Harlequin

8 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

Thanks for the suggestions.  I understand the convention that the power should be fed into the toe end of the points which is the case with the first six points on the layout, but the seventh point is at the further end of the Passing loop, and I was not planning to feed any power into what is a half metre dead end beyond that point.  It is really only there to add some visual realism and provide the facility for locomotives to change ends of the train. I also understand the consequences of allowing negative and positive to meet each other on the same rail, which would happen on the passing loop when changing points if the power was on, and  is why I came up with the idea that the power be turned off while changing the passing loop points. Furthermore it would only involve one switch rather than several, and would avoid the need for complex cicuitry. I would be interested to learn of any technical reasons why such an approach should not be adopted. Just to clarify a couple of points, raised in the suggestions, I am running DC only, and am not planning to instal any points motors. I realise that I am a bit of a novice where model railway wiring is concerned, but I do have a good understanding of 12v power, having worked on and extended a battery powered system on a 50 ft boat where the calculations and circuitry can be quite complex.

 

 

The loco release spur at the end of the platform needs to have power for its whole length because at this stage you can't guarantee what operations you might use it for. You might need to drive a loco to the very far end for some reason so give it equal importance and attention as any other bit of track.

It is usual to allow the power to be turned off for the loco release spur separately from the platform track and the run round loop so that another loco can pick up the train in the platform while the arriving loco stands in the spur. (This operation may or may not have happened prototypically but, again, you can't know for sure at this stage if you'll ever need to do that so it's wise to allow for it.)

The layout will probably be divided up into sections, each with its own switch on the control panel so that you can control the movements of more than one loco and for fault finding. So it's a very small overhead to add another section switch for just the loco release spur.

In that case the typical arrangement might be something like this:

• Only two switches are needed on the control panel for this area.
• There’s no need to turn off the power to change the points.
• Notice that it doesn't matter in what combination the points are thrown (or how the frogs are switched), the insulators in the frog rails prevent shorts through the rails. You may get a short if you drive a loco over a point that is set against it but that's a different matter.
• The platform and run round tracks take their power directly from a switch, not relying on point blade contact, thus improving reliability.

Since the middle driving axle is sprung, I wonder if leaving it unsupported might be part of the problem?

Here are a few photos of my sound installation:

I removed the plastic coal load and to improve the sound, I cut a hole in the tank, covered with insect mesh, then glued chunky loco coal in using Copydex. The gluing takes a few iterations to ensure that the mesh is hidden and to build the shape you want.

The result is that sound will now come directly from the speaker, through the grille, and between the coal lumps, instead of being bounced around in the plastic tender body and coming out underneath.

I used a Zimo 40*20*9 speaker because I thought it gave the best sound of the speakers I tried without requiring any grinding of the tender weight block. The corners of the 3D printed speaker had to be rounded off to allow it to sit down in the cast metal speaker well and thus allow the body to fit down properly.

Back together:

The running plates line up, there was no feeling of the body flexing when the screws were tightened so it's just about a perfect fit and it sounds great (within the limitations of the sound project.)

I have used this technique before but this is the first time I've been able to show the tender with a partial load instead of brimming with coal and that made me realise that it would be better to (a.) weather the coal space before fitting the coal and (b.) have some finer grade bits around while being careful they don't block the grille. The advantage of using Copydex is that I can easily remove the load and do that one day.

So, room to improve but I think the basic technique is sound (ha ha!).

P.S. If you're fitting your own sugar cube speaker in the smokebox it's very important that it is sealed to the clip-on enclosure otherwise you might get buzzing on sounds like the whistles. I used Copydex for that too.

8 hours ago, Jsiony RN said:

Good afternoon

just been looking at this thread and returning to model railway after sometime. How things have changed. Do you by any chance Design layouts?  As mentioned don’t really have a clue at the moment but the little research I have done it does seem dcc is the way forward. I have a spare room size 10ftx8ft and would like a design to fit. I am happy to build the layout but have no clue about baseboard sizes etc. It would be nice to have a split level design (if possible) so my question is would you be able to design something .

 

kind regards Roger best contact is through my email *****@btinternet.com 

Hi Roger, I'll send you an email.

In the meantime, I suggest you edit your post above to remove the email address so that spammers and fraudsters can't see it.

