MikeHunter

If you are struggling to get anything to load today I'd suggest the issue probably isn't at Hornby's end.

To clarify, struggling to get anything to load on the Hornby website, so yes its them. I have very fast internet here in Spain, faster than at home! Other sites fly, including complex ecommerce sites with tons of images. Hornby should anticipate the extra load on the site when they have big announcements. Bachmann are much better at showcasing news. It shouldn't be that hard to summarise the new releases in a news page, rather than leaving you to scrol through over 400 items. A very bad user experience.

Given the length of the prototype I very much doubt if anything other than the Duchess arrangement will be possible. On the plus side at least it has the front the brakes fitted

I have problems with the cartazi truck on my previous version of the Dutchess shorting on points, hope the Princess is better. 

The Bachmann model portrays what was effectively the first 'standard' brake van built by the LMS from 1923 without duckets and from 1926 with duckets, although based on a Midland design; a very brutalised simplification, but its the easiest way to sum up that model.

 

This iteration as announced by Hornby is of the standard LMS brake van which originated in 1935, and is a very different vehicle. An LMS (or BR(M) for that matter) layout can happily utilise both models in multiple numbers.

Great, thanks for clarifying, currently got 8 of the Bachmann ones with and without duckets and in both grey and bauxite. Looks like I'll be adding some Hornby ones then! My point still stands that the Midland single varanda one would be nice to see RTR as would some of the other constituent companies, but a very welcome addition.

I find it very frustrating. Can't get anything to load. If they separated out a news section and an announcements page or pages from the e-commerce website, it shouldn't be beyond their IT team's ability to have everything readable and fast loading even on day 1. Its very annoying having to scroll through over 400 product images just to see the highlights of the new year. Th Bachmann site is much better in this respect.

Don't agree that it is a positive sign if the traffic crashes the site, its a bad sign, shows their IT support isn't great.

I've only been able to find the list of announcements on here.

Only if they model a main line.

Or a branchline with a very heavy loading gauge! Will look no worse than my streamlined Duchess. Been after 6201 for a very long time. Should sell very well.

Are these different to the Bachmann model? As an LMS modeller I don't profess much knowledge of brake vans, but would like something a bit different like a midland single varanda, or one of the other constituent companies.

As it certainly used to say in the instructions for Peco points - they should be wired with insulated frogs at the V - regardless of whether they are insulfrog or live frog - because the gap on the insulfrog is so small that almost any wheel will bridge it ......ONLY when the other rail is either isolated or live with the same phase as the other rail on the V will you get a short-free crossing!   Other makes use a wider dead-frog or include inbuilt fog switching. ....

The unguided cartessi truck flangeless wheelset simply increases the risk of the short occurring because the wheels are not retained to the line of the track  ..they are probably okay on Hornby set track with a large dead frog.

(This is one reason I changed to Rocoline points - and only have 1 peco diamond crossing left on my layout - because of the angle I needed - and of course - with older |Hornby stock especially - this is a source of momntary shorts on dcc - troublesome even with a PSX breaker - but solvable with a Gaugemaster auto frog switch without human intervention)

Hi Phil, thanks for the comments. Changing to Roco points isn't really an option as the layout is already fully scenic, and all the track laid. My insulfrog ponts on my other layout are all short radius, apart from a double slip, and run trouble free without any alteration. The locos which are shorting on the new layout don't cause problems on the old one. The only difference is that the old layout is code 100, not sure whether the tolerences are finer on cod 74. A visual comparison of the two side by side doesn't look like they are (in terms of the V and point blade to rail clearances. 

d

 

There are two main potentials for shorting on RTR pointwork. Descriptions below when loco is approaching a facing point.

 

If the points where the shorts occur are 'live crossing' (Peco's electrofrog) then bridging of the closure rails just before the crossing is possible, as Hornby have quite a wide tyre on some wheelsets, and the trailing truck unflanged wheel of the pacific is always a disaster in waiting.

 

If the points where the shorts occur are 'dead crossing' (Peco's insulfrog) then bridging just after the crossing is possible, as Hornby have quite a wide tyre on some wheelsets, and the trailing truck unflanged wheel of the pacific is always a disaster in waiting.

 

You can spot where the shorting occurs by running with the room dark, the sparks will be clearly visible. You may even see a few more wheelsets sparking. (Run for long enough, and the location will be visible by spark erosion of the rail surface.)

