nswgr1855

There is no need to add any weight to the tender. All it does is decrease the maximum length train you can pull. Better to make the coaches free rolling, then the locomotive does not have to be full of lead.

Good to see the Peco bull head unifrog is made to finescale standards (00-SF =AMRA fine tolerance standard). The geometry I am talking about is the FROG and where the insulation gaps into it are, and how they are electrically wired as delivered. There is no problem with the Peco Bullhead turnouts, it is correctly done. There is a short circuit problem with the new Peco code 83 Unifrog turnouts from wheels bridging the insulation gaps, and my guess any new Unifrog turnouts in their code 100 and 75 ranges will be the same dodgy design.

Its clear the Peco bull head 00 Unifrog design is different to the geometry of the newer Peco code 83 Unifrog. The Newer peco code 83 Unifrog is exactly the same geometry as the Peco code 100 and code 75 flat bottom H0/00 Insulfrog design. If Peco had stuck with the 00 Bullhead Unifrog design there would be no problem though the insulated section at the knuckle of the frog would look better and be electrically safer if moved away the frog area. Terry Flynn.

I have experience with Insulfrog short circuits. The Unifrog has identical geometry and will suffer the same problem, except in this case, the problem is wired out of the box to happen. Often It's a momentary short, not always noticed. In the worst case I have seen on Insulfrogs the plastic holding the rails melted.

Yes I do have a problem, the look of the Unifrog is less prototypical compared to the look of the Electrofrog. Also you need to know what you are doing to wire it the different ways. The Peco instructions are far from clear. The way forward was to build an Electrofrog turnout with the continuous point blades, and have a frog switch built into the turnout or clip on version supplied with the turnout that is operated by the throw bar.

The Unifrog does not look like a real crossing V, the old electrofrog did. That is a backward step. The short circuit wheel issue is real, another backward step, that was not a problem with the Electrofrog. Today's RTR 00 wheels are more than wide enough to cause short circuits on the Unifrog turnout, irrespective of track code.

Current RTR 00 wheels are more than wide enough to cause shorting on the Unifrog. Yes the new point blades are an improvement, but the Unifrog is a is still a short circuit problem and looks like a toy frog.

It'a long proven problem with the Peco insfulfrog turnout if you power it for DCC. The Unifrog has the same geometry at the frog, the only difference at the frog is the frog tip is metal. Most RTR 00 wheels are at least 2.8mm wide, more than enough to cause a momentary short.

The Unifrog point frog design is a backward step compared to the Electrofrog design for DC and DCC. It continues the design fault (for DCC) of the insulfrog design as you get momentary short circuit conditions when using wide tread 00 wheels and live wired turnouts from both ends. Also the new Unifrog does not look as good as an all metal electrofrog as it has an unprotypical frog point and diverging rails plus large plastic filled gaps. It is also easy for the factory fitted wires under the frog to be bent and cause a short circuit. A step forward would be to have made a new Electrofrog with metal wing rails and solid point blades with the insulated gaps in the point blades about in the same location as the old Electrofrog design. As supplied the new 00 Unifrog is not DCC friendly IMO.

I'm not sure where I got the rough running from, may be another persons post. For a DC track powered model you are getting excellent running and I appreciate your videos. Cheers, Terry Flynn.

Makes my under construction 12m x 6m HO Australian point to point layout seem small. Its based on 1952 NSW prototype. Passenger trains are scale length but goods sidings have been selectively compressed. Then Again I saw a large model railway in Hamburg, and another in the Colorado Model Railroad Museum.

I have a H0 tender locomotive that weighs about the same as the Oxford Dean goods, yet I am able to pull longer trains up a 1 in 40 grade on a 760mm radius curve. I suspect the tender is like most UK 00 models, with inside bearings. My guess is the tender probably rolls like a brick. Try removing weight from your tender. The tender should be designed with pin point bearings, just like most 00 wagons. It sounds like the reported rough running is probably a poorly set up factory DCC decoder. Terry Flynn.

I have a small collection of UK 00 models, and have noticed most UK 00 have steel axles which are magnetic. This makes uncoupling using magnets unreliable and visually unrealistic with the wagons being pulled towards the uncoupling magnet. Using the NEM pockets also detracts from the appearance of the couplers. I use Kadee couplers on my H0 NSW trains, and use magnetic coupling with varying levels of success. To get the most reliable magnetic operation, I have found I needed to replace all wheel sets that have mild steel axles and any mild steel wagon weights. Use only one size of Kadee coupler head, either the old standard size or the smaller H0 scale head size. Use whisker couplers , remove excessive end play from locomotive and wagon axles, and of course adjust the heights to match the Kadee H0 height gauge. Do not use clones, only genuine Kadee's. Finally use the Kadee 810 electromagnet designed for O gauge, and mount them under my sleepers. Wire the coils in series and use 24Vdc. The other magnets can be cheaper, easier to install but you can get frequent unwanted uncoupling. I weight my wagons to the AMRA standard, and also use the AMRA minimum radius standard https://amra.asn.au/standards/ . I use 0.3mm wire on some brake vans axles as a brake to stop them rolling away on some sidings which have a grade on then, as per the prototype location I have modeled. Do the above and you can achieve 99% plus reliability. Using DCC with keep alive capicators in locomotives also improves reliable operation. Terry Flynn.

