Chuffer Davies

10 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Graeme, I am a bit concerned about  the photo of the loaded car. Where is the operator's armchair as seen in the first photo of the erected layout?

 

 

That’ll be what he sits on when driving.

A couple more pictures taken at Thursday's running session, this time by Derek Shore.  The first is a photo of the small boilered J7 approaching Clayton station from the Queensbury direction.  The large pipe was a water pipe that fed the two water cranes one at each end of the island platform.  Rather than a water tower Clayton had a man made pond which was fed from the water that leaked into Clayton tunnel a couple of hundred yards up hill from this location.  The J7 is the result of a test build from my own etch artwork.  This model is now available as a kit from London Road Models.

The second is a photo of the only RTR loco likely to end up on Clayton and is Hornby's J50.  The chassis was converted to EM by turning up some new axles in the lathe but the wheels are the original Hornby OO wheels.  I had to remove metal from the inside of the front splashers to gain sufficient clearance but that was all that was needed.  It's a sweet runner and once the superstructure has been detailed and weathered it should fit in nicely with the rest of the kit/scratch built loco's on the layout.  The vans behind it were originally built in OO and ran on Leicester South (GC).  We just regauged the wheels for EM and they now have a new home on Clayton.

The test running session went better than I had expected and apart from a couple of points in the good's yard that didn't throw properly all bodes well for its first exhibition in August.    

5 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

At slight risk of pedantry ...

 

... it's actually a Luton van with tail lift. This is the contents at York show, with just a few of the domestic sundries unloaded - the full layout is in there at this point.

We did originally use a LWB transit, but the stacking and packing was indeed becoming like a Krypton Factor challenge; the Luton (and the tail lift in particular!) does make life a little easier these days.

Remarkable…. Our layout (Hungerford) is slightly smaller but appears to fill the same van type much more than Grantham.

11 hours ago, John Smart said:

A selection of vans from Russ Whitwam.

 

John

Hi John, it’s my age y’know!  It was indeed good to see you and thanks for posting these excellent pictures.  
As you are aware we will be exhibiting Clayton as a work-in-progress project as part of the Expo EM Summer exhibition in August.  This has had to be relocated at short notice and will now be located in the sports hall above which are the Shipley MRS club rooms.  I hope you will be able to come and help operate?

Frank 

19 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

SO ...

 

We're on our way to Brissle. Long way back home if I've forgotten anything!

 

6 day adventure this one, in total.

Today: 4pm pick van up, load up and get some miles under the belt

Tomorrow: to show venue and commence set up.

Friday: complete set up and be ready for the adoring public from 1230

Saturday: full show day

Sunday: last show day, pack up and get some miles under the belt 

Monday: complete journey home and unload

Tuesday: take van back at 8am

 

There must be easier ways of making a living 🤔

I'm amazed it all fits in one Transit Van.  You must have an incredible stacking strategy to get it all in.  

Have a great weekend!

Frank

1 minute ago, Bernard Lamb said:

But look at the prices.

I used to read CM in March/April, I think it was, for the new releases.

Weinert was pushing things for me, but these are a different ball game.

Bernard

Hi Bernard, whilst I agree that the price of such superb RTR models is high. I would however point out that, as has been said many times on WW, the cost of building a kit loco is far higher than the current price of an equivalent British RTR model, especially if you get your models professionally painted as I do.  
The relative cost differential for me would not be that great and when you need around 30 locos for a project as I currently do, any help I could get from the RTR manufacturers would be most welcome if the quality was right.

17 hours ago, maico said:

 

Museum quality brass RTR goes for big money on the used market. If you need to ask the price you can't afford it!

 

German 1:87 Meta-Microkit photographed by Fitz Osterthun

 

 

 

 

This just demonstrates to me how much further our British RTR products could still go .  If they were built to this kind of standard I’d certainly not bother kit building but as it is I’ll not give up just yet.

Whilst I would have to agree that the clarity of dialogue on many recorded broadcasts is poor we should recognise that as we age our hearing also deteriorates. In particular it is typically the high frequencies that are increasingly attenuated and it is these frequencies that are required to decipher consonants.  Although I can still function day to day quite well without hearing aids I decided I would invest in a pair none the less.  I now not only hear birdsong and music clearly once more, of relevance to recent comments here, I can better decipher tv dialogue than without them. 
Perhaps it is time for some on ‘hear’ to consider a hearing test?

