highpeakman

4 hours ago, highpeakman said:

Is anyone else having trouble separating the chassis from the body?

 

Have just received my MOD 48DS and want to fit a decoder but am really struggling to get the body off and want to be careful as I don't want to do any damage.

 

Yes, I have removed the four screws. Yes, I have removed the coupling bar and connecting wires. Yes, I have removed the front coupling blank. Yes, I have made sure that the plugs are clear of the body and not fouling.

 

I can't see anything else holding the two together and yet I can't make the chassis move even the slightest. Have tried gentle prising with a screwdriver in the front coupling slot but NO movement at all.

Almost as if glued in. Actually a tiny amount of shiny hard stuff (like hardened glue) around the rear coupling mount and I am unable to get a scalpel between the body and chassis at that point (but I am not trying too hard at present).

 

Suggestions gratefully received please. Thanks.

Finally managed  to separate the two.

There is something, possibly oil (?), around the front screw holes under the chassis. Not sure what it is but something liquid seems to be holding the two parts together. Continuous gentle prising and finally a very faint crack noise (not something breaking!) as something gave and then it all came apart OK.

Edit: It's weird. Whatever the "liquid" was it appears to have dried up by itself while the chassis was being fitted with the decoder. Reassembled and disassembled again without problems.

Runs beautifully without match truck. Very happy - now!

Is anyone else having trouble separating the chassis from the body?

Have just received my MOD 48DS and want to fit a decoder but am really struggling to get the body off and want to be careful as I don't want to do any damage.

Yes, I have removed the four screws. Yes, I have removed the coupling bar and connecting wires. Yes, I have removed the front coupling blank. Yes, I have made sure that the plugs are clear of the body and not fouling.

I can't see anything else holding the two together and yet I can't make the chassis move even the slightest. Have tried gentle prising with a screwdriver in the front coupling slot but NO movement at all.

Almost as if glued in. Actually a tiny amount of shiny hard stuff (like hardened glue) around the rear coupling mount and I am unable to get a scalpel between the body and chassis at that point (but I am not trying too hard at present).

Suggestions gratefully received please. Thanks.

New Zimo fitted. Smooth correct running now.

CV settings identical to Digitrax so I think there was some form of problem with it.

Thanks to everyone for suggestions and help.

Speed settings (including acceleration, etc) have been altered but haven't changed behaviour.

The loco starts and accelerates normally but then does not slow down when you turn down the power.

As mentioned above, it has been factory reset by two different methods and then CVs changed but still behaves erratically.

I have experienced such problems before with Digitrax decoders although I am not saying they are poor. I have some that are behaving perfectly but I will replace this one with Zimo and see what happens.

Loco now working on both layout and Test rig Thanks to Nigel however there is still a problem with the decoder in that loco still runs away on zero throttle.

Zimo replacement has been ordered.

2 hours ago, Nigelcliffe said:

 

Did you check this, or just assume ?    ie. did you READ every CV back in the decoder into DecoderPro and check it, or just make the assumption that all the CV's were reset ?

 

Anything other than reading back every CV is "assumed it was reset"  to a greater or lesser extent.    I'll normally assume a decoder resets when I tell it to do so, but things partially resetting for weird reasons isn't an un-reported phenomenon.   Odd decoder behaviour can be down to settings in obscure CVs. 

 

And, I assume you're clear on the differences between "short" and "long" addresses, particularly on the PowerCab where a short address of, say 49, is different to a long address of 0049.  Both can be controlled independently.

 

 

- Nigel

 

 

Didn't assume. As I mentioned above I did check some of the CVs. Addresses and speed settings and a few other things were all reset every time I did it. I admit that I did not check every single one though.

I also reset using Sprog and separately using the Power cab and CV8.

Originally this model used short addresses but I did alter it to use the same long address but have now altered it back.

However you are spot on it seems - I went to the Powercab and entered 0019 and it runs correctly! I didn't realise the difference.

That is obviously where the problem lies. Thank you very much indeed for solving that one. It was driving me mad!

Much appreciated.

39 minutes ago, Crosland said:

First thought, it is something to do with the chassis/pickups. The wheels are supported differently on the rollers, compared to running on the track, and making better contact.

 

Second thought, is this your only DZ125? Can you try it in a different loco?

