n9

3 hours ago, hayfield said:

N9

 

I have been asked to build a N gauge turnout for one of Wayne's customers. Whilst I dont model in N gauge it will be interesting to compare one with he 4mm counterparts. Its in the post and I will take a few photos of the build and add a few comments.

Would be interesting to learn how you get on!

2 hours ago, Donw said:

One problem with N gauge is old models may have coarser wheels than modern stock.  Slight bumping at crossing can be seen in all scales where the trackwork has to accommodate a range of wheels.  The best thing would be to try a Finescale N gauge turnout and run your worst offending stock through it and see if there is an improvement and also run the oldest stuff you have through to see if it throws up problems.  I have an old Arnold diesel one of the first N gauge locos available  the wheels on that are terrible.

 

Someone mentioned painting checkrails back a page or two these are normally very rusty as are the tips of wing rails.

 

Don

Yes, this is indeed the problem I tried to explain in my last post. No wheel standards adhered to between the manufacturers, and even within a manufacturer. Vids I've seen seem to show Finetrax N to be much much smoother than Peco code 55, and the Finetrax 2FS equivalent to be very smooth indeed. It's subjective of course, but I found that "slight bumping" on code 55 to be far too severe. Hence my questions about Finetrax N. But I'll try the forum suggested by Wayne. Shame RMWeb doesn't seem to have a dedicated spot.

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

N9

 

What you call "frog bounce" is probably caused with the gauging/coarseness of the wheels

 

Whatever scale/gauge you decide on, you must match the wheel specification with the turnout standards

 

Those who model in N/2mm gauge will be much better with advice

 

I assume you model to N gauge standards, you will need to see all of your wheels comply to the track standards

Thanks! But that's not the main issue I'm finding with Peco track. It's the fact that they manufacture it with very large gaps in the flangeways and crossings. It seems they do this in an effort to cater for all trains built since approximately the time of the Neanderthals 🙂 up to the present day. Most people are okay with it or ignore it, and you could argue it's quite a feat of engineering considering the lack of wheel standards, but to me the result is just dreadful - I have 4 wheel wagons (from Revolution) that will happily sit on 3 wheels when the 4th wheel (RP25 I think) falls in its entirety into the frog hole. And generally, rolling stock without bogies (from multiple manufacturers) just bounces across every single turnout. Tenders bounce too. And my 0-6-0 03 skids across Peco slips, to the point I'm reminded of what my Scalextric cars used to do on the Skid Chicane. Things with bogies tend to fare much better, but not always, Dapol's B Sets being an example.

Anyway, I'm reasonably certain Finetrax will cure most, if not all of my woes. I'm not really sure where best to post to get the answers. Wayne did point me to this thread a while back, but more to have a read through which I'm doing - but it's a very long read!

Is there a better place to post about Finetrax for N?

Thanks

Hi guys.

I see an N tag at the top, so hope I can post here!

I'm gearing up to get a few samples of Finetrax to play around with. I've been really disappointed with Peco's Code 55 frog bounce, and have shimmed one of their points and been more than surprised at the success of my ham-fisted efforts to improve running. But I suspect Finetrax will be even better, not just in performance but also in looks, as well as a lot less work to get the sort of performance I'm after.

Anyway, given my aversion to frog bounce, what's a good "bad" Finetrax turnout to get in to compare? Would it be a double slip? Peco's double slips seemed by far the worst train skidders and bouncers, so I figure if I'm happy with the "worst performing" Finetrax turnout, I'll be happy with them all.

Also, are there compatible IRJs in N? Read something earlier in this thread but I think that was for 00. Pretty sure I'll be sticking with XPS boards, and probably foam underlay replaced with something harder wherever extra strength is needed. So given these softish materials, and that generally N is less forgiving, I'm leaning towards fishplates always being a better option than no fishplates at all, even if they're weakish plastic ones. (I'm aware Finetrax turnouts prefer to sit on something hard, so happy to replace foam with cork or wood inserts in those sections - generally I'm just trying to reduce noise.)

Thanks!