Now back to some modelling…

Regards,

Frank

6 hours ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

What is the best flex track to match this turnout range?

The EMGS's flexitrack (manufactured by Peco) is a match.  This is available mail order to EMGS members from the club's stores, or can be purchased from their trade store at either of the Expo events by both members and non-members.

8 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Tony is the O4/3 suitable for DCC? I’ve been on the hunt for an O4 that could pull one of my heavy trains…

The only models that are unsuitable (without significant modification at least) to convert to DCC are locos where one or both of the motor’s brushes are earthed directly to the chassis.  The models I know to have such motors are the Hornby Dublo, Triang Rovex, K’s and Mainline split frame locos.  Any motor where the terminals are (or can be) isolated from the frames can be operated under DCC so I would expect the O4/3 to be suitable.

Frank

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Frank,

 

Your post is very sensible; thank you.

 

Of possible relevance, the 'failure' of DCC locos to work on LB has nothing to do with voltage drop (I'm not suggesting you implied that with regard to Bytham). 

 

Bytham has five busbars (mains copper cable) running all the way around, attached to the underneath the baseboards. Four of these run underneath one rail of each of the main circuits (colour-coded) and a fifth (black) is the common return. My convention is that every section of the 'west-side' rail (no matter how short) of the track is attached to the common return via copper wire droppers soldered to the outside of the rail and the busbar. The same procedure applies to the 'east-side' rails of the four main circuits and their associated sidings. Pointwork is, obviously, wired into the system by polarity switches. Every circuit is divided into four 'zones'; two each for the main circuits on the scenic section and two each (Up and Down) for the fiddle yard. All of these can be switched on/off (which makes fault-finding easier to accomplish). There is absolutely no voltage drop anywhere. 

 

The puzzle was that in any of the eight sections in the fiddle yard, the DCC-fitted locos 'obeyed' their commands perfectly. Yet, in the scenic sections, the locos either wouldn't start at all or, if they'd started in the fiddle yard, just kept running under no control (even the 'panic button' did nothing when pressed!). Howard Smith and I could only surmise that it was the point and signal controls which were causing interference, even though everything was switched off (I even pulled out the plugs). 

 

Accepting my (self-imposed) ignorance of DCC, it's this kind of phenomenon which makes me stick with good old analogue. Since I did most of the track wiring (though Tony Gee once had to help me out when a point's microswitch just bamboozled me), I 'understand' how it works (up to a point - no pun intended), and I'll stick with that. I doubt if LB will ever be under DCC-control (or lack of it) ever again!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

A real quandary indeed!  Logic demands that the locos must have been getting traction current from somewhere other than the DCC command station when on the scenic section.  Did you try unplugging the DCC from the mains whilst the train was traversing the scenic section?  My guess is that  the train would have continued to run until it got back to the fiddleyard. If it happens again give me a call and I’ll try to help you diagnose what’s happening.

Frank

36 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Why they should work in the fiddle yard but not on the scenic section is a complete mystery. They were obviously getting traction current to keep moving, but not receiving the DCC commands. I can only put it down to the ‘sir’ effect. It’s well known that all locos, layouts etc. misbehave when you have been invited to view them!

 

Andy

I too have experienced the ‘Sir’ effect when operating exhibition layouts.  As soon as Sir appears you can be sure chaos in one form or another will ensue.  Nearly as bad is the appearance of a video camera when previously silky smooth running locos start to stutter and wagons that have trundled successfully countless times around the layout spontaneously fall off on a piece of plain track.

43 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

I question that amperage on older iron-cored motors. As a lifetime (now retired) electronics engineer, I also did train repairs for local shops including a couple of Hornby agents. Typical max values for an X04 fitted loco (note, not just the motor) always were no more than 250mA when they passed through my servicing. The H/D locos drew more current; if they approached 500mA they certainly needed a service and probably a remag. In good condition they would be no more than 350mA.