Thanks for the suggestion. The rollers on my test bench are mounted on a short piece of track and it runs along that OK as well as the rollers. So I don't think it is a wheel/contact problem. Plus, initially at least, it did work on the layout.

I had already thought about fitting the DZ125 to a different loco but it is just a matter of time to sort out another loco and fit the chip in that. Most of the locos with other DZ125s in are hard wired so a bit of a faff as this one uses the 8 pinplug. I also can't remember which other locos have 8 pin plug in decoders even if of a different type so would probably have to remove some bodies to see what is fitted. Haven't done it yet and I guess I hoped that someone may have another solution before I took that course of action.

Thanks for responding. I appreciate all suggestions.

I use a NCE Powercab on my layout. I also use Decoder Pro with a Sprog II v3 for testing/configuring locos on test rollers on my workbench. I have happily used this combination for some years without any problems. Decoder Pro (running on Windows 10) and the Sprog are up to date on firmware/software. The Power Cab uses v1.65 firmware.

One of my locos - a Bachmann Ivatt 4MT 2-6-0 (32-580) has previously been used successfully, without problems, when used on the layout. It is fitted with a Digitrax DZ125 decoder.  

After some months of not being used I put the loco back on the layout and found running problems - jerky movements and poor speed control. I removed the body and carefully lubricated the loco and ran it for some time on my roller test bed controlled by the Sprog. Back on the layout and it still ran badly but also exhibited strange behaviour - principally it would run away even when the throttle was turned off. I then put it back on the Sprog test bench and reset the decoder. Checked the programming and everything was back to factory settings. I then reprogrammed the addresses and speed settings. Back on the layout with the Powercab and it still exhibited poor running as before - still running away. So this time I reset the decoder again using the "programme" track and Powercab. Still no improvement.

Back to the Test bench and Sprog - another reset - loco runs well on rollers. Back to the layout and Powercab and now it won't run at all!

Back to test bench - runs fine - won't work (dead) on Powercab layout. Everything turned on/off multiple times - ALL other locos on layout work as normal with both Powercab and Sprog.

It's puzzling me - any ideas please?

(Likely action will be to replace the Digitrax with Zimo as I have had a couple of problems with Digitrax before unfortunately).

On 19/09/2019 at 17:05, SP Steve said:

 

According to the timetable the next up working to the "Royal Scot" would have been the 10:35 Glasgow Central - Liverpool Lime Street / Manchester Victoria (which conveyed a portion from Edinburgh which left Waverley at 10:21).

 

The Train Marshalling Circular of the time shows this to be composed of Mk2 Air Braked stock (not shown as air conditioned) so possible this was the working shown.

 

The full consist was given as BFK - FK - TSO - RMB - TSO - TSO - BFK - TSO - TSO - TSO - NEA

 

The next possible culprit was 11:23 Glasgow - Birmingham New Street (again with a Edinburgh portion) which was Mk2 Air Conditioned stock

 

The stock for the "Royal Scot" shows as Mk3 and was composed of NEA - FO - FO - RKB - TSO - TSO - TSO - TSO - TSO - TSO

Sorry for jumping back some days but I have been away and am just catching up. I am also showing my own ignorance here but could someone please offer a brief description of the "NEA" coach code in the train consist shown above. I am not immediately familiar with that term and cannot find any reference to this in lists of BR coach designations. Probably very obvious and I am being dense but, for the moment, I would appreciate it if someone could humour me. Thanks. 

21 minutes ago, Rising Standards said:

If the socket was in the place indicated in the instructions, the Zimo alternative to the harness-type Hornby decoder would be the MX617F which I've deployed in the Terrier. That was what I was expecting to need when I find time to collect my Westminster. As it isn't, I imagine an MX616N would be most likely to fit within the space under the socket. While I'm frustrated at facing the higher cost of that (£30+ rather than £20), at least it'll save the hassle of trying to get a bundle of wires tucked away under the body. That said, whether the different socket location was Hornby's intention or not, having the socket and blanking plug heatshrink-wrapped together is clearly a special kind of daft.

 

Of course, the ideal situation would be for Hornby not to assume that everyone using DCC will be happy using their own decoder, and instead put the socket in a place that gives a suitably sized void to accommodate a conventional direct plug 6 pin decoder. That would then enable straightforward fitment of the owner's preference of a myriad of ordinary 6 pin decoders like the MX617N in around 5 minutes, as the design of some other manufacturers' locos have permitted for a number of years now. This loco's chassis is clearly derived from that of the W4, and The Engine Shed said as much when it was announced, but there's no reason why this couldn't have been considered in the design process anyway.