Hi David,

You have to switch the frog one way or another and so the method of switching doesn't really affect the answer to your question. If you do the live point blades modification then you have to switch the frog externally.

The rails beyond the frog can either be electrically connected to the frog and take all power from it, or have their own power feed and be insulated from the frog.

Aside:

If you think you might like to use the point blades to switch the frog now but leave open the option to use an external switch later, then there's a simple method here: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/109951-electrofrog-point-isolations/&do=findComment&comment=4174997 (Read further back for Suzie's written explanation.)

@Harlequin is confused and doesn’t know what to make of this one!

Actually, having thought about it, I largely agree with you, David. It’s the mixture of scenic, part scenic and non-scenic scattered around the room that worries me. And the proportions. But it’s hard to see how to arrange the parts any differently without going multi-level, which brings new problems.

I think something different would make better use of the space... but Chris said in the OP we’re not allowed to use that ploy in this exercise!

52 minutes ago, BMS said:

Comment to Checkrails; are you able to tell us what the Zimo type and what the basic CV values s are, excluding the sound ones, please?

 

Comment to Melmerbry I spend my time and money doing what I want or need to. I don't now drive. Why does that bother you?

What do you mean by basic CVs @BMS?

The decoder will drive the loco perfectly well with its default settings. Any tweaks after that are personal taste and how @checkrail sets them may not be how you would set them. (Things like acceleration, deceleration, top speed, active braking, etc...)

BTW: If checkrail's model was Non-sound DCC fitted by Dapol then the decoder is probably not Zimo. The manual says it will be an "Imperium" in that case. But the only sure way to tell is either look at it or read it's identity in the controller.

(Dapol sound-fitted models will be Zimo according to the manual.)

5 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Martin

 

Thanks, but I used a scanner !!

On a Mac?

Hi @liathach: I suspect the "jumping problem" is local to you rather than a real problem with the Mogul. Remember you said:

On 18/11/2020 at 11:19, liathach said:

Just received 6336 this morning. 

 

Aesthetically, the loco looks excellent.

 

Control-wise,  I'm on DCC.  Zimo MX618n18 installed earlier.  I own many other steam engines and diesels the UK RTR manufacturers. 

 

I'm sorry to confirm that the starting from standing to step one is just not acceptable.  I have tried every conceivable alteration of motor-related CVs. At all values of CV9 below 101, the engine jumps seemingly instantaneously to a very, very fast step one.  If CV9 is set to a value above 100, you get annoying humming from the motor, although the transition from standing is improved.  I've tried changing max voltage, reducing CV58 throughout the range.  I've also tried alterations to CVs 57, 112, 23, 66, 95 and CVs145-150.  None of these have cured the instantaneous jump from standing.

 

Above step one, fine, but the starting performance is utterly unrealistic compared to everything else I have.

 

I'm toying with the idea of taking the loco apart to see if another motor would sit in easily in-case it's a poor motor.  If I was a better engineer in miniature, I would want to strip the thing down and change the gearing to improved slow-speed running.

 

I

 

 

But in May you said this about a Hornby Drummond 700:

And in April you said this about Bachmann Halls:

The jump to speed step 1 seems to be a common problem for you. I wonder if you are accidentally setting your decoders to 14 speed steps when changing CV29?

1 hour ago, Adrock said:

Performance here looks great. I’ve just watched the Sams trains review and, as a few others pointed out, I think the performance of mine is more aligned with his. So, thinking this through, how did yours run on DC before chipping? I wonder if DCC settings have improved the situation? Also, have you got an ability to measure the b2b’s to see if they are the same as Sam quoted in his review?

 

Either way, I wonder if I consider returning and requesting a replacement, to see if that runs any better. Maybe mine and Sam’s were of a few within the batch that aren’t running as well as they should...

I don't have a DC setup, only DCC, so I can't tell you how it runs on DC I'm afraid.

There are no unusual settings in the decoder - only a linear speed table to reduce the top speed (i.e. Speed step 0 = 0 volts, then a linear progression up to speed step 127 = about half max voltage).

I think it's more about good motor control, which all good DCC decoders have these days. So if this loco was run on a DC setup with pulse width modulation and feedback I would expect it to run similarly.

I'll try to measure the b2bs later.