 

This has been going on for years in DC operation which is tolerant of shorts, and there hasn't been the design effort to revise both track and wheel standards to better match the requirements for DCC, which has a much reduced tolerance for short circuits. We have to fix it ourselves for now, typically by fitting better profiled wheels. The flanged wheelsets that Hornby (hopefully continue to) supply with their pacifics do the job for me, albeit with alteration of the mounting. Or just remove the flangeless wheelset as a simpler fix.. Other wheelsets, if the problem cannot be fixed by the gauging adjustment already suggested, buy and install kit replacements.

Thanks for the considered response, it seems to be occurring when running over trailing points only. The points were converted in-situ to frog polarity switching, (as the track was already ballasted), so I don't think the loco is bridging the gap, as the rail is correct polarity for the whole length of the point. I suspect with the cartazzi truck its bridging the gap between the point blade, and the rail section next to it (which are opposite polarity and both live). If its this, the only easy solution may be a new generation Dutchess, without the fixed Cartazzi....

Still mystified on the 2-6-4 tank though. My Bachmann Fairburn one runs fine, but the Hornby Stanier one doesn't, its a slightly longer wheelbase. Suspect it may be a back to back issue here.

Thanks for the swift replies. I'll check. Think its likely to be the cartazzi on the Duchess, as it doesn't move, but would like to know if anyone else with a Duchess has had the same problem.

Steam:

LMS 2P to current standards

Princess new tooling including scope for turbomotive

Deisel

LMS pioneer 0-6-0 diesel

Coaches

More of the same - several re-releases

Freight

LMS fish van

Something eye catching:

Hornby enters the O gauge market with a scaled up stream lined Duchess and an A4

Hi All. I have a newly installed DCC power bus, track is Peco code 75. Most of my locos run fine. I have over 20 1930s era LMS locos in my fleet, all are either Hornby or Bachmann, with a mixture of decoders. All run fine on my old layout, which is code 100 Peco track with insulfrog points, including a double slip. 

I bought a new layout second hand, and have had it professionally wired. Most of my stock is fine, but I have two Hornby locos causing problems. One is the Stanier 2-6-4 tank, and the other is the previous generation streamlined Duchess (to the one just released). The Duchess has the fixed Cartazzi trailing axle. Has anyone had similar problems with either of these locos?

Its only a couple of points which are affected, but I'd like to know whether there are any issues from the loco wheels before looking at the wiring. Both locos have modern wheel profiles.

Mike, that's quite vague.

You still haven't said if you need to run them separately at the same time, or one layout at a time.

 

If only one layout is being run and there is no situation where both will be running separately at the same time, then a second PowerCab is a waste of money, as much of the electronics contained inside the 2nd PowerCab handset will not be used.

In this case it would be wiser to buy a ProCab handset and an extra PCP instead.

 

If by running the layouts separately, you mean to say that there will be occasions when both layouts are in use at the same time, either at the same location/venue, or in different places, then a second PowerCab is indeed what you will need

.

Cheers

Ron

 

 

.

Could be both at the same time at the same venue ( but separated) or one at an exhibition with Power Cab and the other at home. Whilst I may not want to run much after a day's operating, it's good to have the option. There isn't a huge price difference with the Pro Cap as far as I can see. May add one of those in the future.

Thought I had mentioned that I need to be able to run both layouts separately. Found a really useful diagram on the NCE website about how to link 2 power cabs: https://zendesk-help-center-production.s3.amazonaws.com/article_attachment/file/543952/200585335/How_to_hook_up_Two_Powercabs.pdf?response-content-disposition=attachment&X-Amz-Expires=600&X-Amz-Date=20180821T110924Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIC3WAKGEUSD6TFHQ/20180821/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=929dda118427af8fa019e1ad7e9e86f6af1b2d84e4430f37a5e863dafba4fa1b

This uses both powercabs with their PCPs just one power pack, and using the second as a throttle with the Curley cable.

Seems simple to set this up, with the power bus linked between the layouts. I then disconnect the Powerbus, swap the cable on the second can, and plug in mains power, using the conventional single powercab set up - sorted.

Now I just need to figure out and convert the DC layout wiring....

Hi IMT very helpful diagrams, really helps visualise the two PCPs, thanks for entering the debate. Yes Ron agreed two PowerCabs is the need. Gives the flexibility to run both layouts separately, or use one as a second cab.

Thanks again, I think a variation on Ron's option 1 above is the way I'll go. Think I only need 2 amps. The only issue is the track length, with a single power supply when the layouts are joined, its around 50 feet from one end of the layout to the other. The bus wiring on both layouts is pretty robust, but I suspect there is still some drop in voltage. Not keen on the Power Booster for 2 reasons:

1) its 5 amps - seems a big leap from 2, is there more risk of damaging a loco motor in the event of a problem with a chip?

