Right Away

Not sure if this is relevant but here's a snapshot of the CCE formation as running in the late 'fifties. It's from the Ian Allan publication "From the Footplate - Cambrian Coast Express" by Stephen Austin.

Could any member recommend a particular make/model of Digital Vernier Caliper to purchase, primarily for checking wheel back to backs.

 

Previously, never having needed to purchase one, recent running issues of a particular locomotive (Hornby Rebuilt WC - leading bogie wheel flange fouling a Peco large radius point check rail), an accurate measurement would be useful.

No other locomotives, in particular those of the same class have no problem at all traversing the same section of trackwork.

 

It us appreciated that quality comes at a price but it is envisaged paying between £20-£30 unless strongly advised otherwise - cheaper and accurate would be nice!

 

The instrument would probably only be used in the modelling scenario, therefore a hugely robust model would be unnecessary.

 

Thanks in anticipation.

For many years the maximum permitted speed of SR multiple-units beyond the suburban area was nominally 75mph and in the case of the Brighton line, IIRC, the demarcation point was Coulsdon.

 

All the ex-SR express units were initially a little slow off the mark owing to the higher gearing of their motors but once speed had built up, the PUL/PAN units, weighing in at well over 500 tons tare in a 12 car formation, could readily exceed this on the long, sweeping downhill stretches of 1 in 264. The heavier BEL units could also be chased along in similar fashion when time was to be regained (although perhaps not conducive to dining comfort, especially in their latter days); "Nelson's", with less traction motors would take longer to get into speed other than when coupled to a 6 car unit.

 

All these units, fitted with similar traction equipment operated on a nominal voltage of 660v DC.

 

My questions are:

1. Does any member know if the traction voltage on the Central Section was increased to 750v during the 1960's and if so what effects it had on older emu stock.

 

2. Was the decision to increase voltage taken after all services were operated entirely with EP stock, bearing in mind that some departmental units of older vintage ran well after the withdrawal of their passenger brethren.

 

I'm thinking the voltage increase may have been initiated much later with the introduction of revised schedules, raised line speeds and bi-directionsl signalling, but would welcome any definitive answers.

 

Thank you

Green livery suited the CIGs very well when they were first introduced.

 

As with the initial 1956 Kent Coast prototype units, they didn't look out of place amongst older units and despite being nothing more grandiose than MK1 build, their introduction imparted an impression of modernity to Central Section commuters.

 

Their predecessors, the six-car main liners were getting quite rough by 1963-4 despite bogie overhauls a few years previously; their demise was doubtlessly met with approval by the Civil Engineering staff! The CIG/BIG replacements were a distinct improvement for staff and passengers alike (do not mention the electric parking brake!)

 

The CIGs, throughout their service career were reasonably comfortable in which to travel and could be considered

almost cosy compared to today's offerings. A recent journey to the Capital in 700 class stock was quite a shock.

Externally the "cutting edge" appearance belied the uninviting interior which had all the travel appeal of an Underground train and with seating comfort reminiscent of a park bench!

 

Whatever their chosen livery, I would much prefer to curl up in a CIG with a pint and a paper for an hour.

 

Good luck with your project , Chris.

To sum up, the amazing attention to detail represented on models in recent years is reflected by the prices therein commanded.

 

However, it is not unreasonable to expect that higher priced examples will all perform satisfactorily. Once again quality control is brought into question. Customers, who are prepared to incur the costs of research and latest manufacturing processes, expect to purchase a first class, USABLE product which will run flawlessly out of the box.

Finely detailed vehicles look splendid on our railways, but ultimately their ability to operate smoothly is paramount. Older, possibly second-hand purchases can benefit from modifications and thereafter can run very well indeed but it should be inconceivable to have to resort to these measures on brand new stock.

 

Conversely, I do relish the considerable sense of achievement when overcoming various modelling challenges but this can wear a bit thin when new, expensive items are involved.

 

Striving to replicate the "real" railway, it would be best left to the individual if he/she wishes to emulate prototypical vehicle running problems such as oil starved bearings, dragging brakes and general lack of maintenance!