Hi Stewart,

As you will appreciate it is difficult to generalise and I was hedging my bets with regards these estimates because of the vast range of motors that have been used by the hobby over the last 60+ years.  A loco kicking its legs upside down in a cradle will draw far less current (amps) than the same loco hauling the maximum of which it is capable.  Mashima motors under max' load would probably be in the range you suggest but the Hornby Dublo loco under max' load would be getting towards 1 amp.  The message I was trying to get over is that when selecting a transformer/controller combo (for analogue) you should not exceed 12volts max on the track.  The more amps that the system can support the better especially if you are running multiple DCC locos on a single power supply.

Frank 

33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Bob,

 

That all makes sense. 

 

Certainly, the DCC-fitted Heljan 47 certainly displayed no lack of power, and with the wick turned up, one could certainly hear it! 

 

Testing it on just DC was in response to a request by a potential customer asking if there would be a 'drop-off' in performance without DCC control. There was no drop-off (the loco easily exceeded the prototype's top speed in scale and any more engine noise would have been annoying). Of course, we had no idea which DC supply the customer has, and Helmsman O Gauge controllers are certainly at the top end for power delivery. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

There is frequently confusion regarding the relationship between controllers and locomotives. There are two components at play, volts and amps.  
The maximum volts available are directly the result of the transformer’s windings and would typically be around 15volts ac (alternating current) for an analogue system.  This reduces to around 12volts after being rectified to dc (direct current).  If the voltage supplied is too high then you can end up burning out the motor so  you would be ill advised to use e.g. a 20 volt power supply on a typical OO analogue system.

The amps are dependent on the efficiency of the motor, I.e. the demand the motor makes on the supply.  Modern coreless motors typically draw between a quarter and a third of an amp.  Older soft iron cored motors will draw between half to one amp.  An under powered controller may not be able to supply sufficient amps to the motor, in which case the motor will not perform to its full potential.  Conversely a high powered controller (e.g. one designed for O gauge being used on a OO layout) will permit the motor to work to its maximum potential with no risk to the motor.

 
I am not fully up to speed on DCC systems but the rules above will still apply.  The lower the available amps delivered by the supply the less power will be available to be shared across all the locos running on the system.  LEDs and sound systems will increase the demand that an individual loco will place on the control system, but traction current will always be significantly more than the additional power demands of lights and sound.

The size of the layout is unlikely to impact this significantly although it is good practice on larger layouts to run a copper wire power feed to every individual rail rather than rely on fishplates to conduct the current.  Nickel Silver  track has a higher electrical resistance than copper wire and fishplates can also introduce further resistance. A layout wired with only one power feed to the track will exhibit a loss of voltage the further away from the feed you get, whereas a layout with a copper wire feed to every rail will have very little resistance so it is unlikely you would notice a voltage loss unless the layout was enormous. 

I have now serviced/repaired another of the Hungerford locomotives that had to be retired at the start of the Abingdon Exhibition earlier this month. This time it is model of a City class locomotive that must be well over 40 years old. It was originally built from a Nu-Cast kit in OO gauge by the late Michael Bradley of the Wakefield Model Railway Society. Michael later converted it to EM by simply changing the Romford driving wheel's axles to an EM pair and then pulled out the bogie and tender wheels on their axles to EM. In this guise it first ran on Wakefield's Kingsbridge layout which featured in several 1982 Model Railway Constructor articles.

When this model was first exhibited on our Hungerford layout is 2002 we experienced a problems with the Romford gears stripping. Michael died in 1997 and so it fell to me to deal with the issue. I decided that the best option was to dismantle and fully rebuild the chassis. The modifications introduced at the time were:

• Ultrascale (Beuler) motor and gearbox replacing the XO3 type motor and Romford gears that came with the kit. 
• Compensation: Simple compensation of the leading driven axle and a new functional set of compensated frames for the tender.
• American pickup - All 4 wheels on the offside of the loco and all 3 wheels on the nearside of the tender.
• Ultrascale wheels with modified Markit outside cranks.
• Replacement Coupling Rods - Made from a set of Gibson's Universal Rods.