Thanks for the information. Looks like I will go for the MX616N.

I agree with your comments about not being able to use a direct plug 6 pin as on the W4.

2 hours ago, NickC said:

 

So is your connector on the side where the leaflet shows it should be or is it in the front slot as mine is. I’m trying to find out if I have a one-off build error or whether all of them are like mine. As it is, it’s impossible to fit a decoder without hard-wiring it so I’m sending mine back. If mine is a one off I’ll ask for a replacement. If they are all like that then there is no point and I would have to go for the DCC fitted one instead.

No, my connector is exactly where it is shown in your photo. I would think they are all the same.

I think it should be quite straightforward to fit a decoder if you are using the recommended Hornby decoder. 

You were right in that Hornby's idea, as shown, is that you unplug the dc board (probably have to take the plastic surround off first). The Hornby encoder then fits down into the front slot and the wires from that go to the connector which is now mounted in the slot alongside the motor.

My problem arises from the fact that I am trying to use a Zimo 6 pin which makes it difficult without some modifications as it is too long (including the pins) to go upright in the decoder slot..

54 minutes ago, NickC said:

 

The instruction leaflet in my DCC ready Westminster shows the decoder in front of the motor and the socket by the side of the motor and not what I actually found. This side socket arrangement is identical to the 0-4-0 Pecketts (except that they have a 4 pin socket) 

 

 

You are quite right. My mistake, should have looked longer and harder! 

I looked at the plug on the side.My problem is that the Zimo is a 6 pin out rather than a cable so the plug is mounted directly on it which makes the decoder too tall when it is fitted. 

I will spend some more time on the puzzle later today but am wondering about buying the Hornby decoder but I like my Zimos.

11 hours ago, NickC said:

Has anybody tried to fit a DCC decoder yet? And if so did they find the 6 pin socket and blanking plate heatshrinked together in the decoder slot instead of where the instruction diagram shows it should be?

 

Pictures are of DCC ready Westminster as opened. Wiring is too short to move the 6 pin docket to its correct location

 

 

I had to cut the plastic and remove which surrounds the plug and "dc" board so that I could remove the dc board.

The instruction leaflet shows the decoder fitted by being laid alongside the motor. The Hornby decoder has a lead allowing the decoder to be laid alongside the motor but I found a Zimo with no lead would just about fit lead length wise. There is a little tiny clip at the top right when looking at the side of the decoder and the decoder is supposed to clip underneath that I believe.

My problem is that I intended to fit a Zimo MX617N but it is fractionally too wide to fit under the clip. My dilemma is whether to cut the clip away and whether the Zimo will fit even if I do.

I have tried various other positions for the Zimo but, so far, haven't managed to get the body shell to fit comfortably afterwards. I may have to modify the plug arrangement or hard wire the decoder so that it fits down the front of the motor where the dc board is situated in the picture.

Trying to decide whether to buy and fit the Hornby decoder now. Has anyone used it and is it OK? (Previous experience of Hornby decoders was not good).

Just collected "Westminster" from Caistor Loco. It's on the rolling road, being run in at the moment. Looks good and runs well so far. Very happy with it.

Once run in on DC it will have a decoder fitted.

On 08/01/2019 at 16:32, highpeakman said:

I have been looking at a number of sources regarding the possible location of the siding. 

 

The old 1:25000 OS map shows a siding immediately after Farlington Junction on the right as you travel north. That would fit in with my thoughts as to where I was when I saw the locos. Langstone Harbour would have been visible behind them which is what I recall. Being to the east of the junction also means they could be routed through Cosham and Fareham on their way to Eastleigh so would not have gone into Portsmouth itself. The problem is that I have no way of knowing that siding was still extant in the 60s.

 

On the web I can find the signal box diagrams for Portcreek Junction (the other side of the Portsmouth - Fareham - Havant triangle) and Havant but not Farlington Junction itself which is very frustrating!

 

https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=102

 

http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/srx/R555.htm

 

 

 

My money is still on Farlington Junction sidings (if they still existed then!!). 

