ejstubbs

I've been doing more running this afternoon and definitely the worst offenders are the 3 carriages and a Palethorpes 6 wheel wagon curiously all with 14.1 wheels and all the same plastic square section axle type which is the common denominator.

I had a some coaches with those square section plastic axles - IIRC they're Hornby RailRoad models.  Those plastic axles carry plastic wheels with metal tyres.  IMO you can't make the situation any worse by swapping them out for better all-metal wheels and axles.

The point a couple of folks have raised about checking that the bogies are free to rotate is a good one.  I don't know anything about the six-wheeled wagon but I believe that these usually have some articulation on the middle axle in order to allow the wagon to traverse Setrack-radius curves.  If it is supposed to be articulated and is somehow not functioning correctly then I imagine that could cause problems similar to a bogie that isn't rotating smoothly.

I doubt there is a significant difference in the frog geometry between insulfrog and electrofrog versions of the Peco turnouts.  (You are using Streamline, aren't you, not Setrack?)  As Kevin says, changing wheels is a whole lot easier than trying to 'fettle' proprietary pointwork - which very likely doesn't have anything wrong with it anyway.

For changing wheels on non-locomotive rolling stock, the Hornby wagon and coach wheels should be fine.  The 12.5mm wheels are for wagons, the 14.1mm wheels for coaches:

R8096 12.5mm disc wheels

R8097 12.5mm 3 hole wheels

R8098 12.5mm spoked wheels

R8218 14.1mm disc wheels

These are all metal axles with (insulated) metal wheels, which are generally regarded as being vastly better than plastic wheels in terms of not leaving dirt on the rails.  Also metal wheels and axles add to the weight of the wagon/coach, and do so in the best place ie low down, which in itself can noticeably improve the running of the wagon/coach.

Bachmann also do a range of replacement wheels, and even complete coach bogies - although these latter may require a bit of work to fit coaches from other manufacturers which don't use the same attachment/pivot mechanism as Bachmann (basically, if you're not confident about disassembling the coach to get access to chassis from the top, then don't go there).

Replacing the wheels is usually simply a case of gently easing the sides of the coach bogie or wagon underframe apart until the old wheels and axle can be removed, and then reversing the procedure to fit the new ones.

Note that quite a few older coaches were originally fitted with under-sized wheels, more like 13mm than 14mm.  Fitting slightly larger wheels might mean that the couplings end up a little too high to work reliably, so you may end up having to shim them down a little.

My experience has been that you can end up spending a non-trivial amount on re-wheeling and otherwise fettling older, second-hand stock, to the extent that it's ultimately more cost-effective to sell a troublesome old item on and buy a more modern version of the same thing if such is available.  As Kevin suggests, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that some of the used items you've bought were being disposed of for this very reason!  It ultimately comes down to a balance between how much money & effort you are prepared to spend making something work, versus the cost of buying a better equivalent.

Re-wheeling old locos may not be a straightforward task.  Unless you are prepared to get involved in re-working parts of the chassis/drivetrain then you may be limited to simply replacing the stock wheels with new ones of the same.  As Kevin suggests, run each loco 'light engine' through the troublesome areas to see if there's anything that's clearly not running true.  Also inspect the existing wheels and if there's nothing obviously wrong with them (no flat spots, warps, chunks missing etc) then you probably only need to check the back-to back on each axle and adjust if necessary.  For older locos, if the original wheels aren't up to running reliably through modern code 100 pointwork then replacing them with matching spare parts (eg from Peter's Spares, eBay etc) likely won't fix the problem.  It might be possible to fit more modern wheels, but that might also involve a fair bit of trial and error and/or research to find modern wheels that will fit with the minimum of modification to the rest of the loco.  Ultimately, the same balance applies as for non-locomotive stock: if it's going to take a lot of money and effort to put it right then you may prefer to put the old item back on eBay and simply suck up the extra cost of a newer model.