Rather than use Ultrascales' plastic outside cranks I decided I'd prefer to experiment with a set of Markit's metal cranks.  I drilled out the threaded axle holes in the cranks to 2.5mm.  I then rebated the ends of the Ultrascale extended axles reducing their diameter to 2.5mm to a depth of 1mm matching rge dimensions of the modified cranks.  I know that the 3 jaw chuck on my Unitmat lathe does not run perfectly true and so the axles were held in a home made brass collet inserted in a 4 jaw chuck.  The positioning of its jaws were then adjusted using a Test Dial Indicator resting on the axle's end to ensure that the axle was running dead true before turning.  The cranks are fixed to the axles using Loctite 603 which I can confirm provides a rock tight fixing. 

This loco has now run reliably in its rebuilt form for 20+ years but recently the motor has started to fade and at Abingdon it could do no better than crawl when attached to its train of parcel vans. The loco was retired for the duration of the show and I have now had a chance to repair it.

Rebuilt chassis with the Ultrascale Motor and Gearbox as installed in 2002:

Rather than just replace the motor I took the decision to replace both the motor and gearbox with a superior High Level 1230 coreless motor and RoadRunner gearbox. This necessitated removing the outside cranks from the rear axle in order to release the wheels and axle from the frames which in turn allowed the gearbox to be released. I was amazed how little the coupling rods and frame bearings had warn so repairs could be limited to the replacement power unit.

Chassis with replacement High Level 1230 coreless motor and 60:1 RoadRunner gearbox:

The model is now reassembled and runs even better than when first rebuilt in 2002. The High Level drive system is silent with the 60:1 gearbox ratio providing excellent low speed control under analogue operation. With 6' 8" driving wheels the top speed is more than adequate for Hungerford's main line running.  Whilst the model is crude when compared to modern etched brass offerings I still think the model is a fair representation of its prototype and worthy of appearing on our Hungerford layout.  

I am currently servicing three locos that unexpectedly misbehaved at the Abingdon exhibition and couldn't be used over the weekend. One of these is a Malcolm Mitchell 517 class auto tank.

This is a rather unique model having been built by Guy Williams for a Model Railway Journal article.  Shortly after the article was published the model was put on sale and I was fortunate enough to purchase it. Guy built the model in P4 but as our Hungerford layout is built to EM gauge Malcolm sold me the etches so that I could build a second chassis in EM.

On the Abingdon weekend the loco ran perfectly at low speed but when trying to run it at main line speed it ran erratically. 

Once I got the chance to investigate the problem properly I initially concluded that the motor was to blame so I swapped it out only to discover that the problem remained.  I was certain that it was an electrical problem because there was a faint smell of ozone when I ran the chassis.  I then tried connecting wires from the controller directly to the chassis and turned the loco upside down to examine it closely.  Low and behold I could see sparks emanating from between the gearbox and one of the horn blocks.

I have always had a dislike for wire pickups for current collection.  Most of my tank engines are built with split frame current collection whereby the rims of the wheels are shorted to their axles.  The axles in turn are made with a paxillin bush to isolate one end from the other so that the current can pass from the axle through the horn blocks into the frames. 

The frame spacers are made from double sided printed circuit board with the copper track cut through so that the frames are electrically isolated from each other.  The motor’s leads can then be soldered directly to the frames.  Whilst an amount of extra work is required to machine the axles the end result is a simple and reliable means of current collection. 

The position of the paxillin bush in the axle on which the gearbox is mounted is critical because it has to sit in a very small gap between the gearbox and one of the hornblocks.  A fibre washer is inserted over the axle between the gearbox and the hornblock to stop the gearbox from shorting against the hornblock.

In the case of the 517 the gearbox is mounted on the middle axle.  This axle requires a small amount of side play to help the loco negotiate curves.  This creates a further complication when obtaining the correct position for the paxillin bush in the split axle.

 It appears that I hadn’t quite got the split in the correct place on the 517 and the end of the axle running through the gearbox was coming into contact with the horn block on the other side of the fibre washer.  I had no option but to remove the axle from the chassis and using my lathe I removed a small amount of metal from the split end of the axle so that it could no longer make contact with the horn block.

