simon b

14 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

 

Good luck with getting this fixed as the "experts" believe it is a minor issue impacting on very few models.  My two are similarly affected.   Unless one actually places the model on a flat surface and not the railhead,  then the torsional distortion will not be readily noticeable.    I am sure the problem is more widespread than is being acknowledged.

 

Edit: I am curious if anyone has removed the bogies and placed on a flat surface to see if the standalone bogie is distorted, i.e., the six wheels do not sit flat on the surface,  or if the issue is with the way the bogies are suspended in the chassis.  There have been several "workarounds" to mask the problem.  The apologists will simply state send it back for rectification but as you have found you will possibly just get the same model returned to you with a note,  "Unable to fault".

 

I was hoping that the "booster" would lift the EFE Rail "second tier" market image but it would appear not.

8 hours ago, RThompson said:

 

The one I shown a few posts above with the resprayed roof did have bogie problems also.

 

I did a full strip down and report of the bogies and after careful checking, its the bogie support arms that is the issue like they are sloping from one side to the other and not perfectly horizontal, the bogies and frames themselves are perfectly fine.

 

My remedy was to superglue to the underside of the cast body block (20 or 30 thou?) Plastikard to the opposite affected corners to force the bogies to sit level at both ends thus making all the wheels touch the glass.

 

I did note in one model shop there was 4 different locos on display in a glass cabinet, only 1 out of the 4 had a issue, the other 3 had all the wheels touching the glass as they should.

 

So what has happened to some for this to occur, I don't know.

8 hours ago, franciswilliamwebb said:

 

Shocking behaviour, I'd go straight for a refund rather than replacement.  "Computer says no" standard of customer service 😲

7 hours ago, railcar1 said:

Sad truth with many retailers is if it runs its fine!

Have a look at the Hornby  Mag.,March, booster review main picture,the fault is obvious to see.

As previously reported I have mitigated the issue by adding  shims.This fixes the wheels in contact  with track problem but not the underlying fault. 

In my  opinion the problem is the screwed on side panel of the gear tower is not aligned properly causing  the axles to sit out of true.

This may be a manufacturing issue or perhaps damage in transit. 

This problem does seem relatively  widespread. EFE should really respond. 

So to update on this. I have emailed the video to the retailer and they do agree there is definitely an issue with the loco, as such they have agreed to exchange it for another. Now in fairness to them they did also forward me a video of the loco running on their code 100 test layout seemingly without issue. I think it's difficult to see the issue properly unless you put the loco on a known flat surface, checking it whilst on the track wont properly show it.

I was reluctant to try to fix this myself for a few reasons, but mainly that if I break something it wont be covered under warranty. And also that I shouldn't have to!

Having had a good look at it myself, I've come to the conclusion that the bogie castings are twisted on mine. The axles are a good fit in the molding's, there being no slop as such so each axle should be on the same plane as the others. But the inner axle of each bogie was sitting at an angle with only one wheel in contact with the rail, this in turn lifts the center axle away from the track. Both bogies were exactly the same, so it isnt a chassis issue. 

Now to be clear, I am very happy with the models. Only one of the three I have has an issue, and it is now going to be rectified. There is obviously a quality control issue with a certain batch of locos, and I'm in no doubt that some sort of solution will be offered in time. 

Overall it is a great looking detailed model, which captures the look of the prototype well. I never thought we would see one of these as a ready to run offering, especially for the price that it is, and I can only applaud Graham Muzz and the EFE team for bringing it to reality.

Now about that 4COR........

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

 

As I’ve said before though, if you operated it as it was designed to operate, it would rapidly become a job, rather than a relaxing hobby, so maybe you need to find somewhere with a different pace, and greater variety of trains - I’m sure this thread has been round this oval on the carpet a couple of times before.

 

 

I posted this pic in the Flickr thread, but it does show how great a Baker street based layout could look.

So after sending my derailing cc1 back to the retailer, it has returned saying they couldn't find a problem. I've made a quick video which will be emailed to them in the morning, then hopefully it gets resolved.

https://youtu.be/rpxd3AkcGz4?si=xSIowVINqr9uOcgU

3 hours ago, Dagworth said:

The point above the coal drops really ought to be a slip to act as a trap point otherwise you can't use the siding at the other end of the run-round loop.