Thanks again all.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

 

It's a lovely, calm day and so I set up on the garden table to get to the bottom of this running issue.

 

With scrupulous observation I was able to detect that the upper half of the brake block on most axles of the Staniers was in contact with the wheel rim when the coach was placed on the track.

This was imperceptible when inverted and the wheels spun by hand but weight on the axles was just enough to bring about the problem.

 

Judicious filing with some small files and wet and dry has rectified the matter on all affected coaches. The SR ex-LSWR stock were remedied in the same fashion.

 

I would like to say special thanks to everyone for your most helpful suggestions.

I have a new Stanier 1st class coach LMS version that I bought new a couple of years ago. It is sitting in its box awaiting the roof being painted a more reasonable colour than 'new' metal. I just tested it and it rolls away accelerating happily on my 1 to 100 test slope, on level track the 'finger tap' test has the coach traveling about 6 inches

 

Are the brake blocks rubbing on the wheels?

 

Are the back to backs OK

The back to backs seem fine, I haven't actually measured them but they negotiate code 75 points OK and the blocks are close but not actually rubbing.

I'm now thinking along the line of flanges rubbing as has also been suggested.

Sounds very similar to how many of the first batch of Hornby's SR-rebuilt LSWR non-corridor stock behaved.

 

Various remedies were suggested in the thread dealing with them.

 

My first pair took me ages to get running well, but those from the second batch were fine straight from the box.

 

John

Thanks for that John.

Now you mention it, my ex-LSWR pair are somewhat recalcitrant as well; however, usually running together without other vehicles attached, the issue doesn't present a problem, being easily handled by an M7. Nevertheless, they are not very free running.

 

May I ask what approach is found to be the most successful.

 

I am trying to fathom out as to why all three Hornby ex-LMS Stanier coaches purchased new within the last 6 months from different sources are afflicted with the same running issue.

 

The models - R4234B, R4235C and R4236C have such a high rolling resistance that when one is tapped with a finger, it comes to a stand amost immediately, almost as if the wheels have coach lighting pick-ups rubbing on them.

 

When inverted, the wheels appear to spin relatively freely but on the road, the drag is so great that the three vehicles coupled to a Bachmann "Porthole" and a CCT have caused a 5MT to loose its feet on level track!

 

The brake blocks have been checked and there's no obvious binding, however the axles do appear to have very little side play within the bogies. I've gently teased out the bogie frames to effect more freedom but there's no improvement; the sides assume their previous state and I don't want to cause any damage by overdoing things.

 

I'm considering coating the axlebox bearings with graphite by twisting the sharpened tip of a soft 6B pencil in them. If any member has had similar issues, have they tried this and had any success?

 

I would be extremely grateful for any useful suggestions.

 

PS The sanders on the "5" were working and the "strings" had all been pulled!

Peco 00 Electrofrogs have a removable link wire underneath them which can be removed if you wish to feed the frog from a polarity change switch; this option ensures optimal conductivity to the point blades with no reliance on contact with the stock rail. As previously posted, insulated joiners must be used on the inner rails of the "vee" on all points.

I believe Peco now supply this information with their points.

 

I have used simple slide switches on occasion as a temporary "get around", mounted to the outside of the baseboard to change polarity. The toggle was drilled for the attachment of steel wire which passed through the baseboard frame, beneath the board proper, and right angled up to the point tie bar. The wire requires support beneath the board to prevent bending.

Ultimately, the wire in tube method could be used, but as the points in question have given flawless service for many years, "I ain't gonna fix 'em!"

Please see pics

'There's a prototype for everything', but UK is usually set up for passenger trains passing, so as you've described above. Signalling rules come in to play here too regarding what is suitable for passenger or freight.

Prototypically, "up" and "down" platforms would be the most usual layout in the UK. In model form it would offer significantly more interest as passenger trains pass between single block sections.

 

In terms of signalling, the area modelled would be considered "Station Limits", the exchange of single line staffs or tokens being effected at the signal box (unless using RETB); this would also add interest to train movements on the model as trains wait for the line ahead to clear.

