Chuffer Davies

Well I think I'm going to have to accept that the evidence does not appear to support my understanding with regards supposed incompatibilities between ECM controllers and coreless motors. I looked up the specifications for Portescap motors in the EMGS manual and the spec actually recommends ECM controllers for Portescap motors so my apologies for any misinformation I may have provided. Rechecking the Gaugemaster site the spec for the HH controller definitely warns against their use with coreless and 'N' gauge motors so that part of my previous entry remains correct. We live and learn. Frank

Hi Bob, My comments are based upon what I have read in the model press particularly when the Portescap units were first launched in the 1980's. There was quite a lot of discussion about the compatibility of these motors with various controllers. There was talk about a modification for ECM controllers to make them compatible with Portescaps. I can't remember whether it was a specific ECM unit or a factory modification that you needed to request. My personal experience early on with standard ECM controllers and Portescap units was that not only did the motor sound unhappy, slow running was significantly worse than with smooth DC control. I believe this is because the commutator has negligible effective inertia and is constantly adjusting to the pulse from the ECM feedback controller resulting in the proverbial Kangaroo effect. I know that others have suggested that there are no issues but I have to believe that the people who wrote the articles in the 80's knew what they were talking about and I have always avoided running my Portescap powered locomotives (which most of mine are) on layouts with either ECM or Gaugemaster GMC-HH controllers. Regards, Frank

Its a Swiss company but they have manufacturing plants in other countries. Originally the gear boxes were built in the UK and paired with Swiss made motors. Or at least the 1616 and 1624 motors were their own but I believe the 1219 motors were sourced from Faulhaber Frank

Hi, I think Sparaxis has explained the reason for the apparent problems well. Melmerby's suggestion is perhaps slightly drastic and not one I would immediately support. With regards which controllers can be used successfully our experience at the Shipley MRS is as follows: - Non feedback controllers of most types work well. These days we typically use the Gaugemaster (cream faced) controllers and their GMC-W black hand held unit but not their GMC-HH black hand held controller because this has feedback and Gaugemaster themselves warn against using this with coreless motors. The old H&M controllers work fine such as the Duette but don't use the half wave option. - The two feedback controllers we have used successfully are the Modelex and the Pentroller range. We would definitely not recommend ECM controllers. - As to DCC it is all down to the chip you select to put in the locomotive. Some chips are more suitable than others (or at least that has certainly been true in the past) so it is worth doing research before purchase. Personally I use the small Zimo chips. It is also worth checking the chip's user manual for guidance on adjustments to the CV settings specifically for coreless motors. With regards the whine experienced with Escap units it is my understanding that the noisy units resulted from moving production from the UK to overseas. As I understand it the material used for the plastic gears was changed and it is this change of material that has caused the increase in noise rather than warn moulds. I don't know if anyone else has more information about this. I hope this helps. Frank

Hi Michael, a poorly phrased statement on my part. When I said warped, I meant as in melted/warped. Evostik directly applied to some sheet plastics just destroys them. I did actually apply plastic sheet to both sides of the thin plywood but because I used a different (non embossed) plastic sheet on the inside regrettably the sides still warped and required considerable internal bracing to straighten them out again. If I was doing it again I’d use the same material on both sides. We live and learn. Frank

Yes it is based on experience although I can't take crdit for discovering it. The one and only building I made for Hungerford had a plywood shell onto which I wanted to bond some brick embossed plasticard but trying to use Evostick on both surfaces resulted in the solvent in the Evostick severely warping the plastic. The solution I was recommended by a colleague at the Wakefield club was to apply the Evostick to the plywood and once dry to use solvent to adhere the plastic to the Evostick. The plastic definitely adhered and the building is still intact 20 years later. Regards, Frank

Hi, a slight enhancement perhaps: apply the Evostick to the white metal and let it dry fully. Then you can use standard plastic solvent to stick the plastic to the Evostick. My only question is what is the life time of Evostick? Does it degrade after a few years? Regards, Frank

Hi Brian, Weight is good, and as long as it is baring down on the driven wheels then it is going to improve the tractive potential of the model. If the loco is slipping then there are typically two possible causes: 1) Something is lifting the weight away from the driven wheels, either the bogie (which you say it definitely isn't), the tender through the draw bar, or very uneven weight distribution such that the front of the loco is sitting down on the bogie. 2) Resistance in the non driven wheels, and again either the bogie or tender wheels may not be turning freely. There is a third possibility if the back to backs are too far apart such that the flanges are rubbing on the inside of the rails and lifting the loco off the track but this would be a very unusual occurrence. Hope this helps, Frank