 

Andi

Could you put a trap on the siding itself? Just a single blade sort of thing?

20 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

I went with shortening, the approach track - I’m just allergic to having off stage turnouts I guess!

 

I actually had a plan looking something like this on the forum a couple of months ago, but I tried to make it too clever – I think this one has some legs on it so I’m just going to get on with it!

That's plenty long enough for a loop, your only going to be running around wagons so it wont look as short.  The track plan reminds me of this: Dounreay. Now get it built!

2 hours ago, TravisM said:

Before I start laying track down, I’m really wondering if I should bother with putting a cork roadbed down?  With some of the track going into sheds and warehouses, as well as buried in roadway, as well as the slow speed, is it worth it?

Nope, complete waste of time that stuff. I'm still mystified as to why people use it, as soon as you ballast the track it becomes solid to the board anyway.

Modern cranes are big, very big. This is on aliexpress. https://www.aliexpress.com/i/1005004101513533.html

5 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

Without extending the layout, the only way around it I can see is to extend the runaround loop off-layout on the left?

 

That will work just fine, the other point can be assumed to be off scene.  The trick with this build is not to overthink it, or you'll start to loose the momentum.

From the sounds of it you dont need another big project, just something different. As such I'd say something quite small would suit the bill as you can build it quickly, maybe a 6ft scenic section at most. 

Perhaps a single platform face with a runaround loop, then a few sidings leading off from that. 

Last time I had lost interest in working on the big layout I made a simple 2 platform terminus on a lack shelf with a single point. Operation didn't really matter, it was just the fact that I had completed something that I regained the lost enthusiasm. 

I've never been a fan of the kick back siding from the lower platform, often thought another loco spur like this would make more sense.

12 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

That wasn't though the track that CJF designed it for and with HD 3rail you'd lose the real virtue of the Minories scheme. For plans like that, he seems to have followed the general guidelines favoured in the 1950s  of 3ft radius points. This  was the nominal radius of Pecoway points and those hand laid using Peco's track components before Streamline was offered  (originally with 2ft radius points). Hornby Dublo 3 rail points were AFAIK about 15inch radius.

 

The whole point of the Minories design was that it avoided the immediate the reverse curves (on all but one of the six routes) that the more usual arrangement of a facing and a trailing crossover would have so that passenger trains could snake rather than lurch through the pointwork. However, that breaks down if you use smaller radius points . I have seen a layout (Horn Lane) with a terminus based on Minories that used two foot radius points but that was with LT Underground stock so the sharp curves weren't such a problem.  

I've long wanted to see a layout based on such "heritage" equipment but built for proper operation rather than for simply running trains roud and round but, in terms of appearance, I think that for a three platform main line terminus ,with HD track, straight crossovers would actually look better but you may disagree. this is what the two plans look like with HD 3 rail

I notice that the straight-crossover version is also rather narrower

 

With Peco streamline "medium" 3ft radius points the comparison looks like this and the Minories version does have more of a flow to it and main line coaches are less likely to experience apparent (or actual) buffer locking.

Operationally, and in signalling both versions are identical.

 

 

Although probably not possible with 3 rail, a happy compromise if working with Peco medium radius is to use y points on the insides of the crossovers and loco spur. It still looks busy over the straight version, but doesn't have the buffer locking of the original design.

On 26/01/2024 at 20:24, tom s said:

Activity in this channel! I guess I can update on my plan.

Having learned about 3D printed sleepers as an alternative to jigs and soldering hand made turnouts, I am converting to 2FS before any wiring or scenics begin.

Swapping the two turnouts to a 3 way gave just enough room to add in a second layover locomotive spur, which I think adds more to the Moorgate look, if a little less clean. 3 suburban coaches and a Class 31 on both ends can still fit into the top platform with a few cm to spare.

It sort of breaks the Minories rule of no curve into opposite curves, but I am hoping B6.5 turnouts are shallow enough to avoid any unsightly snaking.

I like it, if your using the 57ft coaches the swing over a reverse curve shouldn't be that bad.   

Or another idea... How would it affect the plan if you replaced both of the right hand points in the platform roads with y points? That would reduce the swing further and probably square up the tracks leading off the layout? 