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I suspect I'm one of your 'grumpies.  I absolutely agree that we shoud all be encouraging divesification and risk taking among RTR producers, but there is no monopoly and I reckon the trade is in a pretty good shape at the minute.  I accept that 00 gauge involves compromises, and a perfect scale model cannot be produced for an incorrect track gauge, also that volume RTR production will inevitably mean even more compromise.  But the new mogul, which I am keeping an eye on as I may be interested in the propsoed 5101 which uses the same chassis and mechanism, is not up to standard however good the body tooling is.  I would be avoiding this chassis even if the look of it was better than it is; my layout is a fairly short BLT using DC control, and I have no place on it for a loco that does not run at least as well as my existing Bachmanns and Hornbys in terms of slow running and of smooth stopping and starting; unfortunately, this one as reported and videod does not cut the mustard.  Moreover, as Dapol themselves have stated that the loco does not need running in, this is  therefore as good as the performance is ever going to be, and waiting for it to bed in or gentle fettling is a hiding to nothing.

 

This sorry state of affairs is then compounded by the visual disaster of the splayed slide bars, which are not just wrong and avoidable in the ways I have suggested, but draw attention to themselves, and I am further dissuaded by the rather crude crosshead.  This is a ship that has been spoiled for a ha'porth of tar, and unless it is significantly improved I will be avoiding the 5101 version; I have no need of moguls or manors.  Were I in the market for a mogul, I'd be happy with the body tooling of this, but would be wanting to put a Hornby chassis under it for performance and appearance.

 

I have no shares in Hornby or Bachmann,  or anyone else, and the fact that I have no Dapol, Oxford, Heljan, EFE, DJM, Kernow, Accurascale or other makes of locos is simply down to the fact that those companies do not make anything I want, while Bachmann and Hornby do.  I have no brand loyalty to any RTR firm; it you make something I want to decent standards of realism and running and I can afford it, I'll buy it!  I'm no rivet counter either, my ownership of a Hornby 2721 and a 'Limbach' 94xx (not for much longer) proves that, but poor running and overtly obvious inaccuracies like the splayed slide bars are not acceptable to me.  This is not a grump, it is my choice.

I hope for your sake that the Bachmann 94xx is absolutely perfect in every way then, otherwise you’ll have to reject that too...

I know some people are keen on having something scenic in front of the fiddle yard but I'm sceptical. It might be OK if the fiddle yard is just for storage of fixed trains but I think it gets in the way when you need to get at the stock to remake trains by hand. Having space in front of the FY to place stock before and after being swapped in and out is very useful when the FY capacity can't hold all your rolling stock.

David's suggested extra loop is good. If you rationalise the three lines to run parallel and put the cattle dock on the outside and it would be similar to Launceston (GWR). Launceston even had a turntable and single road engine shed...

The private industry at the back feels like it might be a step too far to me. Better not to fill the plan with track, IMHO. Instead leave some space for scenery to break up the plan shape and help disguise the railway-to-backscene transition.

2 minutes ago, liathach said:

I've just emailed Dapol and Rails to seek assistance first.  I've even asked if they are aware of alternative motors or gear arrangements that might yield better results.  Otherwise, I shall intend to send this locomotive back. 

Might be worth some further systematic debugging before you send it back. (Dapol are highly unlikely to say anything about other motors or gear trains - with RTR you get what you're given.)

Do you know if the decoder was at factory defaults when you first tried it? If not there could have been some odd setting in there so maybe try resetting the decoder and seeing if that helps.

Can you post a video here so we can see what you're seeing?

wiggy1's Wheeltapper video shows a OO model.

Hopefully the sounds from an O gauge model will be significantly better than the sounds from a OO gauge because you should be able to fit a decoder with higher amplifier output and a bigger speaker(s), which should improve the frequency response.

So what you really want is videos of such a setup in an O gauge model. And I would be interested to see them too!

Here’s a side view of the real thing. The motion bracket is to the front side of the saddle. So Dapol’s rendition isn’t far out.

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrls219.htm
 

30 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

According to J.H.Russell the moguls were a tender version of the 31xx prairies

 

GW standardisation in action.

 

Not only does Russell say that, Holcroft the man who drew up the design, says, "Although no thought of it had entered into the decision what had been achieved was a tender engine edition of the '3150' class 2-6-2 tank."