The fix appears to have worked and the loco is now running smoothly once more.  Why this problem suddenly manifested itself after many years of trouble free running I have no idea but at least its now resolved and the loco will once more be seen on Hungerford the next time it is exhibited.

1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

I wonder if anyone can help with a little query:

 

My SRM will not run when the unpowered bogie is off the track/rolling road. Does anyone know if this is as it should be - i.e. a result of the way it is wired - or does it indicate an issue with pickups on the powered bogie?

 

PS: No. I'm not trying to run it with one bogie off the rails 🙂 Just trying to diagnose a variety of issues with my replacement example.

 

Hi,

the power bogie has pickups and so should run when the non powered bogie is off the track. My powered bogie is only picking up on one side so your’s is not unique. You can check which wheels are picking up by lying it on its back and testing each wheel in turn with some flying leads off a controller or clipped to the track.

Frank

This weekend just gone we had a now rare opportunity to play trains on our Hungerford (EM) exhibition layout which had been invited to appear at Abingdon's 50th Anniversary show.   I say rare because the previous time w exhibited was at Gaydon in 2019.  Hungerford has been on the circuit for 22 years and has been to almost all the shows that might want to invite it.  Most of the time it is packed away in a dark attic flat in the top of the building that hosts the Shipley Model Railway Society.  Despite its age the old girl performed well with only a handful of problems coming to light on the Saturday morning.  Fortunately almost all faults were 'round the back' so did not impact the viewing public's pleasure.

This event at last gave me the opportunity to run the GWR model locomotives I have built since Gaydon, these being the modified Heljan 47xx, the Dapol Mogul for which I designed and built a replacement Motor-In-Tender (MIT) chassis, and the MIT converted Mitchell Mogul acquired from the estate of my late friend Tony Stoker.  The Moguls operated faultlessly.  The 47xx ran almost faultlessly but occasionally exhibited a 'shudder'.   I am not convinced the Heljan R-T-R chassis is man enough to haul a heavy train of metal kit built rolling stock.  It was pretty much on its limits and if I had time I would be very tempted to design and build a new chassis similar to that I built for the Dapol Mogul. 

I took the opportunity to shoot some videos of the layout which included shots of the 47xx and Dapol Mogul both of which still require weathering (apologies).  I hope that those unable to attend Abingdon, or have never seen Hungerford in the flesh, will enjoy these very amateurish shots of the layout.  I have also included a photo of the well stocked fiddle yard where the 22 trains that run in the layout are stored .   Enjoy!

1 hour ago, ndeluck said:

Very nice to see the "human" side of LB, Tony. Thanks for the pictures of a day in the life. Your "1:1" shots toward the M&GNR exemplify you and your team's attention to detail.

 

Just earlier this month I bought myself a complete and unassembled Craftsman LNER C12 (with Alan Gibson wheels and crankpins) with the intention of dipping my toe into etched kit-building after constructing some plastic rolling stock kits. Though it's been a few weeks now (having been stalled for a couple due to getting married!) and in its current state I feel confident enough to share my progress.

The running board and chassis frames, being the first to construct, took the most egregious abuse and haphazard construction but are now sitting acceptably as close to square as I can manage (and I will need to invest in a proper chassis jig). Now that they seem adequate to my eye and measurements, the rest feels to be coming a little easier. The valances were the most frustrating- and I pose this question to anyone reading, how do you all cope with such a joint? I couldn't figure it out until I quit for an evening and next just threw in the rear buffer beam hoping the mangled brass would sit flush, gently bending and coaxing it along to the next tack. The underneath of the running board is a terrible state- it will need intensive cleaning before painting.

 

Here she sits with chassis nearly complete (constructing the brake rigging is a choice yet to be made- unsure of how to approach with the instructions making little sense to me specifically fitting the blocks to the hangers). Which brings me to another question which I have searched for but haven't gotten sufficient answers. The Alan Gibson wheels and crank pin nuts, how do you secure them? I have a bottle of Loctite 242 at the ready, but will this work for the drivers as well as the nuts? The RH rear driver slips and fouls running due to being so loose. 


 

You do not normally need to secure the crank pin screws in the wheels as they are a screw fit in their holes.  If you over tighten them then they will slip but all you require is sufficient grip to stay in place when the crank pin nuts are tightened. 

