johnarcher

I could certainly be wrong too, my knowledge of these new technologies is very limited indeed. I was referring to the resin prints on a Photon machine that Knuckles of this parish (alias Sparkshot) introduced in this thread - They seemed of very good finish compared to the Shapeways, especially the basic WSF, and cheaper too.

Actually Tony if they are resin, which I think they are, (printed or cast?) they should be a lot better than the usual Shapeways stuff. I've not had either myself, but I've seen close-up photos of resin-printed stuff Sparkshot is doing now and it looks pretty good. There's a narrow-gauge maker (whose name I can't recall) who's doing a printed loco body in this high quality, supplied with detail bits in metal (cast and etched), the result is quite effective to my eye. https://ngtrains.com/shop/product/townsend-hook-body-kit/ Maybe that sort of thing could be a useful toe-dipping stage for those hesitating before the plunge into a full kit, a bit like the old basic bodyline cast kits on RTR chassis used to be? I don't know if the modelmaster ones are that sort of thing, but I think it might be a useful product to have around.

I agree in a way Jol, with regard to quality kits are pretty healthy - Finney, High Level and, of course, London Road,the best kits now are surely better than we've had before. Just need Mitchell ones back. And sometimes old ones return improved, like Nucast partners. Certainly a long way from demise. It's just annoying when you want a kit for a particular prototype that's a long way from obscure, could even be called popular (48xx, Beattie well tank?), there used to be kits but not now, presumably because of RTR coverage? A very personal view I suppose, but having had other interests over the years now, with probably limited time for modelling left (see earlier post) my thoughts go back to the area where I had my happiest years - mid-Cornwall, and to me that means Bodmin and Wadebridge, but no well tank kit any more.

I have understanding and sympathy for your personal position, as to some extent I share it. I am having to re-assess what I can hope to do thanks to the effect of some things on my advancing emphysema. I may be able to continue for a while, maybe using hair rather than air brush, water-based rather than phosphoric acid flux, I'm not sure. Personally I do lament that decent kits for at least a couple of (quite popular) prototypes I'd want for possible ideas no longer exist, probably due to (not necessarily very good) RTR models being available, but that doesn't imply any criticism of those who want such models, just regret that both options don't seem to be able to co-exist economically. It's annoying, I have never done that much in this hobby, the adult healthy years were mostly devoted to making and shooting longbows (hence the user name), I just dabbled a bit with some Irish 00n3, in the hope that I could come bac k to it properly in later years when trudging round field courses was no longer practical.

Would it be fair though to suggest that while your comparison may apply to kit-makers and old-style printers, does it really apply to the consumers? The leaflet-consumer still gets a leaflet, but if the kit-makers go the way of ink-stained compositors the kit-buyer can't get the kit, and if at least part of the reason for wanting a kit is enjoyment from the process of buliding it the RTR model is no substitute.

Would it help to tin the handles (laborious I know), and the inside of the coach side around the holes, and solder them in with low-temp solder after painting?

Thank you, do you reckon that would be better than the coreless, with probably 39:1 gearing? The price is not much different. and the no-load speed pretty simlar.

With reference to the last two posts, how do you more electronically-knowledgeable people reckon I would be better off, in a space-limited prototype where the biggest practical motor would be approx 1020 size with a single-stage 40:1 or 50:1 gear mount or 1015 with a higher reduction, like a Loadhauler. The 1020 option could be a Mashima 1020, if I can still find one, or this 1219 coreless that High Level now have. The 1015 options are the Mashima maybe (but some people seem to have reservations about it), or 3 pole ones like the N-drive or the Chinese N20?

It seems to me that with normal Mashimas a bit of feedback (the 1 setting on that controller) does help get a slow, steady start.

Thanks again to all contributors, I do have the impression that my Compspeed with feedback turned off should be OK? In fact I have never used a coreless motor before (could not afford RG4's in the old days, and most of them don't like worm gears I believe), so may I ask those who have used both, and built more locomotives than I have (four, and that some years ago), which combination would likely give the best results (in terms of smooth, slow running rather than power) in a small 0-6-0 that I have planned. (4mm). I could use a good, maybe large reduction gearbox like High Level, even maybe the 80:1 or 108:1 Loadhauler, but that would mean a smaller motor - N-drive 1015 perhaps, or the little eBay Chinese 10mm square one. (A Road Runner would mean the same motor choice). Or - a more compact gearbox (Branchlines or London Road single-stage 38:1, maybe 50:1) with a better motor, I am tempted by the 1219 coreless one High Level are now selling (which has bearings suitable for worm gears), hence the subject matter of this thread.

Thank you, I understood most of it. I think my comment re DC was silly, DC with feedback would still be a problem with coreless, for the reasons people have said above. Anyway I have found a mention in another place (S4 forum?) by someone who has run Portescaps with a Compspeed F with feedback turned off for years, so I hope all should be well.

Thanks for all replies. I suppose I have no idea what the output is like with the feedback off - is it pure DC then? Of course if DLT is right (and obviously he usually is) and that setting was added for Portescaps it should be OK.

Thank you, I hope you remember correctly. I'm sure your memory is better than mine, I can't remember at all how long ago I got the Compspeed, or whther RG4's were around at that point. Incidentally, in case it jogs anyone else's memory, this is the beast in question (Compspeed F IIRC)

Thanks for the suggestion, if I need to replace the controller that is one option I have looked at. I would not have considered using any other Compspeed with a coreless motor, but in this case I wondered, as the feedback can be turned off.

Thank you, lucidly explained.

Thank you, back EMF is OK, inductance got past me a bit.

I believe that coreless motors don't like feedback control? I have, and still find good, an old (30 years?) ECM Compspeed. It is the version with switchable feedback, can be feedback off or on 1 or 2. With feedback on it is still very good with 'normal' motors, would it be OK with coreless in the feedback off position? (I apologise for the depths of electronics ignorance that lie behind this question).

"War without fire is as useless as sausages without mustard" Henry V. (attributed).

Thanks for all the checking. Maybe you're right it's other things as well as the slightly greater width that give that impression.

Thank you. That's a shame, apparently the tread width seems the same as Markits (RP25 100 - 100thou ie 2.5mm). It's that extra .5mm that puts me off them, it seems to make them look a bit chunky, at least in the smaller sizes. Still at least the Scalelink ones would be a cheaper option for testing before putting finer wheels on than Markits.

Can someone who has used these wheels clarify please? It seems from some comments that they are a bit finer than current Markits, if not in the flange then in the wheel thickness - closer to 2mm than the Markits 2.5mm. Is that so? If it is it puzzles me how they can use the usual Romford/Markits axle - surely the threaded bit would be .5mm too long?

I haven't time to go into it in more detail now I'm afraid, but I did see this elsewhere recently and had a quick google of some of the signatories. One of them was a climate scientist, with a reputation in that field as a maverick. Others, while fitting the newspaper's description as scientists, were not actually climate studiers, a couple were geologists (one at least with close links to the oil industry). One at least (Monckton) had no scientific credentials at all - a right-leaning journalist. Maybe someone with more time could check a few more. It doesn't really alter the overall consensus among the appropriate kind of scientists - those whose expertise is in climate studies.

Very nice in many ways, especially the extremely well-blended backscene (either that or it's a very very wide board!).

Yes, it seems to me that unless there is now a real prospect of this being a really workable technology in the fairly near future then, due to the timescale of the problem facing us, the money might be better going elsewhere? Nothing wrong with fusion if it can work, but we need things that will nbe making a real difference within 20-40 years.

A lot better than my first was. And my second come to think of it.