5 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

It's interesting that Hornby's prairie seems not to have problems with the conn rod envelope hitting the slidebars, although Hornby has cheated a bit by lowering the cylinder centreline to be on the driving wheel axis, and by cutting away the rear front of the cylinder. Dapol has taken a different cheat route, and, although I await seeing a good side-on shot (rods at 12' or 6'o'clock please), it seems as though Dapol has left the conn rod about 3mm overlength. This first arose (iirc) as a result of the correction to the longitudinal cylinder position in the CAD process. Dapol never made it clear exactly what they had done in that department (the communication to the outside world was non-existent on that aspect), but it seems they only did half a job in the correction process, which was a tricky compromise between allowing enough clearance for the front driver and not impeding the swing of the pony truck. My guess is the factory knew exactly what the problem was, but lacked proper direction in addressing it.

 

 

Are these any use?

I took them near a window but clearly there was not as much light as I thought. Sorry.

Seems to be plenty of clearance at the end of the slide bars...

I fitted a decoder and speakers yesterday and so I'm finally able to report back on the running qualities of the model.

She's very smooth, quiet and reliable. I don't think I have had to poke her once to get her to move.

The gearing is a bit high, as others have noted, and top speed would be crazily out of scale but I haven't dared to go there and I haven't measured it.

Under DCC control, with the speed table flattened to roughly halve the top speed (and with PWM and back-emf motor control of course) she crawls absolutely fine.

The firebox glow is disappointing in three respects:

1. There seems to be a transparent plastic light guide that is clearly visible from some angles (i.e. you see something glassy reflecting at you where you should just see a hole).
2. It's very weak (I haven't applied the YouChoos tweak of putting some foil behind the LEDs yet).
3. The yellow and orange LEDs just cycle regularly like Christmas lights - they don't use the random flicker effect that the decoder can produce.

DCC notes:

• The firebox glow is not connected to any of the function outputs you might expect - it's connected to F0 fwd and F0 reverse. So you have to sync those outputs with the coal shovelling sound.
• Chuff rate sync for YouChoos 43XX Zimo sound project:
  • CV267 = 34 (Chuff frequency)
  • CV354 = 9 (Chuff frequency adjust at speed step 1)

The clever tender draw bar has a very positive click so it feels like a strong connection - at the moment. (Probably not a good idea to repeatedly connect and disconnect it, though!)

9 minutes ago, DRoe96 said:

When I watched the Sam's Trains review he showed the manual which listed the speakers as DCC Supplies 112965 & 100790 both of which I've found several hundred in stock? Are you saying that in fact these aren't the correct speakers?

Apologies for the slight diversion Neal.

They are the right ones. Sorry, I just didn't search the DCC supplies website properly. They are in stock, as you say.

44 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

Thanks Phil,

Does the sugar cube still sit in the smoke box with the decoder?

Yes.

Dapol quote part numbers for both speakers. They aren't available on the DCC Supplies website yet but They are on the DCC Supplies website and I think I have also found a speaker that would exactly fit the tender without modification on Road & Rails.

On 15/11/2020 at 06:00, Neal Ball said:

Thanks for that Phil.

 

Looks as if you can get a decent sized speaker into the tender then. I wouldn’t want to remove that much weight. 
 

I will see if I get a reply from Dapol on Monday or Tuesday and decide what to do from there. 
 

Thanks again

Hi Neal,

Reading the Mogul's manual again I realise I made a mistake about the smokebox speaker. Dapol's intention is that a gasket should be fitted between the sugar cube speaker and the clip-on cover, so the speaker would then have a sealed enclosure to improve the sound. 

33 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

My apologies Phil. It would appear I misunderstood the contents of the booklet.  Mine will be in the post as of tomorrow.

 

 

No apology needed!

The spare parts that are listed, including smokebox doors, are a very good thing. A step above most models, as you say.

It's just a shame that outside Steampipes are not among them - seems like a natural addition for the class where they varied so much.

Sadly, steampipes are not on the list of Spare parts in the manual. (Not in mine at least.)

I guess we're going to have to use 3rd party parts if we want to add them to models that don't have them as supplied.

4 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

Is the coal load removeable on the tender chaps.

Yes. In fact it almost drops out when you turn it upside down.