HLT 0109

My locos have all been bought new, within the last ten years and range from 0-6-0 tanks to a 9F. I also run classes 37 47 and 55 diesels. I have also just started an N gauge layout that hs two, Peco, set track curved points (space limitations precluded the electrofrog versions as they take up more space). They are also are running well with two, new, A3 locomotives.

I have both Hornby and Peco set track curved points on my 00 gauge layout and they all work well. I did have trouble with the Hornby ones which were the first ones I bought, but, the problems disappeared once they (and the approach tracks) were laid correctly. If you make sure that the points are laid flat and level, I doubt you will have a problem - but the angle of the approach curve can also create a problem, try to make as straight as possible and no sharper than the surve in the point itself. Make sure there is no kink at the rail joiners. I suspect that the Peco ones would have problems if not laid well, but I had learned my lesson by the time I got those! That said, if you still have problems, you may find that a thin piece of plastic attached along the check rail on the inner curve (making the flangeway narrower) may help. I hope this helps your decision making. Harold.

Having watched an earlier post from Karhedron, I have just been placing one of the small neodymium magnets each side of a sleeper and against opposite rails . This should reduce the problem of precision in shunting as each magnet attracts the pin in one of the couplings - I have yet to test it with wagons attached since only my locos have the Easi-shunt attached as yet., but it worked in Karhedron's video The magnets are so strong that thee is no need for a strip of four between the sleepers. The problem I have had is that the strength of the magnets overcame the glue while it was wet and the magnets sprang together - so I fixed one in place and let the glue dry before fixing the other. Harold.

Thank you Vanguard - still no reply today.

Shroomy, I am using the Hornby one (I have several on my 00 gauge layout and one on my new N gauge layout) and all work perfectly with Power Cab. At least the new one was but it started to fail intermittently. I have today discovered a loose solder joint to the rail in the feed from the RLM to the reversing loop. I am sure this is the problem and expect that reliable service will resume once the connection is properly soldered. When I say "loose" I mean the joint is broken so the rail is sitting on the feed wire so there is poor electrical conductivity. I also had the same problem on my 00 gauge layout years ago and found a poor joint on that occasion. I recommend a thourough inspection of all connections within the reversing loop before paying out to replace your RLM Harold.

That's kind of you Richard - many thanks. I have just checked the Tyneside Models messaging site and find my post is there (twice now), both have been viewed twice (once must be by me) but no reply as yet. Thank you for the link to Narrow Planet - I see they do a similar loco kit for £125 including a motor bogie and postage but it is out of stock. I will keep looking. Harold.

Thank you Richard - it seems waht I saw yesterday was correct, although possibly my original posting was not. I will repost it as a conversation between 2. Harold.

Guy, Just tried following your instructions. Googling Tynesdie Models comes up with Shapeways.com/shops/. . . Selecting that, gives me a page headed Shapeways, below shich is Tyneside Models name and the name of the proprietor followed by "Send Message" in an oval box. If I click on that, another Shapeways page appears with "Start a New Conversation" then "To Tyneside Models". Is that what you expect? It looks like the page I completed last week although I cannot remember whether the name of the shop appeared on that occasion.

Thank you gentlemen. Yes, that is the button I used. I have just tried it again and I am requested to log in to Shapeways which then presents me with an opportunity to start a new conversation. Now,, if I select "Conversations", my question appears and shows it has been read by two people but there is no reply so far.

Thanks Richard, but I followed Shapeways instructions and got the result set out in my original post. I also Googled Tyneside Models and got the same link. I have just tried again and, no matter what I do, I end up being offered the Shapeways forum as the means of posing my question. Something is not right. Harold.

I have on order a tiny motorised bogie for an N gauge layout and planned to scratch buid a loco body, but I discovered something I believe would be suitable on the Shapeways website under the Tyneside Models name. Before ordering, I need to aska question so I have created an account and contacted Shapeways. I got a very prompt response saying they were unable to help me as I need to ask the designer and gave brief instructions. Follwoing the instructions took me to a forum (which did not seem appropriate) but I posted the question anyway earlier today. Now, when I log on to that forum, i cannot find my post. Can someone please tell me the correct procedure? Thanks, Harold

Welcome to the forum - I am sure yoou will find it helpful. That is a large board to handle alone - probably more awkward than heavy, although it will, as you say get heavier. 9mm ply should be fine and the dimensions of the frame/braces likewise. Screws and glue are good as also the spacing I think. Cross-braces will definitely reduce flex but try to ensure they are a good fit rather than loose, and gluescrew again. Do make sure there is no twist in the board as you fit each brace, otherwise you will fix in the twist - I presume there is no twist after fitting the existing braces and frame. Think about where you might want point motors (if they are to be fitted underneath the track), sine the braces might prevent them from being fitted where you want. Good looking job so far. I hope your son catches your enthusiasm. Harold.