2 hours ago, klambert said:

Office block that forms the fiddle yard backscene is taking shape. Still many loose ends to tie, still requires weathering, leak marks and the mandatory graffiti. 

A lot of the concrete panels and doorways came from textures.com although the grey brick is ScaleScenes, stuck onto grey board, windows are Peco packaging.

Better view of office block rear entrance, (aka the smokers haven) fire door and record shop. Setup by a now aging hippy with the idea of being Southeast Londons premier purveyor of psych records and ahem other associated 'wares' but has since expanded to cover all good riffy rock. 

How about a game of guess the album? (Just realised the camera's picked up things I didn't consider to be a big issue such as white paper edges etc, hope to tidy that up with weathering eventually).

So far it's made without a back so I can add lighting at a later date.

Getting there, but it gives an idea of what I'm after. 

That looks great, what plans do you have for the end of the sidings next to it?

Sheffield victoria might be another one worth a look, and if you don't want one on a viaduct Banbury has alot going for it.

The length of everything in that plan is wrong, as I said it is only to give an idea and isnt to scale.

There is nothing wrong with the Oxford road plan, just trying to offer some alternative ideas that might lead to a more pleasing design.

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

The bays are quite short. If I were going this way, I'd be inclined to get enough length for a 3-car unit by shortening the "bridging" platform in the middle.

Yep they are, it isnt to scale at all as I hit the limit of 50 track sections in free anyrail. The whole thing would need to be on a curve to fit in the 14ft length available, but the bays should ideally take a 3 car 158.

1 hour ago, Danfilm007 said:

Food for thought! It does flow quite nicely. I must admit I'm a bit of a sucker for the way Oxford Road flows with its point works and tightness but it does obviously work better your way

It's just another idea for you, dont feel you have to go along with any of them. It's all about designing something that you will be happy with, and suits your operating style. Some people like to play about shunting a yard, others like to watch trains run by. 

1 hour ago, Danfilm007 said:

 

Interesting idea! Certainly is an interesting concept. Part of my reason for an Oxford Road style station was the variety of running but this station is more flexible in terms of reversal bays etc! 

The great thing about this plan is that you dont need the outer crossovers oxford road has, all reversals are done in the bay roads. You can have your freight and loco hauled passengers going around the circuits via the outer platforms, then bring out a multiple unit from the bays, do a few circuits and bring it into the opposite end bay platform. No need for multiple units to use the fiddle yard at all, saving space for freight trains.

I've drawn it with a freight loop on each side, so you can overtake trains. The real station had more loops than that but it's up to you if you want to keep them or have none at all.

Before you pin any track down, try shunting the BYA and 08 around the layout by hand to make sure your happy with how it works. Easy to make any changes now rather than cutting it about later.

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Odd ball thought, but as laying more 3rd rail is a no-go.. why not extend 750vdc overhead instead ?.. Uckfield / Exeter etc..

 

Most SE/ SR /LSWR stock (Desiro/Electrostar) was built with pantograph wells in the roof design.

Laying more 3rd rail is still possible, it isnt banned as such. You just have to have an exceptionally good reason for doing it.

4 hours ago, Danfilm007 said:

 

Mostly DMUs/EMUs and a couple of Loco hauled passenger stock

I know Leicester central was mentioned a few posts ago, I wonder if something like that might better suit your stock? This is just a quick go in anyrail to give you an idea, it isnt to scale at all.

Not sure if this this been posted yet, just popped up in my notifications.

Dan, what sort of trains are you planning to run on this? Mostly multiple units, or longer loco hauled passenger trains?

1 hour ago, ess1uk said:

Like the one at Radley?

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that one. There is also a compound about the size required at the old claydon level crossing site, that would probably be about the correct distance from Radley.

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

If an electrified EWR couldn't be fed from the Bletchley end (both normally and under alternative arrangements when a feeder is offline for some reason) then the scheme might need a new feeder of its own in the Oxford area, which could have been fed from the Didcot end had that electrification gone ahead.  That's potentially quite a big extra cost.   

Yes huge cost, I would think just getting from Didcot to Oxford would need a new Feeder, let alone EWR on top of that.

To do that requires alot of infrastructure outside of the railway. Some people forget that the power has to get to the railway itself, you cant just plug an extension cord in like a trainset.