As shown, your platform loop would require either trap points at each end or points to a short siding as protection against unauthorized movements to the main.

 

Ultimately, the modelled layout is really dependent on which types of service you envisage operating.

The multimeter is an indispensable instrument for the tracing of faults and identification of circuitry and components etc.

However, if ever there is a running problem and a suspected lack of juice I reach first for my home made track tester comprising of an LED, resistor and stiff copper wire (as contact pick-ups), all attached to a small offcut of Plasticard. Cost was negligible as it was made from bits from the junk drawer.

Always at hand, it and can readily identify rail conductivity issues by simply sliding along the track.

Then I put the kettle on!

But even worse.....NO signalling!

 

Phil

Quite agree.

Correctly located signals are of more importance to model railway realism than many other items of infrastructure. Even if they are not remotely operated, they still command a striking visual presence to any layout.

A double chimney wouldn’t look right on a Clan.

To the opinions of many, chimney modifications were an aesthetic disaster borne of necessity; the Hawksworth "Counties" being a typical example.

When confronted with similar posers, I try to visit a location of the prototype whereby dimensions can be obtained and photographs taken.

If only able to use photography, ensure where possible to include in the same frame at similar distance, something of known dimensions. It will then be possible to compare dimensions and scale accordingly.

 

I am not at all conversant with waste pipes but assume their sizes are dependent on from whatever source they are draining from; outflows, culverts, industrial waste will all vary greatly in diameter.

 

Depending on the scale in which you are working, materials for your pipe could be copper wire, plastic rod or brass tubing to name a few. For larger diameters, plastic tube with an inner core of copper wire and then softened with very hot water can be bent to shape.

 

As an example, I have attached a photo showing water columns which I produced "on the cheap" utilising this method.

Many thanks, John

Hi Paul

See attached quick snapshots of pages of Eastern Section Freight Headcodes, some of which traversed your area of interest.

Hope they're useful.

Parcels services have for some time been a source of special interest, if for nothing else than the seemingly myriad of vehicle types assembled in one train.

 

These workings have not always held this degree of fascination; like many a youngster in the 1950s, I often dismissed them as a generally dirty mix of vans, hardly worth a second glance unless perhaps hauled by a locomotive of interest.

 

Fast forward to the present day and those nondescript trains of yesteryear can provide a far more purposeful subject for the modeller. The regional variation of vehicles, some of which in varying degrees of cleanliness, can offer a pleasant random departure from the usually more uniform passenger stock.

 

With regards to BR, predominantly SR and WR services from the '50s to early '60s, I would be grateful if any member has knowledge as to how the stock was rostered for these workings, especially inter-regional services. Would there have been a common regional "pool" from which trains could be assembled?

 

Photographs in books are aplenty, but specific information is rather scarce. I can appreciate that van trains aren't everybody's cup of tea but any help would be appreciated.

Possibly a version from the Springide white metal range, removing the carrying handles and then filing down to size. Electrical conduit can be represented by thin nickel silver wire from Nairnshire Modelling Supplies and lamp irons formed from spare thin brass strip left over from etchings.

The steam generator might need some searching for though.

Good hunting.

Many compromises within our hobby are inevitable to all but the most fortunate who are not restricted by space in which to build their railway projects. There lies the art in reducing any negative visual impact to levels where they can be ignored by the layout owner.

What is deemed acceptable by one modeller may really grate when seen by others.

 

Within the constraints of funding but also having the need to retain the flexibility of - dare I say it - tension lock couplings, the reduction of the unprototypical distance between rolling stock has been the compromise which I personally have tried to eradicate as best I can.

 

Modifications to said couplings have brought a much more pleasing appearance to consists but this has in turn brought about its own compromise - the use of large radius points and track curvature and the inevitable "end to end" layout.

Observing pleasing slow exits and arrivals of closer coupled formations has in this instance been worth the sacrifice of being unable to operate a continuous run, much as I would relish the chance of operating lengthy fasts and heavy goods services.

 

Ultimately we do what we can within our abilities and budgets as long as it pleases us.

Do model manufactures perform any in-depth consultantation before deciding which individual locomotives within a class are to be produced?