 

Edit: I should have added that I have watched a Driver Training Video of the line and you can still see where the sidings at Farlington would have been. At first glance it still looked like old track was buried in the vegetation but I soon realised it is half buried cable ducting - two lines of it.

Just to bring this post up to date, if anyone is interested.

I have just been reading the Railway Heritage book about Portsmouth by M.G. Harvey & E. Rooke and found a picture of a 4VEP taken in 1976 approaching Farlington Junction from Bedhampton. Quote " At this point there were sidings on both sides of the line, the down side being a storage point for condemned stock in the early sixties". 

The location with Langstone Harbour as a backdrop fits perfectly with the picture in my mind (perhaps my memory is not so bad, making me think I could have been right about the type of locos?)

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=16&lat=50.8414&lon=-1.0385&layers=168&right=BingHyb

I am now very certain that this is where I saw the locos although exactly what they were or where they were heading (certainly for scrapping) my memory won't allow confirmation but i still feel sure that some Bulleid pacifics were there.

57 minutes ago, njee20 said:

People definitely do seem to have read too much into his message.

He's just gone away. Possibly because he's frustrated at how this has gone and just wants a few days reprieve before dealing with the fall out, possibly to take a long hard look at the state of his business, possibly to go to China and try and get the definitive update on all his projects, possibly to put all of his crowdfunders money on black at a Vegas casino. All he said is that he will try and answer some questions when he's back.

As I have mentioned previously, I do have experience of starting, building and being a Director of a substantial business. In the early days, before we had enough staff to cover during holidays, then even on rare family holidays I spent several hours every day on my phone/computer. Couldn't afford to lose touch with customers or business developments. Even when business was established with good support people we were still frequently disturbed on holidays. Running a business properly is a big and total commitment. 

J7981 - I love that picture.

By coincidence, this last weekend I had painted an old Fleischmann Steeple cab loco, to use as a non descript battery loco on my industrial line, and the colours I used are exactly a match to that one. Thanks very much indeed.

I had intended it to be Brunswick but used the wrong pot!! It looks good though.

42 minutes ago, Great Western said:

 

So if/when time is called a certain person can walk away with their personal finances unblemished ?

Potentially to set up another limited company and start all over again, cowboy builder style ? 

While it is true that a limited company could close and so avoid some debts it is also usual that such companies are started with either the personal funds of the owner being invested or using a bank loan which would have to be guaranteed by the owner with personal equity (against property for example). If, and I stress, IF such an event occurred in this case then POSSIBLY some crowdfunder investors MIGHT lose their money but the company owner would stand to lose a great deal more.

I think comparison with cowboy builders is an over the top comparison. Workmanship of models seen to date is not exactly shoddy. There are obviously problems but we should be very careful at this stage of making accusations.

3 minutes ago, Nigelcliffe said:

CV9 and CV56.   See page 12 of the Zimo manual.   Yes, its experimentation, even if someone says "my steeple cab has these settings", variation in manufacture may mean you need different ones. 

 

Start with CV9 and set to 55, then adjust (table on Left of manual page). 

Then move on to CV56.

Thanks. Will try that.

I have an old Fleischmann Steeple cab 0-4-0 electric loco to which I have installed the conversion motor plate/brush holder to allow dcc operation. It ran smoothly on DC power with a 6 pin DC "plug" in place.

I am currently testing the loco using a Zimo MX 622N 6 pin decoder.  Setting up is done using Decoder Pro/Sprog II v3/and a rolling road followed by track running.

The only problem I am experiencing is with slow speed running during which the loco is very jerky. I wonder if this is to do with Back EMF settings or PWM. However the Zimo seems to offer so many settings in this respect that I find it a bit confusing so I just wondered if anyone can offer some suggestions for CV settings to suit this particular Fleischmann motor?

Any help appreciated please.

3 minutes ago, pheaton said:

the person was issued with 50 ordinary shares...as per the filing on the 18th january 2018

Agreed. Had missed that filing. 

1 hour ago, pheaton said:

dave jones has 50 ordinary shares, in the interests of GDPR i will not name the other shareholder of 50 ordinary shares but you can see for yourselves in the filing history on the 18th of Jan 2018.

 

ergo dave jones is a 50% shareholder

 

Dont confuse ordinary shares with zero shares....ordinary shares are equity....