7 hours ago, bmb5dnp1 said:

Hello,

   Yes that's the area I meant. Looking at the pictures, is the part missing from the left hand side or is it just the angle of the picture ?

 

Dave

4 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

is there a hole at the back here?

 

I think everything is present and correct there? Here's another pic taken a little more in focus - it's really at the limit of my camera's close-up ability:

It's looking like I'm going to have to take The Johnster's very sensible advice and park my silly frustration. Really appreciate you guys taking the time though. Thanks!

Grrrr! Hahahaha!

28 minutes ago, Hal Nail said:

I couldn't see properly in the photos but are these covers (?) separate parts and is the one on yours in this position, actually there?

 

 

 

Sorry, got sidetracked experimenting with my frogs*, which aside from sounding ghastly, means I have some serious lighting and some better photos of my loco.

I still don't see any missing bits there, unless it's staring me in the face? @bmb5dnp1 Is Hal's circled area where you meant, too?

* For anyone remotely interested, I've made the frogs smaller to combat the Grand Canyons Peco left there. Better than expected results, but not sure yet if I'll go there on a full layout.

27 minutes ago, cypherman said:

Might I suggest that you go to your local model shop. If they helpful that is and ask them can you compare a new model to yours. I would also take a much closer picture of the item so we can see better what it is. Just looks like a small air vent to me in your picture. It might also be worth taking a close up look at the new Hornby 2mt. I know it is not the same model. But it is the same engine and therefore have the same fittings. The pictures would be to a larger scale making it easier to identify where it may have come from and it might just show you where such an object might be fitted.

Good suggestions, but sadly I'm not in the UK and visiting stores that stock these things isn't straightforward.

I've taken a couple more pics. Of the "front" and "back". Even with tweezers I can't get it to rest on its side.

The camera on my phone is pretty good, but the part is just so small I can't get it any closer without it blurring.

If viewing these on a phone, pinch-zooming in is the best option. If on PC, right-click "open image in new tab" (or similar option - make sure it's the image you're opeining in a new tab, not the link/web page), and then use the browser's option to zoom the image, usually Ctrl and "+" key. I can't think of any other way to get a better view of this across, but I'm all ears!

Grrrr! Hahahaha!

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I’d hang on to it, and the tac, somewhere safe like the loco box, then forget about it.  Then, if you ever do get it identified, you can then glue it back on.  

Definitely by far the most sensible thing to do, but grrrrr!! Hahaha!

6 hours ago, moawkwrd said:

Ignore - the different angles were playing tricks.

I know exactly how you feel - bl**dy thing!

51 minutes ago, John Clitsome said:

Can't see what it is but have you had a look inside the cab detail and the tender facing it?

I haven't been in there. It's a pretty small gap to look into, and I saw that removing tender from loco wasn't as simple as just undoing the screw. It's such a delicate model that I hope someone will know the answer before I take my tools to it. Not sure I would anyway, unless it turns out to be something really important or I have a much better reason to.

So just had a go at this.

Not sure if EFE do this in other scales, mine is N and I imagine all are similar.

You need to take the bogies off. Carefully. They should come out by pulling, but just before they're all the way out, make sure they don't snag on the pick-ups by gently turning them side to side until they're free.

You'll see 4 screws. I removed those.

There are 4 tabs each end holding the body on. Mine are coloured green, because that's the colour of the body I have. I gently pushed them through with a finger nail. (2 either side of each worm, 2 close each set of the buffers.)

I did that at both ends.

And then made use of my home-made pry tools - just bits of stiffish transparent food packaging cut to a convenient size. I also cut a curve in one of their corners so they're less sharp when you need to push them in. These just help to keep parts ajar as well as get in between small gaps.

Then, it's a lot of very gently prying all the way around. I had go around maybe 8 or 10 times, prying with my nail a little more each time. It's a pretty stiff fit.

While doing all this, I realised the cab also comes off. The tabs on that are yellow.

And I also realised that the whole black chassis thing is a separate part that also comes off - in my pics you'll see that while the green body is well and truly loose and can be removed, the chassis is only partly off of its lugs.

There you go. Didn't really need to take mine apart yet, though it was due because I get an occasional grinding in the gears that I want to investigate.

