Jaggzuk

Thanks for the recent discussions guys, layout planning is always a great topic for debate and opinion, always appreciated. But it is now built, well the landscape, track and electrics are with the scenic elements slowly coming on - see my Layout Topic and here's a cab view of the progress. https://youtu.be/QV_fc1kmfCw I think my original brief has been met, my boys play on it most evenings after school and get totally lost in what every role game they are playing. As for me, I am constantly learning new skills and findings out what things/products I like and what works well; all part of the plan for the much bigger (12x10) and more realistic layout I have been planning for years since 2010 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/8961-north-marsh-road-eastern-region-br-blue-oo/ And sometimes I can just set two trains off and watch them go round and get absorbed into the layout, quite simple. But the layout has now been developed in to a reasonably complex shunting puzzle helped by the adoption of Kadee couplings. As the boys have now grow up since we started the build they can now tackle the challenge of shunting. I think what is important for me is that there are areas of the layout that are scenically good and realistic, and best viewed at track level and close up. From the birds eye view yes, it is a loopy and toylike layout, but that is what it is and is part of the fun. There are some layouts I follow here with much admiration for their size, scenic wonder and realistic nature but there are no trains running and the build take many months if not years. I have two train mad, eager boys to please!!

Hi Roger When you say scale plan do you mean 1-1 or just a large image file of the track plan? SCARM was really good for planning the layout and made sure that the plan I had developed was pretty much what got build and fitted. However, the unfortunate aspect with SCARM now is that it has now gone in to Pay Software and you can only have up to 100 parts in the free version. So I can no longer edit my plan, unless I pay for the upgrade. Paul

Hi Roger, The name is Paul, thought I had signed it at least once, perhaps on the planning topic for the layout? Anyway to you questions. Yep all the loops, sidings, gradients etc in an 8x4. Sounds cramped and when viewed from the air, you can see the "toy" like appearance. But I have lots of different locations around the layout board, that when you get down at track level and really close, you get to watch trains running by like being stood on the boundary fence and the loopyness/tail-chasing nature of the layout disappears. Key stats Min radius is 2nd radius which is the loop going down and under the flyover. The max is 4th which are the two outer loops going through the tunnels. The station areas is at +40mm and the main baseboard in at zero The flyover is at +85mm with rail to rail being 75mm and 65mm clearance to bridge soffit Gradients are all 3% Points, all main line points are medium radius where as the sidings are mostly settrack My boys love playing on it and to be honest we have not found it too limiting only being 8x4 and a bit of a tail chaser. There are two separate loops, the outer (tunnels) and the flyover, so you can race two trains, which the boys love; especially when I have fiddled with the max speed CV settings, Tut Tut ;-) Would I want to go smaller, no - bigger yes. 10x4 would have been nice with a longer station so that trains would not have to stop on the points. Foxwood Park does have a younger (but bigger) brother http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/122082-brambleford-layout-dcc-concepts-powerbase/?p=2726752 which might be of interest. This is a 10x4 layout.

I have finally decided to bite the bullet and convert my Standard 4MT Tank 2-6-4 to DCC. This is my first high detail steam loco conversion, all others up to now having been diesel or Hornby Railroad locos. First off I experienced similar issues to the common problem in how to get the body off. But I followed all the tips given here but still got stuck on one aspect, part 350-125 see red arrow on photo. With all the screws undone the body was loose, but this bracket (which holds all the side pipe work) appeared to be stuck to the metal chassis. After a bit of poking and levering with a screwdriver and one scary final tug the body came off. Not sure but it appeared that this bracket part was glued/wedged in place on the chassis. Once the body came off I was surprised to find that the loco was DCC ready! Which considering it is around 12 years old was unexpected, especially as the box did not have a DCC Ready label. A quick look around the body for space lead me to see the gap between the motor and the 8 pin socket (red arrow in photo below) which was the perfect size for the Hatton’s DCR-8PIN-Harness decoder. The fitting was perfect especially as the alignment of pin 1 meant that the harness was facing the right way for the location of the decoder. The body went back on easily and the screws all lined up. Quite happy with the outcome, just need to test. Hope this is of help.