The other person listed was a Director (for less than 12 months). However a Director is not necessarily a shareholder. 

On 07/05/2019 at 12:40, Roy Langridge said:

 

I have project managed subcontractors before now where you have ended up trying/hoping to get information/commitments from them with little confidence that you will, and it is not always a sign of bad management. In one case my subcontractor had a brilliant record of delivery and a good reputation which resulted in them being bought by a big US firm. Thereafter, all was not well and despite dealing with the same people, it was a slippery slope which led to them being dropped as a supplier.

 

I am not saying that is the case here, but I can't help but feel this thread is now looking for any ammo to fire with, even when the target may be sinking without assistance.

Roy

I would agree with this statement and suggest people wait and see what happens when Dave returns. I was a Director/part owner of an hi-tech electronic component supply company that two of us built up from a "bedroom" operation to a multi million pound operation employing 13 people after 20 years (very hard graft but we must have done something right).

Sometimes we worked with Far Eastern companies (China, Taiwan, etc) and I have to say that it could be very difficult on occasions. When things went well there were no problems but if there were any problems producing the product then the information from the factory dried up almost completely. They did not want to tell us of any problems or explain about the problems. We believed that there is a culture of not wanting to advise bad news so nothing at all is said until the problem is solved or the project dies. We had worked with a major international telecommunications company to develop new communications equipment, the prototypes worked beautifully and everyone was happy. We had a million pound order lined up for starters. Unfortunately the production version did not work and suddenly the information flow from the factory just dried up and they would not answer emails, faxs or phone calls. The customer even travelled out to the plant but got no satisfactory result and we lost this contract after 2 years of hard work.

Another company was supplying product to us but we noticed that an almost identical product appeared on the market from a competitor. When we queried this it was confirmed the factory was making that item as well. We said but you agreed an exclusive product contract with us and they said yes, we have an exclusive contract with them as well!

Now I stress that these types of problems are not typical but neither are they uncommon. No-one would do business there if all the companies were the same but it can sometimes be difficult with different cultures, attitudes and long supply lines.

While I accept that Dave's statement has not done him any favours it is possible that he has taken time to travel to his suppliers/contractors. If that is the case then I think we should be patient and wait and see what happens next.

On 26/04/2019 at 12:57, Coryton said:

.................

As life has become safer, attitude to the remaining risk has changed. Maybe that's not surprising.

I think there is an issue of "if you make everything too safe then people lose their fear or knowledge of danger". 

How safe is "too safe" though?

I was involved in Rallying during the 70s and I clearly remember the feeling of "being safe" inside a rally car that was fitted with a full roll cage and full harness seat belts - it did make you feel much safer but therefore also inclined to take more risks when driving on the basis that you were less likely to get hurt if something went wrong. With more protection there was less risk to be considered was the argument. When young we felt immortal - Now, having survived to a good age, my nerves jangle when I think back and I would be upset if young members of my family did similar things. There seems to be no logic to human behaviour perhaps.

Of course it goes without saying that many things must be made as safe as possible and I am not arguing for any reductions current in protection but I would argue that "self preservation" - awareness - safety should be strongly taught in schools. There should be much more emphasis on getting people to think for themselves although some do seem incapable of that for whatever reasons. I do not know how you really protect such people from themselves - sooner or later the odds will probably get them. I drove 20-30k miles a year round the UK for 30 years and have seen such unbelievable stupidity - I try to follow the Police teaching of "defensive" driving but still get frightened by others. I am convinced that people's behaviour, in general, is getting more selfish, inconsiderate and less aware.

I am from the generation that, as kids, spent all day away from the house and took many risks but I survived intact like most of my friends - one died falling from his bike in "quite mundane" circumstances. However the reality is that I did come close to serious disaster on a couple of occasions (as did my friends) so it is really a case of "as luck would have it" although we did have an awareness of danger that seems to be largely lacking now. We believed at the time that we were taking calculated risks - frightening to think back on - whereas nowadays it seems to be just risk taking without much thought or calculation.

The above may seem contradictory in some respects - but so is life - it changes and we change.

An update - April 3rd 2019.

Unbranded 56s being used as shunters. Are they actually owned by GBRf?

I'm still slightly unsure as to who is working this traffic although I assume it is GBRf.  One of their locos is seen running light going to pick up a train.