Hi Tony et al, I have just had some disappointing but not unexpected news from PPD Ltd, the company in Scotland that I use for all my metal etching. After yesterday's instructions from the Government they have decided to suspend production. I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was working on a replacement chassis in EM for the Bachman Atlantic. I have had a go at building it from my version 1 etch and whilst I am pleased with most of it I made a significant design error around the spring hangers on the trailing axle which means it is impossible (for me at least) to actually build it successfully. I have made the necessary corrections to the design on CAD and sent the artwork off to PPD for re-etching only yesterday. Regrettably this project will now go on the back burner until PPD get back to work. This is as far as I could go without the new etches: PPD's closure will also impact my next project for our Clayton layout which is to design etches for a J1. I have just about finished the design for the frames and will commence work on the superstructure shortly, but if I can't get the metal etched I wont be able to build the model whilst stuck at home. To make matters worse the Clayton layout itself is also in lockdown because it resides in our clubrooms in the Baildon Recreation Centre which has also been shut down because of the Covid-19 emergency. I've a couple of kits to build and a couple more models requiring new kits designing so I still have plenty to distract me, and of course there are lots of interesting things to look at every day on Wright Writes. Regards to you all, Frank

Further to Michael’s advice I would add the following: As I understand it the manufacturers of coreless motors would advise that their motors are designed to work with smoothed DC current. I have seen narrative in the past that suggested the life span of a coreless motor is measured in the number of switching events rather than the time the motor is actually running. Also these motors are very efficient to the point they are often used as generators to drive monitoring equipment for larger devices. This higher voltage overwhelms the feedback circuit in some controllers which then overreact. When Portescap units were first launched there was a strong warning from the manufacturers not to use either ECM feedback controllers or Relco units because their circuits were too aggressive and would quickly damage the motor. From my experience the Gaugemaster GMC HH feedback controller appears to effect coreless motors in a similar way and certainly the Gaugemaster site recommends this controller not be used with either coreless or N gauge motors. If your layout uses analogue controllers then the closer to smooth DC you can provide the kinder it will be to the motor but If your layout has both cored and coreless motors then some of the older/cruder motors will not run as well on pure DC. Most controllers will be fine for both just as Michael has already said. If using DCC control the story is different and if the CV’s on the chip are adjusted correctly coreless motors can deliver outstanding slow speed performance particularly suited to shunting. You will need to read the instructions that come with the chip to determine what CV adjustments should be made for coreless motors to get the best outcome. It should be recognised That some chips are more compatible than others to coreless motors and care should be taken when selecting a DCC chip. I hope this helps to answer the original question. Frank

I'm sure its been mentioned on here before by others, unless you are constantly in need of removing excess solder then a length of multi core wire (plastic cover removed) dipped in flux can be used as a cheap and readily available alternative to Solderwick. You are effectively using capillary action to draw the melted solder into the braid. Regards, Frank

Hi James, wire the first motor as usual and then take feed wires from contacts 1 and 8 of motor one to contacts 1 and 8 of motor two . The two motors will then operate simultaneously. Frank

Guilty as charged. I’m currently building an EM chassis for a Bachman GN Atlantic. They would never have run through Clayton but very few green liveried engines did and they are very pretty so when we’re not at exhibition then rule 1 will apply. Cheers, Frank