I have a hobby I used to enjoy greatly (and I still do) that has ended up being severely curtailed due to 'progress' over the years. I accept that it could have been a bit antisocial at times but what has happened, and is happening, is disappointing for me - I have to accept that change.

Don't tell me the council have blocked off all the best dogging laybys in your area, too? 

Kadee certainly used to do a trial pack containing one of every different type of coupler available - which makes selection very much easier. Whether or not this is still available, I am not sure.

You're probably thinking of the Kadee 13 Magne-Matic Coupler Sample Test Kit - actually includes a pair of each type (which kind of makes sense when you think about it!)  Doesn't include the NEM ones, though.

My sister-in-law lives in Sydenham.  Her nearest station is Penge East.  She habitually refers to it, whimsically, as "Ponge Est" (with a hint of a French accent).

This was all well and good until, a few years back on a visit to That London, my other half actually walked up to a ticket office window at Victoria and demanded two singles to "Ponge Est", causing much puzzlement for the booking clerk.  Fortunately I overheard her request and was able to jump in with a swift correction before the ever-growing queue behind us became too irate...

Mainline stock may be sold on eBay as "as new" but it's not really "new" - the brand shut down in the early 1980s so anything you buy now will have been made to the standards of 30+ years ago. Not bad per se, but could possibly benefit from a bit of fettling to run well with more modern stock and track.

Gaugemaster seemed to have most of the coupler range in stock when I checked last week. Unless I completely misunderstood their web site...

Have I split an infinitive?

No, because there was no infinitive in your sentence.

St Enodoc is correct: adverbs of manner such as "firmly" usually go in 'end position' ie at the end of the clause.  In the case of your sentence, there is also an adverbial phrase of position ("round the ear") which also usually goes in end position.  Since both the adverb and the adverbial phrase must appear in end position, the adverb of manner should appear before the adverbial phrase of location, following the 'manner-place-frequency-time-reason' ordering rule.

Hi I'm getting better at navigating this minefield on the web and have found more info - looks as though the Bachmann Jinty is the answer - thanks

Or you could do what I do: have one each of the Bachy and the Hornby!  In fact, my six-wheel-pickup Bachmann Jinty stalls pretty much every time on one particular Setrack (ie insulfrog) point on my test track, whereas my four-wheel-pickup Hornby one trundles serenely through without a pause.  Go figure...

I know lots of people moan about these points, but I have to say that my ST425 works fine.  However, that is one point on its own.  If you have a ladder of curved points I can imagine that such an arrangement might prove more problematic.

You might want to experiment with using a normal point at the end of a curve to give a diverging road with the straight part of the point.  It isn't quite as compact as using a curved point but it might still do what you need, and give you more reliable running.

 

Has it come to that? Being "twitchy" about publishing articles that need the use of a saw and a soldering iron?

I know these things are no longer taught in schools, but words fail me!!

 

Pete

 

It's probably a combination of the Nanny State and the risk of getting sued. A sad state of affairs indeed. 

I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with that.  Just stop for a moment to consider the quantities of cookery books that are published each year, and the innumerable recipes that appear in newspapers and magazines, on TV and online.  These involve chopping, slicing, dicing, cutting, grating, peeling, crushing, tenderising, the use of power tools like blenders and food processors, high temperature processes often involving the use of a naked flame - basically, a multitude of tools and techniques which could, if mis-applied, result in potentially serious injury.  Actually, the kitchen gadget that gives me the willies every time is the mandolin - it looks to me like it was designed specifically for the removal of finger tips!  Nonetheless, I will confidently offer a prize* for anyone who can provide a convincing reference to case which has been successfully been brought against a publisher as a result of injuries arising from attempting to follow a cookery recipe.

As for the use of the tired old Daily Express catchphrase "the Nanny State": how the 'state' has anything to do with what private individuals might choose to try to sue people for is beyond rational comprehension.  Still, at least no-one's mentioned the equally weary "Health and Safety gone mad!"  Oh, hang on... 

* Something obscure from my spares box, probably.