 

Apart from obvious choices where engines have enjoyed a claim to fame and could therefore provide the necessary incentive for newcomers to the hobby, it can appear a somewhat haphazard and random process, especially where perhaps more suitable alternatives exist within the same class.

In some instances, individual examples can range from a restrictive timeline of operation to an unfortunate episode in the prototype's history.

 

Current examples include Hornby's Rebuilt WC No 34096 which had a very short operational life in rebuilt form and their N15 No 30792 which was one of the earliest Scotch Arthur withdrawals.

 

Some years ago, Graham Farish produced an N gauge representation of unmodified BB No 34066, surely a most unfortunate choice! At the same time they were also marketing Duchess Nos 6242 and 46244, both of which were involved in mishaps, albeit the former in BR days and the latter in LMS days.

 

Luckily, examples in these categories are rare but with a little research, a more appropriate locomotive could be selected for production.

Thanks 34C.

The "gearbox" was full to the brim before I took the photo; guess I need to remove more grease!

Regards

Thanks to a previous tip posted by a member, I have been able to remedy a running problem with my Hornby H class 0-4-4T (R3539) and have included this post which may be of assistance to others.

 

Purchased late last year and having test run successfully on 12V DC, I hard wired a Lenz Silver Mini decoder after which the loco continued to run perfectly.

 

It was then put into "store" for the winter and on being reintroduced to service, was continually prone to intermittent stalling on clean track at low speeds.

After removing the loco body the fault was still present denoting the flywheel was not in contact with anything.

Digging deeper, by slackening the four tiny screws atop the motor casing thus easing pressure between worm and gearing the fault disappeared suggesting the contact pressure between motor worm and gearing was excessive.

I inserted a paper shim made from 80 gsm printer paper longitudinally along each side of the casing adjacent the worm before re-attaching the motor.

Problem solved, but why it should have manifested itself after storage is a mystery.

 

In this instance a warranty fix would not have been accepted owing to my hard wiring of the small decoder.

 

Please see attached photo for referece

Hi Steve

Thought this might be of help.

 

When planning your track layout and it's placement within the constraints of the baseboards have you considered trying the AnyRail computer program. If I remember correctly, it's available to use FOC with a limited amount of objects selected; the full version is chargeable but gives unlimited object selection.

 

Track scale and manufacturers can be selected together with all their proprietary turnouts; you can customise radii for curves amongst many other useful tasks.

It might seem a bit fiddly to begin with but can be worthwhile in ensuring you only eventually purchase the trackwork items required and knowing they will fit.

By printing out your design in sections I've found you can get by with just the trial version.

Six exhaust beats per driving wheel revolution for any 3 valver.

 

"Three ha'pence for tuppence" at lower speeds when the settings are tight, progressing to a "chuffer-chuffer-chuffer" as speed increases and finally into an almost indiscernible roar when pulling hard and fast.

However, the perceived acoustic effects of prototype steam exhausts can vary with location and also valve cut off, with Doppler Effect also playing it's part.

 

Locomotives with conjugated valve gear could be notoriously off the beat when due for "shopping", a run down V2 would probably be the best example of this. For the most part, top link A4s were maintained in pretty good condition because of their exacting mileage workings.

 

Bullied Pacifics in original condition need no introduction in this sense; fresh out of works, they emitted a pleasing "cheffety-chuffety-chuffety", but I remember seeing/hearing a high mileage engine giving 2 loud - 2 soft and then NOTHING!

 

It all comes down to what we are trying to achieve on our own layouts. The visual detail representation by manufacturers is at a commendable all time high and something one would never have thought possible 30+ years ago but are we not in danger of striving a little too far in our attempts to encapsulate the prototype railway in miniature?

 

DCC Sound, a very personal thing; fine if that's what the individual wants, and there must be many satisfied modellers utilising it but for me it just doesn't "cut the mustard".

 

DCC virtual reality smells, when will that be developed?

Hot oil, sulphorous fumes, brake blocks even diesel fuel and the long forgotten pine-scent wafting from the Gents!

No, we'll leave that well alone.