Its been a long time since we posted an update and my apologies for this. Its not because we haven't been making progress but rather that it has been a lot of 'more of the same' and so very difficult to think of anything interesting to share with you. I'm pleased to say that even though it was a couple of weeks later than I had intended, we have at last finished the underboard wiring of the layout. Its been a marathon taking around 15 months of concentrated effort on the parts of two/three members of the team, but as far as I can tell from the testing carried out so far we have made very few mistakes despite the thousands of solder joints and hundreds of wires that we have installed. Testing is made more complex because the whole layout is controlled using Bill's digital control system. This is based upon CanBUS technology. We think that the software that Bill has written is now working correctly and so any errors in the operation of the layout will now likely be down to the errors in the data that I have configured. This probably all sounds gobbledygook so I had better explain in a bit more detail. Bill, who is an electronics design engineer by profession, has designed a control system with microprocessors at its heart. The microprocessors are built into printed circuit boards and each board has the capacity to receive up to 16 inputs and can then control up to 8 outputs. Inputs are either switches (toggle or push button) or power feeds from the track. Switches will either be in the control panel, or equally they can be under the baseboards in which case they are providing feedback for electrical interlocking. For instance a signal can not be pulled off until the route that it protects has been set correctly. The accessory switch on the point motor is used to provide the feedback to inform the control system that the point has changed and only then can the signal be pulled off. Outputs are themselves simple on/off devices which will complete a circuit by connecting an external device to ground. In the case of Clayton there are only two types of external output devices in the digital system, these being LED's in the display of the control panels, and relays. Points, uncoupling magnets, track isolating sections and servos used to operate signals and retarder devices, are all interfaced to the control system via relays which are directly switched by the control boards. The control boards are universal and so are installed in the control panels and under each of the base boards. They are all connected serially by a pair of wires (the CanBUS) and they can therefore pass information to each other along the BUS. In normal operation the only data to be passed are numbers in the range 0 to 2500. The numbers are generated whenever the state of an input changes. Each input is therefore assigned two unique numbers: one for when it is on and the other for when it is off. All the boards are constantly 'listening' for the numbers on the BUS and a logic board will either enable or disable one of its outputs whenever the correct combination of numbers has been 'heard'. The picture below is Bill checking out my wiring in the goods yard control panel. The 6 logic boards required for this panel are clearly visible stood in their docking boards, along with a number of relays which are unfortunately required to control sets of bi-coloured LED's in the display, Mono coloured LED's in contrast are wired directly into the logic boards. The PC power supply provides the power to the logic boards, LED's and relays. The traditional transformers provide power to the analogue controllers, uncoupling magnets, and tortoise point motors. Each docking board has 8 sets of jumper pins which are configured to assign a unique ID to the logic board docked onto it. The whole operation is configured on an Excel spreadsheet which defines both the unique numbers allocated to each input, and the combination of numbers required to either enable or disable an output. The excel spreadsheet is converted and stored in the internal memory of the logic boards by a further piece of software developed by Bill. Once the boards have been updated there is no need to keep a PC connected to the layout. We are now at the stage where any problems with the operation of the layout are either due to wiring errors (unlikely), or due to errors in the data I have defined on the spreadsheet. I am still testing the fiddle yard but hope to move onto the front of the layout shortly once all the data bugs in the fiddle yard have been sorted. The other bit of progress I can report is that I have at last completed the 2nd of my J7 locomotive builds. Both J7's have been built using the etches developed specifically for Clayton. The 2nd has the largest of the 3 different boiler types carried by the J7's. It is 4' 8" diameter and is the same as that fitted to the J3's. As with my first J7 the motor is installed in the tender with a drive shaft running under the fall plate from the tender to a gearbox installed on the rear axle of the loco. I have modified the gearbox design slightly by installing miniature ball races to support the input shaft which runs at the same speed as the motor in the tender. I am delighted to report that despite the relative complexity of the drive system both J7's appear to run quietly and faultlessly. Last night we were able to attempt to run for the first time a banked goods train up the gradient and we took the following video as a record of our endeavours. Enjoy: Until the next time. Regards, Frank

Yes the motor measures 16x16x20. Frank

Hi Michael, you did mention this at the time we discussed the motors but I have not attempted to check this out as the motor has been inaccessible when I’ve been test running the loco on Clayton. The tender’s body didn’t heat up nor were there any worrying smells. The motor seems quite happy to chug away all day long without showing any signs of stress so that’ll do for me. I have noted that they are slow revving and so need a low ratio gear train. I’m using 30:1 which is ideal for an unfitted goods but not fast enough for much else. Thanks for the recommendation. Frank