2) cost, its a lot more expensive. 

I'll probably go for the 2 Power Cabs as the basis for option 1, running individually when the layouts are separated, and using one as a slave without the power when joined. 

Thanks both Nigel and Ron, I'd really like the facility to separately power both layouts if possible. This will allow me to exhibit either one separately. So it looks like "terribly complicated", may be the way to go. (Yikes). I suspect this will only work by adding the second cab, and the power booster, with one of the two layouts having the options to either run directly from a Cab as command station (when separated from the other layout), or from the power booster linked to layout 2, this does seem to be getting complicated, but shouldn't be insurmountable. 

The note about disconnecting the command station (or rather not disconnecting it or the system will shut down) is also very helpful.

Hi Ron, a very considered and thoughtful response, much appreciated. I get the principle of driving the trains not the layout, but is there a way of wiring to allow two separate layouts, or combined operation? I'll definitely want the Power Cab as the second unit, because I prefer it to the engineers throttle.

What is the potential problem with a common return? The wiring looks of good quality on the DC layout, so I don't think there will be a rating issue. It's been professionally wired. There is electric point control, so I'm anticipating leaving this as analogue, and just converting the track power to DCC

Sorry for "life dusting" read existing

I have a DCC layout, a small end to end dockyard and station. Iv just bought an ex-exhition layout off eBay. The plan is to link the two, but to be able to operate either independently. I love my NCE Power Cab, so it's clear I'll be buying more of the same. My question is how would it work with two Power Cabs?

If I run off the layout controlled by one, does the loco keep running? Or will it grind to a halt until you instructed by the second Power Cab? I've looked at the NCE website, but not found the explanation of Power Districts very helpful. I don't really want both layouts on the same power feed as the combined layout is quite big. Don't need the 5 amp system as I have low track occupancy, and don't use DCC sound or accessories.

Any thoughts or recommended sources of advice would be much appreciated. I'm still very much a DCC novice, having started when I bough my life dusting layout a couple of years ago. The new layout is analogue, but has a full wiring diagram. Main power bus (but linked to switched sections, and the points Peco are wired for frog polarity change with the frogs isolated and separately wired. So it looks a fairly easy task to link all the sections and use the new Power Cab.

Delighted to see the Midland Class 1532 (1P) announcement, this has been top of my wish list for many years. An 0-4-4 is reputedly one of the trickiest wheel arrangements to get right when building a kit, and the popularity of the Hornby M7 suggests this will be a popular loco. My only regret is that as I model 1930s LMS I can't justify buying the Midland Red version.....

The obvious gap in the market now is an LMS push pull set to go with it.

Hi All, I'm slowly converting to Kadees, I'm finding NEM Kadees very frustrating on Bachmann stock, please Kadee can we have over shank and under shank versions? My older stock is proving easier with draft greaboxes, but many locos are a pain. Can anyone suggest the best solution for a Hornby Black 5, I have 5036 converted, but used a shank only ( no gearbox,) and this isn't great for coupling to stock.

Just converted an old Ima LMS GUV, there was no room between the bogies and the frames for gearboxes, I found a centre height shank fitted easily using the original screws from the tension locks. It runs beautifully.

I wonder if the preserved example at the SVR was dismantled for overhaul before Bachmann had chance to measure up or scan - hence the current delay?

Or they wanted to bring forward the 4F - easy addition to the 3F and didn't want the Hornby one to take centre stage?

Ummm,,,,you know they've already announced that they're doing the Stanier mogul, don't you? :-)

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/72039-Bachmann-stanier-mogul/

Think you missed my point on th mogul . It's can we have it in the shops please Bachmann, we've had lots of other (great) announcements that seem to have queue jumped the mogul, I love their crabs, so can't wait for the Stanier version. Would love to have it this year. In LMS black.

Ok my two penny worth: I've used Peco code 100 for years, do I like its appearance, no. Do I like its performance, yes. I would love Peco to manufacture a finer scale track system than code 75, the biggest issue for me would be better sleeper spacing. I agree that SMP looks much better, if I had the time, the money and the skill, I'd go for it. As to gauge issues, I again model 00 because it's practical and achievable. If the mainstream manufacturers went EM I'd be delighted despite the cost and hassle of changing.

Really pleased with this announcement, Bachmann is doing a great job of choosing some of the smaller loco types. Love the half cab and the Aspinal, so a Coal Tank is a great addition. Can we have the Stanier mogul too please!