There is a section in the Zimo manual that talks about storage capacitors. It shows a circuit that is used to limit start up current and protects the capacitors from over voltage. I typically use a bank of 6 2.7V 1F capacitors on my fleet of old brass H0 locomotives. I have ignored the maximum capacitor value in the instructions and have had no problems. Of course you can limit the time the model runs, again the CV is in the Zimo instructions, I have never used it. Much easier to fit capicators in most cases then to fit extra pickups, which can easily cause short circuits and require replacing after about 20 years of running and regular maintenance to remove lint. Also pickups on non driven axles cause drag that limits maximum train lengths considerably. For those worried about trains running uncontrolled leaving the rails onto scenery, fix up your track work and safe working procedures.

Thanks for the diagram. I have never heard of someone doing this. It's exactly what I need. I have a small off scene storage yard representing a coal mine exactly as you have drawn. It is an afterthought, so I could increase my storage in one of my off scene main storage yards and has restricted space to install point motors. I use DCC but I wanted to simply use fingers to change the points to get things running quickly at this location. I normally use stall point motors (I use both Tortoise and Cobalt) and after years of using both I prefer the Tortoise ones because they are quieter. Unfortunately they only have a switch contact rating of 1A, and these will fail on most DCC systems if you run into the turnout causing a short at the frog. To get around this problem I wire a 10W light globe in series with the frog.The limits the voltage to around 0.5A. Otherwise stall motors are reliable and simple if you follow instructions. This thread confirms my long held view servo motors do not make reliable low cost point motors. However I do use servo motors to drive my semaphore signals. It's not cheap overall, but they are the best solution I know of at the moment. Terry Flynn.

Because it costs the same to tool an accurate model compared what you are getting and some of us only want accurate models.

Totally agree about 32mm gauge, even for the wider flanged non UK wheels. Cheers, Terry Flynn.

Andy, This was all discusses years ago. There is no problem with a small amount wheel drop at the limiting condition, it works without derailment, that what it is designed for. No one makes wheels RTR as narrow as 2mm, the narrowest RTR fine scale H0 wheel is around 2.23mm and is no problem with track to the AMRA fine tolerance standard. In fact these fine scale wheels work without derailment (sometimes with noticeable wheel drop) on Peco track with flange ways of around 1.3mm. Nit pick as much as you like, I know from experience that I do not need to replace or re-gauge my RTR H0 or UK 00 wheels to run on track complying to AMRA standards. No need for working suspension or compensation either. Check out my Hornby 00 train at speed below. The unfinished track work is to the AMRA fine tolerance standard. Only one set of wheels needed re-gauging. They were over gauge and were derailing on Peco turnouts.

My view is the market for block instruments is very small, way too small for Hornby to even have it on their radar. The money is in locomotives and to a lesser degree rolling stock. Most purchasers of models are mostly collectors and are lucky to have a table top size layout, let alone operating signals. Cheers, Terry Flynn.

Most RTR H0 and 00 turnouts produced today comply with both AMRA standards, the incompatibility between the intermediate tolerance and fine tolerance standards is wheel minimum wheel back to back. The biggest supplier of H0 track non set track is probably Peco. It dominates the UK and European markets and has a big chunk of the US market now. Other players also have a big chunk of the toy track market, and the better brands also mostly comply with the AMRA standards. In the UK 00 market its Hornby an Peco track that dominates, both comply with the AMRA standards. Peco dominates the Australian market, for what its worth. Terry.

A common analog voltmeter can be simply be converted into a 3 position block instrument, the trick is how you drive it. For example 0 volts for the left indication, 6 volts for the middle indication and 12 volts ror the right indication using a 12 volt meter. If you make 0 volts (open circuit ) train on line, you have a reasonably fail safe system. The servo alternative does not have this advantage. Cheers, Terry Flynn.

That's right Andy, the reality is the vast majority of RTR turnouts and RTR crossings do not comply with the NMRA standard. On the other hand the vast majority of currently available RTR turnouts and crossings do comply with the AMRA standard. Cheers, Terry Flynn.

Andy, Last week I stated: "Actually there is a problem with the NMRA standard and its 14.61mm Max for many RTR H0 wheels. If the wheel flange is wider than 0.59mm the wheels have a good chance of derailing on most RTR track. Most H0 wheels have a wider flange, and the NMRA RP 25 110 flange is a nominal 0.76mm." If the check gauge of your wheels is correct for your track the chance of derailment is 0. No need to prove something that has been known about for over 150 years. I have measured Peco RTR turnouts using both digital calipers , optical microscopes and a profile projector with with a readability of 0.1 micron. The conclusion was published on the web, as was the way I derived the various values many years ago. The NMRA standard is not compatible with PECO track, it proven. The important thing is if you are using RTR is to pick a proven standard that is compatible with RTR and stick with it. I have proved the AMRA standards are correct and work with most RTR H0 /00 track and wheels, including UK fine scale replacement wheels. The current AMRA 0 gauge standards are also designed to be compatible with UK fine scale wheels. I am also critical of the fine scale UK O gauge pseudo standard using a track gauge of 31.5mm, which is less than the AMRA minimum of 31.7mm. 0.2mm makes all the difference between practical tolerances and unnecessary tight tolerances. It's clear to me most model railway standards derive their dimensions by scaling down prototype dimensions and do not consider practical tolerances for the manufacture of K crossings. Terry Flynn.

Simpler and easier to use analog amp or volt meters, as your block instrument indicator.

Its best to stick with the AMRA minimum radius standard for better appearance and improved tracking. https://amra.asn.au/standards/