Am I right in thinking you plan to pour the varnish to a depth of 5mm? If so, I would advise against it - it wil probably never dry. I have certainly used gloss varnish to represnt water, having painted the river bed appropriately, but I have not painted the bank sides to look as if they are under water. I found that the important thing was to get the bed of the river/pond correct - ie the colour required and shading as necessary to suggest depth, then simply paint several thin coates of varnish, letting the paint and each coat of varnish dry thoroughly before applying the rest. Practise on a mock-up to make part of the bottom look as if it is the sides of the pond - not done exactly that myself but I am sure that is the way to go. As it happens, i am starting a new layout with a shallow boating lake where I may need to do something similar. half-submerged old tyres form buffers around the edges, so I may need to represent the submerged half of the tyres among other things. Harold.

These seem to be cheaper: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pack-of-4-Uncoupling-Magnets-for-Dapol-N-Gauge-Magnetic-Couplings-Super-Strong-/162790380208?_trksid=p2385738.m4383.l4275.c10 Not tried them, they came up with a Google search. Harold.

If the basboards, when set up, make an area 5' x 4', I think your proposal is OK - if the boards are attached end to end, then there may be a tendacy to rock sideways unless fixed to a wall. In any case I think you would be unwise to rely on the top fixings to keep the whole assembly stable. For a four-year old, I guess the height will be about 2' or so, but I would provide some form of bracing from (say) the middle height of each leg to the top frame, lengthways and sideways - then, if a leg is kicked accidentally, it shouldn't break anything. Harold.

It is possible to do almost anything given the right inspiration and suitable materials! I have a tunnel that is about 6ft long and hides a sharp curve; it is made in several removable sections and, becausse it is a rural hillside, the vertical joins can be hidden or camouflaged with scrub and bushes, or made to look like fissures in the ground. In my case, I also wanted to hide the join with the ground and made that section on a stout piece of paper which protruded about 10mm along the base - that was then painted like the surrounding ground, taking care not to stick it to the baseboard when placing scatter on the adjacent ground. The section has been removed a number of times and remains effective. I have looked for phoitographs but have nothing worth posting. Sometimes it is a question of planting shrubbery so that it sits over the join - but then you have to ensure that removing and replacing the sections is done in the right sequence. My tunnels (like most of the scenery) is made from polystyrene sheets/blocks cut with a bread knife and stuck with PVA glue. I hope this is some help. Harold.

Both these examples look as if they would need rather deep frames to accommodate them - particularly the flush fitting one - but they look very neat and appear not to be susceptible to accidental release. Mine came complete with fixing screws.

I have just completed baseboards for a layout that measures 2m x 1m comprising four boards of unequal sizes and assembled in a square formation. Alignment dowels have been used at each joint and the two front boards are connected by nuts and bolts, as are the two back boards, but, I have used the small sprung toggle catches in this link: https://www.stationroadbaseboards.co.uk/cart_catches.htm to attach the two backs to the two fronts - ie a catch is affixed to each end of the joint between front and back assemblies. They are surface mounted. Alignment dowels have also been used at this joint. This is proving entirely reliable. I was pleased that the catches in question are lockable - ie there is a convenient hole to accept a nail, spli pin or whatever, to prevent the catch being unintentionally released. They may be suitable for your arrangement and, as you say, they obviate the awkwardness of uing nuts and bolts Harold. PS. I also like the springiness in the fastening.

Alan, It will depend to some extent on what gauge you are working in. I have just completed a four-element baseboard totalling 2m x 1m using 6mm birch ply for the top, using the remainder for sandwich sides until I ran out - then I used cheaper offcuts that were lying around in the garage. The layout is N gauge and I am very pleased with the results. The birch ply was great to work with - very resistent to splintering - but I think there may be some drumming when trains are running. I hope to overcome this by using cork underlay to the track. The cheaper stuff was much less pleasing to work with and would not, in my view, be suitable for the top. Each element of my board is a different shape and size so the bracing has been difficult but the largest spacing is about 600mm x 300mm. This is my way of suggesting that 12mm is unnecessary unless you have to limit the number of braces or are working in a larger scale, and also to suggest that you consider 6mm for lightness. Harold.

I think the design of Peco points varies so posting a picture of the problem point might help. Meanwhile, I googled replacing Peco point springs which produced this link to video of a code 83 point: It may help. Alternatively, my search came up with several other results that may be worth following up. Harold.

Sorry - you're right of course!

It doesn't matter - it just means the wheels will turn the opposite way to what you expect.

Ian, A method I use is to lay a strip of paper towel across the track and spill some Iso Propyl Alcohol (IPA) on to it, then place the driving wheels of the loco on the paper whilst keeping one of the wheelsets with pickups on the uncovered rail. If you then hold the loco still whilst setting the controller to run at a reasonable speed so that the driving wheels revolve, you will find that a lot of dirt will appear on the paper towel. To clean non-driving wheels, you need to invert the loco (preferably in a suitable cradle, then wipe the wheel tyres with a cotton bud soaked in IPA whilst turning the wheels by hand. Harold.

It is two separate words. If you put them together it is a fiction - or a brand name with a capital M.

Surely, if the loco ran OK on DC but showed the problem after fitting a DCC decoder then, unless the decoder is faulty, it must be down to the need to tweak CVs. I am used to Loksound decoders rather than Lenz items which have different settings from each other, but reading the user manual about the settings for motor control might help towards a resolution. There may be other issues but CV settings are where I woould look first. Harold.