I am concerned that you are reporting that the RH rear driver already slips, did you remove the sharp edges from the axle ends before first inserting them into the wheels?   If not there is a likelihood that the axle end has cut into the wheel hub removing a sliver of plastic as it did so thus compromising the grip of the wheel on its axle.  I would recommend you replace this wheel. 

I have used these wheels successfully on several models but the trick is to try to minimise the number of times you fit them to avoid over stressing/stretching the holes in the wheels.  When you are carrying out the final assembly (typically after painting the model) I recommend you use Loctite 603 to adhere the wheels on their axles.  This will pretty much eliminate any risk of their slipping under normal use.

Regards,

Frank

1 hour ago, Coppercap said:

I think it is the so-called butterfly valve, which has to be reset if the emergency chain is pulled. They rotate 90 degrees if chain is pulled, and in a train of several carriages, it can be seen in which carriage the chain's been pulled. They do appear to be vulnerable though, don't they? 

The valve itself is in a box into which the vacuum pipe enters.  When the emergency cord is pulled the valve open allowing air to enter the vacuum pipe thus destroying the vacuum causing the brakes to be applied.  I think the items that were referred to are (red) flags which are normally horizontal but when the chain is pulled they move to vertical allowing a guard looking down the length of the train to determine in which coach the cord has been pulled.  The chain is reset by manually returning the flag to horizontal.

45 minutes ago, outatime said:

 

It was not that easy, you have to disassemble nearly everything to drop the bogie out.

-unsolder connections to the motor and the pickups

-unscrew the PCB

-remove all the details from the bogie, at least the white pipe.

-unscrew the interior

-unscrew the metal C-Clip and slide it away

-drop the bogie out

 

The Bogie is split in two parts which are attached to each other by three screws.

Anyway, there's a lot of work involved.

As you can see in the picture, one side bench is missing in my sound fitted model.

 

Oh wow…. It’s even worse than I feared.  I’m going to have to wait until I’ve got a clear bench to attack this particular project. 
Many thanks for your feedback and the very informative photo.

Frank

5 hours ago, outatime said:

Mine had a stiff point as well, I had to disassemble it to where I got the motor out to see what the problem was.

The distance between the slide bars was to small at one end, so that the crosshead got stuck a little.

I used some small pliers to slightly tweak the slide bar and now mine runs fine.

Did you drop the steam bogie out completely and if so how difficult was it to do?  I’m going to have to dismantle the model to convert it to EM so it would be good to hear your comments.

Frank

3 hours ago, Keith Turbutt said:

I'm pleased to hear that Squires will be taking over the O and OO DJH ranges.

Specifically concerning the OO range, DJH did not in recent times include the wheel sets but I believe they could be supplied separately (Markits). Will Squires also be offering the wheel sets or will a kit purchaser have to source his own wheels? If so, given the recent concerns about the availability of Markits wheels will this discourage DJH sales. There are alternatives such as Gibson but not everyone likes 'pushon' wheels. Ultrascale deliveries take months and have a limited range. Some RTR manufacturers offer wheel sets separately but axle diameters differ.

 

Among my stash of kits I have some older DJH kits that were supplied with Romford wheels. I understand that Markits wheels are an improvement on the older Romfords.

What is the general view on going to the expense of replacing the Romford wheels with Markits. Presumably the Romfords could be sold through eBay to offset some of the expense.

Hi Keith,

I would have to challenge the logic of including wheels in with a kit.  Inclusion of Markits wheels would be a wasted cost for P4 modellers or EM/OO modellers with a preference for plastic centred wheels.  I don’t know enough about 7mm wheel options but would imagine a similar situation exists.

Perhaps if wheels are offered as an optional extra then fine that might be of benefit.

Frank

11 hours ago, Methuselah said:

Thanks for that Frank. It looks great. Did you re-use the Fulgurex motor and gears etc....?

Cheers,

                    Stephen.

No, I gave the Fulgerex chassis away to a friend who had a OO layout.  He then installed it under a Hornby body.  My king has a large Portescap motor/gearbox combo.

Frank