As said the angle of the crossing is the same for all points and crossings 22 degrees I believe

You're probably thinking of the Setrack turnouts which have a diverging angle of 22.5° (or 11.25° for the curved turnouts).  The OP referred to "short. medium and long" turnouts which implies Streamline (since Peco Setrack only has one length of turnout) and in that range the angles are much smaller.

In the past previous track manufacturers quoted a radius for their points ( GEM and Formway come to mind). This may have caused confusion for some, also with some track plans quoting radii rather than quoting radius 1/2/3 curves as in some ranges

Again, radius 1/2/3 is a Setrack concept which isn't used in the Streamline range.  The product descriptions on the Peco web site do specify both the divergent angle and the nominal radius of each turnout, for example see the description of the large radius L/H turnout.

(It's worth noting that the divergent angles and nominal radii for the Code 83 Streamline turnouts are not the same as for the Code 100 and Code 75.  Why Peco lump all three rail codes into one long list on their web site is beyond me, especially since the descriptions of the invidual items don't specify the rail code.  You apparently have to "just know" that code 75 has a "1" prefix on the number part of the poduct, and code 83 has "83".)

According to the information I've seen, the angle subtended by the curved section (which AIUI is not the same as the frog angle) of all the code 100 points is 12°.  One exception is the long Y point, where the two curved sections are each only 6°, giving a total divergent angle of 12°.  The curved points also diverge at 12°; as far as I can tell the inner track curves by 19° and the outer by 7°.

So you can form a crossover from one long and one short point, and the double tracks will be parallel.  In addition, due to other point geometry jiggery-pokery, whatever combination of straight points you use to form the crossover (long+short, short+medium etc) the track separation will always be 52mm.

The bus driver must have done a good job getting a full load of kids from a high capacity bus off in time.

Without knowing the precise details, I suspect that the bus was evacuated as soon as driver realised he was stuck on the crossing.  You wouldn't wait around and then suddenly think, "Oh heck, there's a train coming, better get the kids out..." would you???  I reckon it was more likely something of a coincidence that a train turned up so soon after the evacuation was completed.

Still a fairly major "Phew, that was close" moment, though!

(Oh, and at the risk of seeming picky: is this really an example of "stupidity"?  There's no indication given as to why the bus stopped where it did.  It could have been just an unfortunate combination of circumstances rather than a deliberately negligent or reckless act.)

They can be circumvented too.

Pretty much any preventive measure can be circumvented by someone prepared to put in the time and effort to try. You may have high security locks and alarms on your home but a sufficiently determined burglar can still get in if they really want to. To cite a recent high profile example: you can keep your valuables in a locked metal box stored in a basement strongroom with metre-thick concrete walls, but someone can still find a way to get at them.

The point about the rising barriers is that they increase the amount of time and effort required to make illegal progress, deterring the casual abuser. And in the case of the boneheaded whose circumvention 'strategy' is simply to press the loud pedal harder, they provide worthwhile protection to the train and its occupants from someone else's stupidity, so that only the road user has to suffer the consequences of their own idiocy. It also provides rather useful evidence for a prosecution of the offending driver (ie their severely damaged vehicle).  So they act as both a deterrent and a safeguard.

The only preventive measure that could never be circumvented would be to remove the level crossing altogether, either by simply closing it (thus creating inconvenience for all road users, in response to the stupidity of a tiny minority) or by putting in a bridge.

Until the crossing is eliminated, people will try to get through before the train. The DESIGN cannot prevent it, as a road vehicle isn't easily stopped, due to its mass & inertia

The type of rising metal barrier shown in these clips seems to stop a fair proportion of road vehicles quite well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPt7bASfsGs

Looks like a similar idea to the rising bollards that are used to protect some bus only roads in some UK towns.

The next date is at the end of this month

The next date actually seems to be this coming Saturday: http://www.derbymuseums.org/events/railway5/#.VUovjs4vSwE

It looks like using the Search Our Events box and entering "Model Railway" will return the upcoming operating sessions that are scheduled.  There don't seem to be any scheduled after the end of May at the moment.

