goldfish

I have a couple of clockwork Prince Charles, neither of which are great runners. They seem to improve with running, but are very inconsistent. One session one will be the better runner, the next the other one will be better. My pet hate with these is having the connecting hook on the tender. If the hook was on the locomotive the flap wouldn't keep getting in the way.

Having finally succumbed to to temptation and treated myself to a Dapol Sentinel, I can confirm that you can successfully run at least one Dapol loco on 2ft radius track. The Dapol Sentinel runs on 2ft radius with no problem. The sharp eyed amongst you will notice that it is 3-rail track, but it has been modified to run both 2 and 3-rail. Out of the box the Sentinel will pull these three wagons through 2ft curves with no problems. However with the original Dapol couplings it will only push one around 2ft radius curves. This because the original Dapol 3-link couplings are too short to cope with 2ft radius curves, and cause derailments. Replacing the 3-link couplings with single link couplings is easy on these wagons and resolves the problem. The couplings on the Sentinel are not so easy to replace, as they are of the newer, shorter, variety and are mounted in a compartment that is too tight a fit to accept a longer draw bar. Dapol obviously do not approve of people like me changing their couplings. Without changing the couplings the Sentinel cannot push even one of these wagons through a 2ft reverse curve without suffering from buffer lock.

The perfect thing for a tramway or small shunting plank, but no mention in the details of a minimum radius.

One of the occasional drawbacks of clockwork is a spring failure. Usually they are just annoying, but sometimes they can be quite spectacular, like the one I suffered this morning. Somehow I don't think sort of thing goes well with the modern tendency to risk adverseness. I like the Hornby No.30, it is one of the more reliable runners, if not the most powerful. This particular one has been in regular use with me for at least 5 years and until now has given sterling service. Fortunately I have another equally reliable one at hand, but I think a little lubrication might be in order before I run it again. Update : A quick search through my box of bits of Hornby tinplate that might come in handy revealed a half forgotten No. 30 type motor missing its wheels and front axles, but with a good spring. So it is back up and running. Rather surprisingly, despite being explosively ripped open all the tabs survived intact. Looking at the design of this motor, the cover plate on the bottom suggests that Hornby really don't want you to lubricate the spring.

Nice one Fred, thank you. Kind of you to include the Hornby Streamliner, rather than the Riviera Pacific/Atlantic. Regards, Michael

I also found the link, but I wasn't that curios either. If the generator is axle driven the upper limit of the available energy must be set by the wheel loading and the friction between the wheel and the track. So the energy/heat to be dissipated must be in the same order as that from normal braking, but sustained rather than intermittent.

The reference includes a link to a description of the test plant in action. http://www.traintesting.com/Mobile_test_plant_in_action.htm Looking at the picture of the Generator there are no heavy cables coming out of it, so possibly the energy is dissipated internally within the Generator. The generator drives some sort of electrical brake perhaps.

Thank you for the better shot of one of the carriages Fred, appreciated. With a clearer view it is clear that they are litho, which is a pity because I had hoped they might turn out to be Miilbro. Regards, Michael

Excellent video Fred, thank you. At about 2 minutes you have a Hornby clockwork 4-4-4 and LMC (?) LNER cars. I am not sure LMC produced 4-wheel coaches, but these look interesting. Milbro offered 4-wheel coaches in their catalogue, but they seem to be very rare. Any chance of a better shot of them please. 4-wheel coaches are an obvious fit for coarse scale, but apart from Hornby's drastically shortened offering the only ones available are continental style. Regards, Michael

Dapol also supply intanter couplings as spares, as used on their mineral wagons - 'Dapol 7A-000-011 Instanter Couplings & Hooks 5pr'

Has there been an upgrade? This morning the browser back button is not working when browsing through topics on RMWEB. I am using Firefox and there there hasn't been an update for a few days.

There is always the more artistic approach... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/195192156351? Loco?

https://blocksignalling.co.uk/Shuttles/SAS2-BR

Doesn't work for me.

Do you have an URL for that site? It predates the Railway Modeller publication. I am not sure of its origins, but a version of it appeared in the Bassett-Lowke Model Railway Handbook.

Although you would expect products from the same manufacturer to be compatible, that is not the case with Peco Setrack and the SL-713 Transition track, or at least it is in the case of the examples I have. The "exposed" rail on the SL-713 is shorter than that on the set track which results in a 1-2mm gap between the ends of the rails when the fishplates butt against the opposite sleepers. It is easily overcome by shortening the fishplates, but it is annoying.

A curious listing indeed. Pick up in person in Bradford, but the seller information gives an address in Bridlington.

Much finer than I expected, but it makes sound sense if you are also manufacturing 00/H0 track. Rather surprising other manufacturers haven't had the same idea.

I am not sure if Peco track is completely G0G compliant, but in my limited experience ETS 1.5mm flanges wheels run through set-track and streamline points without problems, Slaters, Dapol, and Peartree fine scale wheels are actually smoother running through ETS points than ETS wheels. The plastic frogs on ETS points can cause the occasional electrical issue, but that is the only problem I have encountered so far.

Out of interest, what code rail do Lima use for their set-track please?

In the wider sense, isn't the wheel profile important because it can effect the way a wheel runs through the flange way? Wouldn't a wheel with a vertical back face and a sloping outer face different clearances to one with a sloping face on both sides? Both wheel profiles are called for in various standards.

The distinction between 'toy trains' and 'model railways' is a purely arbitrary construct in peoples minds. Whatever gauge or scale you chose all that is laid down is a set of wheel and track standards, what you chose to do with those standards is purely your choice. If you want to run Thomas the Tank Engine on S7 track, or run fine scale stock on tinplate track, you are perfectly free to do so. It might offend the odd narrow minded purist, but that is their problem. What you need to do, is decide what you want to do and do it. At the end of the day, if you are happy why worry about some implied convection.

As the BRSMB is a current topic elsewhere on the forum, anybody fancy an original copy of the British Railway Modelling Standards Bureau Standard Dimensions 1950? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284472368917 A mere £47.00 for a tatty 9 page leaflet.

So a 20th century example of a floor train, a glimpse of the true origins of model railways.

An interesting curiosity. It looks to be about 0 gauge, will it run on 0 gauge track? Michael