Needless to say, all locos are pretty fragile things, so take extra extra care with every single tiny thing you do. And take it very slowly.

HTH!

This tiny bit fell off my N Dapol Ivatt 2MT (see pic with ruler), and I've literally spent the last three days playing spot the difference with every pic I can find on the web, but I can't for the life of me see where it broke off from. Not even looking under magnification. The only clue: looking straight down at the loco from above, and with the tender closest to me, I found it on the right hand side of the loco.

Can anyone work it out?

The model works fine.

Here's a pic from the web for reference:

And here are shots of my model:

The one with the ruler shows the small piece in between it and the loco. (The white is white tack from where I've tried to keep it from getting lost.) Sorry I can't get it any bigger or with better light. But it almost looks like the "head" of that small piece has two tiny protrusions that might be intended to slot into something else. Or the protrusions are entirely cosmetic. I have no idea. And it's driving me bananas! 🙂 Grrrrr!!

Thank you!

Thanks for the replies! I'm amazed that whatever I ask, the knowledge you guys have is exceptional.

It does sound like replacements are the safest option, and trawling through my emails I've just seen that Dapol have replied and are actually going out of their way to put something together from some samples they have knocking around. So a big shout out and thank you to Dapol as well. I'll never know if the dodgy wheels came from the factory since this is a second hand model, but judging from a very wobbly Dapol 52 I had I'd say it's possible. Even so, with these models out of production, I think that taking the trouble to help is quite commendable on their part.

Anyway, it's all these things that have been making the hobby such a pleasure since I got back into it.

I think they are cast wheels. A split axle design. On a N Dapol Class 22 which wobbles a lot.

It's the metal half-axles that are bent. Can they be straightened? What's the best approach?

My thoughts are to take a square block of something hard, drill a hole that matches the diameter of the axle, pop the wheels in and then gently tap them square/flat:

Will that work? I'm not sure if the shafts will readily bend or if they are more likely to snap.

And would a block of pretty dense MDF type board be stiff enough? I have some of that lying about that's dense enough to resist track pins being hammered into it.

Here are some pics from a different 22 that does NOT have bent axles, just to show what these wheels look like. The metal half-axles run part way into the cylindrical plastic moulding with the gear:

This might just be the final hurdle to getting this particular 22 as good as or better than new!

Thanks!

Thank you! 603 seems to be 25 smackers where I live but I will get some if all else fails.

Currently I'm on my second supergluing attempt, the first one having just not glued. Is it me, or are super glues getting ever more expensive and distinctly less super? This was Gorilla. I'm giving it the full 24 hours this time, having applied a little more than before with a needle.

Might be too late this time around, but I'd dearly love to learn of an option that doesn't require heat to remove.

Thanks chaps! So far it sounds like super glue or thread bond might be the way to go, albeit don't think I could heat that up later to break the bond because the plastic collar does go right through the flywheels so the adaptors are sitting right inside that plastic - you can see that in the last pic. So I'm still open to other suggestions if there are any.

I'm after a semi-permanent solution because I fear super glue might make it impossible to remove parts in future without causing damage.

Is the answer a tiny amount of superglue? Enough to attach but not enough to break parts should I need to remove the flywheels later?

Or something else?

Detail:

I'm fitting the flywheels onto a new coreless motor I bought from Tramfabriek on my N gauge Dapol Class 22.

This is what the assembly looks like with the old motor:

So at each end of the shaft there is a flywheel with a plastic collar that serves as a socket for the worm mountings to plug into.

Here's the same assembly with the worms "unplugged":

And here is the new motor with the flywheels and collars ready to go back on:

The drive shaft on the old motor is 1.5mm diameter. On the new motor it's 1mm. So brass adaptors (small brass cylinders or bushes) are provided in the conversion kit and you can see those already fitted to the flywheels in the last pic.

The problem is that it should (ideally?) be a pretty tight fit for the adapted flywheels onto the shaft, but it isn't. Sven (of Tramfabriek) sent me a picture showing how they should be delicately hammered on. But while mine are snug fit, I can easily slide them along the shaft with my fingers and the worms would definitely slip.