Somewhat belatedly I know, but at long last I've all but completed a project I have been working on which I would now like to share with friends on Wright Writes. This has been all about filling two of the gaps in the kit market for J7 class locomotives needed for our Clayton GN project at Shipley MRS. I have at last built both prototype models and will shortly be despatching them for painting after they have been striped down and thoroughly cleaned. The first, which to my mind is the better proportioned of the two, represents a 1081 series J7 with a 4' 5" diameter boiler and the later Ivatt cab. The second represents a J7 having received a large 4' 8" boiler similar to those fitted to the J3's. Sir has mentioned a number of times that many of his locomotives need to be capable of pulling heavy kit built prototype length trains around LB. On Clayton GN we have an additional challenge of a 1:50 gradient on a curve for the first 20 feet of the scenic section. After a bit of experimentation it became clear that model locomotives of the size that ran on the Queensbury lines and built in the traditional way are going to struggle to pull more than about 18 wagons up the gradient. We have had to get creative in order to be capable of running trains of a prototypical length on our train set. These models have therefore been designed with their motors fitted in the tender and a driveshaft below footplate level running forward to a gearbox under the cab. The firebox, boiler and smokebox have been packed with lead to maximise the weight and therefore the hauling potential of these models. The smaller of the two has successfully pulled a 24 wagon train up the gradient without slipping and the larger one whilst still to be tested should be capable of more. The main challenge for me has been the design of the drive train. It took a while to track down a gearbox sufficiently compact to fit fully under the cab. The breakthrough was visiting the High Level Kits stand at Expo EM and seeing Chris's Road Runner Compact+ gearbox on display. The gearbox in these models is therefore derived from High Level's RRC+ but the HL frame itself has been replaced with a bespoke unit the final version of which (currently on order from the etchers) will be fitted with ball races on the input shaft. I am very grateful to Chris at High Level for supplying the various gears and for his advice and guidance on how to calculate the dimensions for accurate meshing. As is standard for me these models are built to EM gauge, use American pick up for current collection, are compensated (CSB method), and use plastic centred wheels with their rims shorted out to the axle. The draw bar carries the current collected from the nearside rail through the locomotive's frames to the motor in the tender so no wiggly pickups to worry about fitting anywhere. I can hear Sir muttering under his breath with regards such eccentricities but he knows that I enjoy building things this way and I'm too old to change my ways. Its been two challenging years to research, design, and build these models so I hope you like them. I have derived enormous satisfaction in doing so and am about to start it all again so that we can have a couple of J1's for the layout. I've done several other things at the same time including building the fiddle yard points for Clayton and wiring the entire layout. I must also admit to a relapse and spending some time EM'ing a Heljan 47xx (Night Owl) for our Hungerford layout. This included complete replacement of the pony truck, cylinders, slide bars and cross heads. I'll try not to fall off the wagon again before the stock for Clayton is built but old habits die hard. 1021 Series J7 with 4' 5" Boiler. Still to receive a replacement smokebox dart and the valve chest cover plate in front of the smokebox saddle when this picture was taken. J7 with 4' 8" (J3) boiler. A view of the locomotive's frames to illustrate how compact the High Level RRC+ gearbox can be. This gear box is soon to be rebuilt with ball races to replace the brass bushes in which the input shaft revolves. The universal joint socket on the back of the box is a Markit's product that has been shortened slightly to fit the available space. The thin phosphor bronze wire on the draw bar is to ensure good electrical contact between the draw bar and the tender's draw bar pin. I have included a cosmetic representation of the valve gear to fill the void at the front of the frames. The frames of the tender are also from a bespoke etch in order to provide the mounts for the ball races in which the drive shaft revolves and the motor and vertical gear train. I have been experimenting with this 'cube' motor at the recommendation of Mike Edge. It appears to be a very nice piece of kit and whilst it is not only powerful for its size it draws very little current much like a coreless motor but at a fraction of the cost. Regards, Frank

HI Tony, I agree with you entirely although some in your list are not always possible in reality. I am thinking of your suggestion of the need to set the layout up and test it prior to going to the next exhibition. At Shipley (MRS) the same floor space is needed for three layouts. Two of our exhibition layouts (LSGC and Hungerford) and our new exhibition layout Clayton (still under construction). As a result we only erect an exhibition layout between exhibitions if there has been a problem at the previous exhibition that we need to investigate before remedial action can be taken. Another cause of compromised running at exhibitions not yet mentioned are poorly designed control panels. These 'encourage' the operator to make errors whereby a train takes the wrong route or stops on a dead section, etc. The problem gets worse at the end of the day when the operators are tired and therefore more prone to making mistakes. This can be just as frustrating for the operator as for the viewing public. In contrast a well designed control panel not only keeps the trains running smoothly but also helps to keep the operators fresh and relaxed. Regards, Frank.

