andy

Mick, I’ve had the same experience with Markits bogie wheels. Not instant derailment, but often enough to be annoying. I have two locos so fitted, but won’t be doing any more. Andy

....one for when you really retire?!

Tony, Great list. I used to really look forward to the stock list in RM, and I think there would still be a place for it on some layouts - they’re not all 100% RTR. However, it sadly seems to have been dropped completely. I make it 47 (tender) Pacifics on your list...only 155 to go, better get building! On the subject of lists, I appreciate you might draw the line at Jesse’s suggestion on wagons, but a list of the trains you run, both passenger and goods with notes on the provenance of the interesting vehicles would be fascinating. Andy

How about some lovely coaches Gilbert? There’s that selection of catering vehicles that we were discussing a few months back. You know you love the whole train, not just the loco

Graeme, To be fair, if you use Set Track (or streamline with insulfrogs) and DCC ready RTR, then one can get away with just two wires (to each circuit). It’s because we’re talking about taking it beyond the ‘average modeller’ (how’s that for linking topics?!) that the complexity arises. From my experience if I was starting with a fleet of mainly kit built locos, I wouldn’t touch DCC. But for mainly DCC ready RTR locos it’s very good, and if one has to do a bit of work to make a handful of kit built locos work on the same infrastructure then so be it. Andy

I would go for insulated drivers if you can get them. It will save you hassle later on. However, in my experience, it will not necessarily eliminate the chip frying type of event. I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the system shut down is there to protect the chip, and does so pretty effectively. What cause chip frying is a short across either the chip terminals or the motor terminals. I've had this once, when both motor terminals touched the inside of a white metal body (which I had been too lazy to insulate). So to prevent chip frying stick plenty of insulating tape around the inside of the metal body. This is based on my reading and experience. If anyone more expert in DCC would like to correct me, please go ahead. Andy

If that is average, then I think I’ll give up now! Fantastic looking layouts.

He’s not the only one as I’m sure I’ve told you. When I was wavering I bought the DVD. You were such a convincing actor that I thought if it’s good enough for Tony Wright then it’s good enough for me! On the subject of DCC and live chassis, I wasn’t trying to say that it isn’t possible, nor that shorts are only a problem for DCC. But a momentary short on DC results in a stutter which may not even be noticeable, whereas on DCC it causes a system reset which stops all trains running, at least those in the same power district - not clever! Such shorts seem to happen occasionally on most of my kit built locos where one side is live. It is possible to eliminate them, but it can be a long and frustrating job. Bachmann split chassis are another matter. Isn’t the problem there that the motor is live to one polarity, making conversion an extremely difficult proposition. I could be wrong on this as I’ve never tried. Regards Andy