Blobrick

Hi Gents I m the customer who purchased the Roco ICE. Mike has been most helpful kindly posting on my behalf. Allegheny, I initially thought the same, in that it was an issue with the directional lights. However l noticed that the lights lit correctly for the direction that the controller was set in, leading me to suspect it could be a polarity issue with the feed to the motor. Being a tad old fashioned l m still an analogue user, so if right l m hoping it will be a simple fix either at the DCC blanking plate or swapping the motor feeds at the motor. Funnily this is the second version of this model l have received which displays this fault, has any other owners had similar problems? Bob C

Hi Gents I m the customer who purchased the Roco ICE. Mike has been most helpful kindly posting on my behalf. Allegheny, I initially thought the same, in that it was an issue with the directional lights. However l noticed that the lights lit correctly for the direction that the controller was set in, leading me to suspect it could be a polarity issue with the feed to the motor. Being a tad old fashioned l m still an analogue user, so if right l m hoping it will be a simple fix either at the DCC blanking plate or swapping the motor feeds at the motor. Funnily this is the second version of this model l have received which displays this fault, has any other owners had similar problems? Bob C

Many thanks Eastglosmogs, l think something similar is the route for me to go. A little bit of experimenting required here, but is not that half the fun!! Once again many thanks for your suggestion Bob C

Thanks for that suggestion Sol. I found myself last night thinking more along the lines of Eastglosmog's suggestion, l was thinking of making a small rubber sleeve which could be slipped on to the tie bar spigot to prevent the motor operating arm raising and thereby becoming disconnected. I think some variation is the way to go Thank you once again Bob C

Hi HLT I had though about that but it also seems to happen when the tie bar is being pulled. At first l suspected an alignment issue so lifted the offending motors and repositioned them, alas with no improvement. The motors were level sitting on the same cork base as the points themselves, and the lateral play in the point motor link seemed sufficient to cope with a fair amount of horizontal misalignment. Lifting the motor on the far side from the point is something l could try however when l initially looked at this there still seemed to be a lot of vertical movement in the point motor link, requiring a fair amount of off side packing. Worth another look though Thanks

Hi Charlie Thanks for your advice. Currently the motors are glued down with PVA glue, to allow me to change them if required. They are mounted on the same cork base that the points are, so l believe all is square and level. I have given thought to a similar remedy as you ve suggested, in that l was contemplating carefully drilling a small vertical hole down into the point tie bar spigot and fitting some kind of "cap" to prevent the drive arm from lifting . However the points are now in situ at the rear of the layout and drilling accurately will be most difficult, so your idea of using a dab of superglue to form a cap sounds most interesting. Thanks again Charlie Regards Bob C

Has anyone had this problem before? I ve just installed about 9 Peco SL11 surface mounted point motors in a fiddle yard which will be in the future positioned behind a scenic back board, The motors were chosen as l needed something reliable due to future access issues. All the motors have been installed as Peco suggested with the mounting lugs resting against the points, However when three of the points are swung the point motor operating arm seem to lift up over the lug on the points operating arm, normally resulting in the motor jamming mid stroke and requiring mk1 finger to intervene, From what l can see there is possibly to much vertical play in the point motors mechanism, which is allowing the operating arm to ride up over the point lug. Has anyone else come across his issue? Bob C

Hi there, l wonder if anyone has a Bachmann Scenecraft Highley Station Yard Crane (44 -146) they would be happy to part with? Bob C

I d like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread as the information people have kindly given has proved most useful. Bob C

Hi there, l ve been keeping my eye out for a Bachmann version as l believe they had metal wheels as opposed to the plastic of the earlier version

Thank you, much appreciated

That's interesting, as the Port Hole coach would only be about 2 years old at that point., and yet is working on a secondary main line. With my time scale set around 6 years later there's a better chance of one turning up in a mixed rake.

Thanks Jason, will do

Many thanks, l take your point re Port Hole stock. I see Mainline produced an LMS composite coach which l suspect is a period 1 vehicle due to the raised panelling etc (Mainline Cat No 37-111) Whilst basic by today's standard l wonder if this would be a better option?

Gents I wonder if someone could point me in the right direction please? I am researching coach formations of traffic around the Bradford/ Leeds area, with a view to formulating sets to work via the S&C to a fictional terminus at Kendal (Yes the late David Jenkinson, has a lot to answer for!) As my period is early 1950s say 52-54, I am assuming that the newer BR Mk1 stock is initially being used to up grade main line stock on the major routes, leaving the indigenous rolling stock to cover the more local workings. I am attempting to find a common formation for 4-5 coach rake using LMS Stanier stock. I am assuming that this rake would not be made up of just Stainer period 3 or just Port Hole stock, but more likely made up of a mixture of them both. I suspect that these rakes would be mainly 3rd class with possibly a composite to cover any 1st class elements. Now AFAIK Hornby have only produced 1st and 3rd class Stainer coaches so far, alas no composite. However Bachmann has produced a later Stanier Port Hole stock Composite & Brake Fist Corridor. Would it be correct to pop one of these Port Hole composites/Brakes in a rake of earlier Staniers to give say a BTK + TK + CK + BTK or BTK + TK + TK + BFK formation? Or would it be more likely to find the same rake made up of mainly Port Hole stock with a single earlier Stainer coach? At what point would it be worth adding a FK to a rake, suspect these would be far larger formations? I suspect that these sets would never be solely period 3 or Port Hole stock in their entirety, but happy to be corrected! Many thanks in advance for any guidance Bob C

They are worth waiting for, they are smashing models.

Hi there Thanks for the reply, l ve been lucky enough to find a 33/1! Bob C

Thank you for the info, its certainly got me thinking

Looks better in the flesh than l though it would, now wheres that track plan book..............

Is that a circle of Peco setrack curves?

Thanks, l appreciate the advice, l was in two minds just to touch up but TBH, l think l ll find more damage/scratches if l take a closer look in daylight tomorrow,so back it goes. I was just curious if anyone else had found similar damage? Bob C

I had thought of that but though that T-Cut would leave a polished finish?. TBH l ve already contacted the supplier and the model with be going back. Shame as this is a lovely model, l can't stop admiring it Bob C

Just received my 58xx in early black livery. First impressions is of a good model which captures the locomotive very well. Having build a springside version in the 80s, where the kit alone cost £150, l think this current model is excellent value, so well do Dapol. My only issue has been in my case when l opened the new packaging, l found a couple of the small black mounting screws rattling around the box. Looking at the model, it seems that these screws have chipped away small pieces of paint on the wheel sets and footplate edge. Not the end of the world as a quick touch in was all that was need to put things right. Unfortunately l noticed a mark/scratch on the LHS of the boiler next to the front of the side tank. As l was not intending to weather this model, it will be difficult to hide. As l mentioned l suspect that a rogue screw could be the culprit, but l would be very interested if anyone else finds a similar mark on their model, see photo attached? Bob C

Good home awaits 4 mm scale Heljan Class 33 in 1970s/80s TOPS condition. Non weathered version preferred. Bob C