Hi Mick, Apologies for a somewhat late reply. This is the first time I've been on RM Web since posting my comment. I only offer the use of steel for hand rails as a third option that some will not previously have considered. I particularly like steel because it is far more resistant to accidental damage. This is important to me because my stock is primarily built for exhibiting and so is constantly being packed and unpacked. Whilst I would agree that logically steel is harder to bend and cut, at 0.4mm thickness it is still easily worked and I've personally never given it a second thought even when bending up hand rails for Great Western locomotives which are not the simplest to make at the best of times. As to concerns with regards rust there are many other components already utilised by railway modellers which are made of steel so you will already know if rust is a problem for your personal situation. In the end it's a personal choice. Regards, Frank

Hi Jesse, that is an impressive model you are building there, I wish I’d been as capable a modeller as you are at that age. I thought it worth mentioning that very early on in my modelling career I started using 15 thou (approx 0.4mm diameter) steel wire rather than brass or nickel silver for hand rails. I buy it from Frizinghall Model Railways (my local model shop) labelled as piano wire, it is sold in 3ft lengths. The main benefits being that it is far more resistant to accidental damage, paint appears to adhere better to the steel, and if the paint does wear the bare metal is quite dark and doesn’t shine through as would brass or N/S. Regards, Frank

Oops! yes of course. It’s me age you know. I’ll try to correct it. Apologies to all, Frank

Hi, I would just like to add a couple of points further to the excellent advice of both Tony and Martin. Firstly when I discussed back to backs with Mike Sharman soon after he started making his wheelsets he would not specify a back to back measurement for his wheels. Instead he explained his own process for determining the correct back to back for any wheel on any gauge with the following illustration which I have reproduced for EM (18.2) gauge. As can be seen from the illustration the critical elements are that the back to back must be greater than the check span (i.e. greater than 16.2mm in EM) otherwise the wheels will bind in the check rails. Additionally the back to back must be sufficiently narrow as to guide the flange smoothly into the V's flangeway. Too wide and the flange will hit the nose of the 'V'. There will be more or less 'wiggle room' depending upon the thickness of the flanges but it is best to keep the back to back as wide as possible to reduce the tendency of the vehicle to 'crab' which increases the risk of buffer locking. From my experience of a number of RTR locomotives that I have converted to EM for friends I can confirm that there is considerable variation in the flange thicknesses for different models and not all are immediately suitable for re-gauging. I have regularly found RTR flanges of 1mm thickness or more which would if unmodified bind and jump in the flangeways. Fortunately I have a lathe and have been able to thin down such flanges by skimming the backs of the wheels, so far with complete success. I am currently converting a Heljan 47xx for myself and have performed the same modification on the wheels plus a new set of wider axles to suit. Martin's comment that the critical measurement is the check span and check gauge (17.2mm in EM) rather than the track gauge was a light bulb moment for me. Deviate from this and you are no longer modelling in EM as the Society would understand it. Regards, Frank Back to Back Vs Gauge.PDF Back to Back Vs Gauge.PDF

It’s also parked up. There is a shovel leaning against the trailing axle box. Frank

Hi Tony et al, I just wanted to expand on something Andrew (Headstock) has mentioned because I think several of the contributors to this blog may be interested. Shipley club's Leicester South (GC) layout doesn't get out much these days as it has already attended most of the shows that are likely to be able to invite it to exhibit. It will however be our feature layout at the Bradford Industrial Museum when the club takes part in Bradford Museum's Model Mania event over the week starting Tuesday 15th October and finishing on Sunday 20th October. The layout will be on static display Tuesday through Friday but will then be stocked and operational for the weekend. This will be the only opportunity until September next year to see this layout (and Andrew's stock) in operation and so you may feel inspired to make the trip. Entry to the museum is free and the opening times over the weekend are 11:00 AM until 4:00 PM . The address is: Moorside Mills, Moorside Road, Eccleshill, Bradford BD2 3HP I hope we might see and have a chat with some of you there. Frank

Well that's it for another year. Everyone has gone home, the signs have been taken down and packed away as has all the crockery and kitchen equipment, and we've hopefully all caught up on our lost sleep. Thank you for all the positive comments received and we will take note of the constructive feed back received also. Thank you to all: our exhibitors, traders, volunteers and of course our visitors who together made it such a successful weekend. Trophy winners were: VISITORS SHIELD Hope Street PRESIDENTS CUP Halifax King Cross DOUG METCALF SALVER St Georges Riverside TONY JONES AWARD The shop fronts - Hope Street TREVOR JAMES TROPHY Sandy Bay We hope to do it all again next year, provisionally the dates will be the weekend of the 19th/20th September 2020. We hope to see you all then. Frank Davies (Chairman - Shipley MRS)