They were so easy to do too, so the effort was very rewarding.

Interesting why dos he not like them? Is it a visual thing or an operation thing? They are so much easier to work with when taking stock off a layout, you just pick them up, no hooked couplings to worry about. I was having play last night with my shunting trucks now with Kadee and they are so much more fun than TLC. About to buy some Neodymium Magnets to operate the coupling in the goods yards, so quite excited about this new operation capability.

Looking good. I like the two span girder bridge. Really starting to get a sense that the layout (track) will be in the landscape and not too cramped. I see you have you mimic panel set up, got any behind the scenes details? And what make is your station?

Cheers guys, some really useful tips and info there. I think I will try a mix of more weight and the foam axle brake. The foam brake may also solve the issue where some of the very free running trucks keep rolling down the sidings to the buffers as the layout/track can't be perfectly level !! In trying to get the balance right of either adding weight vs friction, any thoughts on which solution has a more negative effect on a loco hauling capability, especially up gradients ?

Great work, looks very much like the photos, cant wait for the weathering results.

I have read all the recent posts on Kadee #5 with interest. In the light of them, I was wondering how I could use up my stock of #5s, as indeed I have found them too short for most of my long wheelbase chassis rolling stock, without having the gear box overtly overhanging. Well during a deep tidy up session in the railway room over the weekend, I came across a box of wagons I had forgotten about. These were from my old days of thinking I would go down the route of three link couplings!! There was about 15 short wheel based trucks; a mix of POW and Conflats, a great find! Historically, they have all had their tension hook couplings removed and some have had the 3-links added. So I had brief ponder on what to do with them, being useless coupling wise on our layout, and then had a light bulb moment - they would make great trucks for a shunting puzzle in our goods yards. A quick check reviled that the #5 work perfectly on them as the trucks have really short buffers. So I have now converted a few already, really easy as the gear box is at a perfect height when glued to the chassis underside; no packing or cutting required, phew! But here is the problem; the trucks are all quite light weight, even replacing the steel weight with a lead stip. On the layout when shunting with a Class 08 at slow speed, the trucks tend to just get pushed along without Kadees actually coupling up. The trucks all run very freely. What is going to be the best way to solve this problem, specifically if I want to use these trucks as the rolling stock for the shunting puzzle? I do not want to make the trucks so heavy that they cannot be pulled up my inclines when formed into a rake of trucks. Is there an optimum dead weight for a truck and the operation of Kadee?

Ok I am not setting a precedent here and going this far with every wagon I have! But I thought I would have a go and try to re-create the break pipes on the Match Wagon in this top photo http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/45015-br-class-03-with-match-truck/?p=2805720 The vacuum pipe was created using 1mm copper wire with braided nylon rapped round it, glued, and then stained black. The air break pipes were formed from 0.7mm copper wire with solder blobs for the couplings and a tiny bits or wire soldered on to form the valves. All painted and weathered up. Close up it all looks a bit clunky, but that the 2 foot viewing distance, looks fine. Kadee end At the NEM TLC end , but removed for effect.

Another Kadee trail, this time a Lima PWA fertiliser wagon. Full details here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/24427-kadee-couplers/?p=2846524 Before After A major improvement I think. Now to the weathering, http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/ukfvan/h537217B0#h537217b0 mmm might hold on for until I get a bit better. A definite airbrush job. I have both Fisons and UKF wagons to do and they always looked very grubby

Another wagon trail done to determine which bulk order of Kadee couplings to get. This time the wagon was an old Lima PWA fertiliser wagon with very big clunky TLC. I have six of these wagons, so need to see which Kadee type works the best. Plus as this was originally a TLC on a bogie, I need to see how best to fit the draft box on the chassis The finished effort is so much better than the original, a real no brainer I think!! Finished and coupled up to a NEM pocket Kadee (No. 19, I think) on a VDA wagon. The original very clunky tension lock coupling New Kadee, so much better looking. As a lot of the bogie had to be cut away to accommodate the draft box, I added a strip of .040 thou plasticard to the underside to stiffen up the sides of the bogie. Draft box glued with plastic weld on top of a small strip of .030 thou plasticard Kadee components, the draft box is a #242 Universal "Black Box" Snap-Together with a #156 "Scale" All Metal Self-Centering WHISKER® Coupler - Long (25/64") Centerset Shank Finished view underside. The wagon has long buffers so using the long shaft of the #156 means the draft box could be flush with the buffer draw bar. So it look nice and discreet now. The wagon is fine on 2nd radius curves even with the coupling now fixed on the chassis rather then the bogie. This is my first use of the whisker type Kadee and I like them, especially the long shaft version. Very good for the older type of model with larger over scaled buffer lengths.