Overall this has made me realise I don't have a clue about how much torque a shaft needs to overcome at N scale.

Thank you!

I'll end with some other inconclusive ideas that have flashed through:

. Painting the shaft ends.

. Kapton tape on shaft ends.

. A few strands of copper wire twisted along shaft.

. Copydex.

. Paint as glue.

. Get adaptors with slightly smaller holes if they exist.

. Solder. But spaces are way too small for a tip. So wrap a bit of solid core around the soldering iron tip and use the solid core as a tiny soldering tip?

I've ruled out knurling and anything requiring a lathe or dismantling of the new motor.

16 hours ago, rogerdee said:

I'd like to know how you get on with the upgrade and how easy it is.

 

Sure! I'll be giving it a go soon and my intention is to post some kind of update or guide.

The kit has arrived though:

Pretty quick turnaround and delivery time given the usual Customs nonsense getting stuff to me.

As you can see, I got the gear puller too to get the flywheels off the motor, although Sven suggested it might not be necessary and that gentle prying with a couple of flat screwdrivers either side of the driveshaft can do the trick. (I wanted the gear puller anyway because it just seems useful to have and will probably also help remove some types of wheels.)

Sven also said that the plastic collars either side of the flywheels can come off just by pulling with fingers, so I will be trying that first.

If you don't want to wait for me, I think the Tramfabriek Class 52 guide should give you enough general knowledge. I'll be relying on that guide for the motor swap part because I'd already stripped my Class 22 right down. My feeling is though that if you're not hamfisted with these sorts of things it should be reasonably straightforward, with the main dangers probably being bending the driveshaft or damaging delicate mouldings/cosmetics or the usual risks with soldering.

12 minutes ago, CUCKOO LINE said:

Good to see some of the ex Hattons people appearing elsewhere, so far seen a couple on TMC and Rapido now just picked one up.

That's good. Where are you seeing this? For over a month I missed the closure, so clearly I need help staying in the loop.

Alright, so let's see if I've understood. Assuming DC operation:

1. The suppressor circuit, which in this case is a capacitor with an inductor soldered to each of its legs, doesn't care about polarity; if you supply it with positive to either leg with negative to the other, it will do its suppressing thing.

2. A positive and negative motor feed ending up respectively at the corresponding positive and negative terminals on the board, just means the forward direction of the locomotive will be, say A. But if those feeds are switched over (as in this case) it just means the forward direction of the locomotive will be B instead of A.

Maybe I should have posted this in the non-DCC electronics section, but is this correct?

Thanks

Thanks for the replies! Maybe I need another coffee, but I'm not too clear that they answered my question. So I'll try to rephrase:

In my example above, why did Dapol take the black negative wire from the motor and solder it through the suppression circuit to the positive terminal on the board, and take the red positive wire from the motor and solder it through the suppression circuit to the negative terminal on the board?

I ask because I would have expected the opposite: the black motor wire to go through the suppression circuit and end up at the negative terminal on the board, and the red motor wire to go through the suppression circuit and end up at the positive terminal on the board.

I'm just dead curious why it got wired that way. Thanks!

I mean the capacitor/inductor combo wired to motors for interference suppression. (Is there a proper name for this?)

Pretty sure these things often just get removed for locos on DCC if/when it interferes with performance, but I'm curious as to the wiring. This is from a Dapol loco:

The pic isn't the greatest (sorry), but the black (-) wire from the motor ends up connected to the orange (+) wire leading to the positive terminal on the board, and the red (+) wire from the motor ends up connected to the grey (-) wire leading to the negative terminal on the board. (In the pic, the red motor wire runs to the farthest capacitor pin but it's concealed behind the black motor wire running to the nearest capacitor pin.)

I'm curious why the polarity gets switched over. Is it because the polarity doesn't matter? Or is it because it has to be switched over for the capacitor/inductors to do their thing?

Thanks!