Hmm, looks like I might have a good reason to visit the old place sometime in the near future.

I just ordered a copy from here - which is the web page linked from dibber25's post on this thread.

Just found this on Google Streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/siSgl - it's on the side of a building on the other side of South End Road from Hampstead Heath station.  For six or seven years in the 1980s I lived less than a quarter of a mile away from that location.  I can't begin to count the number of times that I took the train from Hampstead Heath to Broad Street, caught the 24 bus from South End Green, or walked up past the Royal Free to get the tube at Belsize Park.  In all that time, I never noticed the advert     The Streetview photo is dated June 2014 so I guess it's likely still there.

it would be an enormous coincidence if Fenchurch St. and Aldgate were not linked to Minories (literally) in some way.

I've just found out that there was, for a time, an actual Minories station, on the site now occupied by the DLR's Tower Gateway: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/m/minories/index.shtml.  And it was directly linked to Fenchurch Street: Minories was the first, temporary terminus of the London & Blackwall Railway, until they were able to open Fenchurch Street a year later in 1841.  Minories closed to passengers in 1853.  A goods depot was opened on the site in 1858, and remained in use until 1951.  One of the photos on the Disused Stations site strongly suggests that the goods depot made use of the original station building, meaning that it would have survived for 110 years.

But even if you have to be physically present at the meeting, does it really need to start that early that the first train from Edinburgh would not get you there?

The first train from Edinburgh gets in to Kings Cross at 09:40.  No use for a 9am meeting, tight enough to be uncomfortable for a 10am meeting in the City or the West End.  Remember that the meeting has to happen at a time when the other attendees can also make it.  The way people's diaries are these days (the sort of people who get travel approved to attend meetings, anyway) you're unlikely to get six or seven other people to reschedule their entire day just to accommodate one or two who have an unaccountable predeliction for getting up at 5am.  (And you can forget any chance of making that egregious yuppie invention, the "breakfast meeting".  I'm barely able to think coherently at breakfast time, let alone contribute to a meeting.  A colleague did invite me to a breakfast meeting once.  I did attend the meeting.  All our subsequent meetings took place during the normal working day.)

Should the Scottish Govt be facilitating/paying for business to take place in London rather than Edinburgh or Glasgow?

I think the Scottish Government would probably point out that the service runs both ways, ie it helps people get up to Scotland to do a full day's business there (and then back down south for their next working day) as well as the other way round.

Hmm.  According to Wikipedia and this web site Wooler ceased to be a through station in 1949, so folks who remember how it used to be operated in the days before then might be rather thinner on the ground.  However, I shall try to persevere.

I noticed the other day that old-maps.co.uk has changed its interface.  The zoom level for non-subscribers seems to have worsened, and you can't do the trick of munging the thumbnail's URL to get the full-sized map tile any more

Still, I suppose they're entitled to make a living.  And my own experience is that it is relatively straightforward to subscribe for just a month or two at a time.

Don't panic, AFAIK the rolling stock was (hopefully IS) stored with some on display in the Silk Mill Industrial Museum Some of the locos have even been overhauled and repainted.

Excellent news; I'm surprised at how relieved I am to hear that!

Incidentally I seem to rember that Railway Modler featured the layout as railway of the month in October 1968 I think.  I remember buying a copy as a teenager but then lost the magazine I keep looking for a replacement but it's very illusive, you can get any other Railway modler for 1968 but not October for some reason.

railmags.org claim to have it in stock.

There is a Midland layout being built in the Silk Mill but it has no or very few parts from the original Museum layout as this was removed with hammers and saws a good few years ago by the then staff at the museum (i.e. trashed.)

Please tell me they didn't take hammers and saws to the rolling stock?!

The new layout is larger and built with modern materials, but is every bit as detailed and well researched and is progressing slowly but steadily. They do have running days which unfortunately don't appear to be as well publicised as they could be.

Good to hear that a replacement layout of similar quality is under construction.  It does seem daft not to tell folks about it, though, if all this time, effort and money is being spent on it.