Progress indeed!! Always such a transformation once the scenery foundation starts to go down. And a live running loop now too, cool!! Nice bridge too, On the plaster front, I assume you have yet to add the second layer of plaster? If you are and the first has dried, then you may find spraying the first to wet it will help when the placing the second lay on top. For me I did both layers in one go as the plaster sets quite quick allowing the second to be added pretty much after the first. Not sure which brand you are using, but looking at yours, you have a lot of holes on show in the mesh and some of the sheets are not stuck to each other. You should be able to really wet the sheets before application and then rub the impregnated plaster in really well such that all the holes will fill up. You will end up with a really nice smooth rolling landscape finish with just two layers. I also found that by creating as much of the land profile with polystyrene helps with the smoothing of the plaster as none of the sheet are then having to hang in mid air. Here are a couple of my pics to illustrate what I mean, I hope this is OK. Landscape fully formed with polystyrene before plaster application. Two layers of plaster well rubbed down and all the mesh holes filled up. This plaster shell will end up really hard and strong.

Well summer hols are over, kids back to school and so a bit of a catch up is due. The over the summer spare play time has been spend mostly playing trains rather than any modelling being done. But I did manage to get about 2/3 of the way through a Metcalfe kit (Sand house and water tower) whilst on a two week camping holiday. Photos to come when I have added them the to the planned engine shed building. I have been looking/researching at how to improve and weather my set of Railraod HAA coal wagons. My shopping list of the bits I will need is now set and I know what I can easily achieve. So this will be an Autumn project I think. I have also had a it more of a play with Kadee on various older non NEM wagons to see what is the main Kadee type I need. A #156 "Scale" Whisker Coupler, Long (25/64") version is looking like the most common I will need. As well pleny of the NEM ones, No. 18 and No. 19. But as my collection of wagons with fitted Kadee is now growing, we are now having a bit of an issue with mixed coupling types and playing sessions! Our Class 08 has both types coupling and this does not always work out well; a kadee just does not work with a tension hook coupling. So I have come up with a idea and taken a bit of inspiration from the Class 03 Match Truck and come up with a Class 08 "Coupling Converter Truck". The purpose is to allow the easy conversion between the coupling types whilst shunting. I have also had a bash at weathering it. As I had a few Conflat wagons spare, I tried to copy this source inspiration. https://www.flickr.com/photos/dwbphotos/4153199952/ This is my result. Original on left, weathered right, odd effect of the weathering is that it has made it look smaller? Ex Works Class 08 ;-) Variety of paints used, Humbrol Enamel, Model Air and Humbrol Wash Might add some powder dusting? I might add a few tools and tail lamps on top at a later date. I also want to add vacuum and air pipes.

For someone who has just moved house you are making cracking progress on the layout!! Looks very good, you must be very pleased with the progress.? So nice to see it becoming a reality rather than just pans, I know how that felt when I started the build. Not sure if you are planning it this way, but I would strongly recommend doing all the scenery infill around the incline before fixing the track. Especially if you intend to use the wet plaster bandage method - see http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/106602-family-8x4-oo-layout-kadee-coupling-effort/?p=2149381 As it is all rather messy, you are likely to get it all,over the track. My other suggestion is to try and fill the zig zag gaps on the inclines with some form of sound deadening filler, such as old cotton materiel etc.? My reason for this is that I left mine open and covered the top with card and then cork and it is amazing how noisy it is compared to card and cork on the MDF board. My guess is that on the inclines it is acting like a drum skin and so the track noise is much louder. The final suggestion is to decide how you will get track dropper wires from the track through the inclines and baseboard. I found it very fiddly trying to weave the wires between the track and the baseboard, especially in the deep section of the risers.