Bless 'em. They're still there doing the right thing. This from Amanda who just processed a previously agreed (before the closure) partial refund for me today for some second hand locos that weren't quite as advertised. I wrote to them yesterday not being sure if anyone was still there:

"There are a few of us still here dealing with the last emails and calls. I will complete the refund for you today, there will be a separate email sent to confirm this has been completed. 

Thank you for your kind words and I shall pass this on to the remaining team.

If I can be of any further assistance please let me know and I will be more than happy to help."

TBH, the refund didn't cover all the parts I replaced but I don't care, no argument from me, I'd much rather have Hatton's back.

I hope that when the dust settles and the sky is blue again, a bunch of them will team up and continue, because 50 pages and counting to me says they were doing an awful lot right. And it's not just the volume, it's the words.

Damn. Think I must be the last person to learn of Hatton's demise. Literally just found out when I went to their site. And I'd recently been posting stuff on here as if they were still with us, completely oblivious to the fact.

I am well and truly shocked. And I'm going to miss them dearly. Proper old school shop and service. What's more, finding myself living overseas, I found their Trunk service and DHL Express combo to be absolutely brilliant, in large part because it made Brexit customs hell completely painless. No other shop that I've come across does that.

But generally, they were just brilliant and I loved shopping there.

A huge hole has been left in the hobby. I wish them all well for the future.

8 hours ago, Popeye said:

As a hybrid solution; design your layout in Templot to N gauge 9mm track code 40 rail then build your turnouts and use British Finescale plain track.

 

I bought some code 40 9mm roller gauges from C & L Finescale a while ago but on checking today they don't list any items under their 2mm section but it may be worth a phone call to see if they will be getting any more. They have also listed copper clad sleepers of the requisite size before too, if they don't stock them now the 2mm Association sell them and rail but not the N gauge gauges 

6 hours ago, 2mm Andy said:

 

C&L's website is not the easiest to navigate, but the code 40 9mm gauge roller gauges are still there;

 

https://www.clfinescale.co.uk/online-store/N-GAUGE-FINE-ROLLER-TRACK-GAUGES-9-0-MM-CODE-40-PAIR-p233811771

 

No sign of any PCB sleepers though.

 

Andy

Thanks for the suggestions! Definitely worth considering. I still have my next steps parked and I've been filling in the time repairing a number of locos. It's been time away well spent because the thought of starting over has been quite daunting and the loco tinkering therapeutic. It's also been good just to step back and let answers come rather than actively pursue them. And look, your suggestions/help just arrived without me even thinking about this!

In the coming weeks I'm going to have a go at fixing Peco's trackwork. I'm buoyed by some of the success I had redoing some of the frogs a while back (for reasons other than bouncing), and some plasticard and brass strip has arrived this week so I can test tweaking flangeways and crossings. No idea how that'll turn out, but I think it's worth a go since I'd already bought the majority of the track, and laid about half of it, and it's a new track plan if I switch.

Depending on how I get on with that, I'll either settle for my arch nemesis 🙂 or bin it/save it for a fiddle yard. I know beyond doubt that I won't be having locos behaving like rally cars.

Bottom line, I haven't ruled anything out yet.

18 hours ago, woodenhead said:

When, I could put if but I know you too well now, you open the body you'll find the lights are on connectors and it is the but from the connector to the LEDs that is glued - to the underside of the cab interior.  I was removing said interiors for space for my stay alive and the speaker, so presently no lights on the loco and whilst I was concerned before I started that I might miss the cab interior, my eyesight is sufficiently deteriorated not to notice and hence not care.  The sound though is awesome!

Oh I see. You mean this glue?

You're right, the light board does indeed appear to be glued to the underside of the cab. I can see that being annoying if you need to get in there.

In fairness, I'm going to order driveshafts plus worms in addition to new bogies because I noticed they occassionally weren't meshing properly, so I just had to open it up to inspect that side of things 🙂

3 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

My only annoyance was that Dapol glued in the wiring loom so I need to put in my own wires if I want the lighting back

Oh no! I didn't get that far into the loco. Thankfully mine seems to be fine in all other respects. I have other locos that wobble a bit and I'm okay with that, but this one is considerably worse. But useful to know there are reasonable performers out there.