Fantastic, love the tree idea, shall watch with interest!

Or you could do as I have done, drop the whole structure it into the scenery base layer by about two course of the tunnel mouth facing stone work. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/106602-family-8x4-oo-layout-kadee-coupling-effort/?p=2602610

I think you will be much happier with the visual look, with good landscaping the +ve and -ve adjacent gradients will just blend int, so much more than one severe upwards one. With the baseboard, can you keep the main frame and just cut out the GL Zero piece and then support it on another frame which can sit on the lower frame. This way you will avoid difficult access to the the underside; unlike my version where I had to core out lots holes to get access for the point motors and drop all my wires through?. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/106602-family-8x4-oo-layout-kadee-coupling-effort/?p=2289672 Not the best access method I thought of

I am liking this little upper level branch area. But I am wondering if there is too much track and not enough space of any buildings. If you slimed it down a bit (less is more) and turned it in to a goods siding with head shunt, this might look better. The old style pick up goods type siding. Much more accessible as you say then the one inside the loops next to the flyover. What this does is it allows you to have the curve (yellow) rising all the way round the corner and topping out out before the siding points. The siding itself will be at the max height, but level; you do not want any runway wagons ;-) This the leads me to trying to solving your gradient issue. At the moment you only have 50mm at the flyover and this just aint enough! Remember clearance is from the top of the lower rail to the underside of any bridge structure, so this will be more than what SCARM shows e.g 0 to 50mm, is not 50mm clearance. Not sure if you know, but you can get SCARM to show the gradient % of any line rise/fall line. If you work to a minimum 80mm true clearance at the flyover, then you will need a 40mm rise and 40mm fall of both lines. So assuming you go for the idea of the main station area being at +40 (GL zero) from the main base board you will get your 40mm rise/fall pretty much along the length of each curve. Which is what I manged to get on my layout. This will give you gradients of 2% which look OK and not too severe. And for a 0-4-0 Hornby Railroad steamy, I have found it can can just about pull 3 coaches up 2%, but I had to add quiet bit of extra lead weight to the loco. All gradients are 2% One final obs is the the tunnel line on the right will probably have to run between the yellow curve and the inner one until it can pass under upper line at around the siding points I hope this helps?

Looking great and nice low realistic angle of shot, no birds eye view. I think you should be very please with the outcome. The track and ballast looks like it is in the landscape.

Very neat and slimline too. Looks like a better loading gauge than mine and no need of a bespoke hand built camtruck, very impressed! Shall look forward to seeing some video.

Hi Zomboid I shall be using Neodymium magnets as I have seen these suggested on other RMWeb topics, plus a couple of videos I found pretty much explain how you get delayed coupling with Kadee. Two different instillation methods of the Neodymium magnets can be seen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N2q_6PFuzc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nci5DDmblIQ

Another set of wagons done with Kadee couplings. I like this, getting in to the swing of things and completing each wagon much quicker! This time the wagons were old Hornby OBA with very big clunky TLC. The finished effort is so much better. A full set of how to photos can be found here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/24427-kadee-couplers/?p=2785460 A before and after comparison What shall I do next?

Another set of wagons done with Kadee couplings. This time the wagons were old Hornby OBA with very big clunky TLC. I am finding this quite enjoyable and getting in to the swing of things. Found this one much quicker to do, no cut away required, just a shim of plasticard to get the draft box at the right height.! The finished effort is so much better than the original. A before and after comparison, rather good Cutting the old coupling off with my track cutters. The Kadee components, the draft box is a #242 Universal "Black Box" Snap-Together. This one was very easy to put together because of the snap on lid, The simple attachment underneath using plastic weld glue.. The white platicard sheet is 20 thou (0.5mm). Checking the height, which was a nats hair too low as the metal loop was just touching the gauge. Very pleased with how easy this one was and the considerable visual improvement.