[Ozzie21]

QUOTE (Gary @ 10 Mar 2006, 07:41)Of course DCC does not like traction tyres. Happy modelling
Gary
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well no. have a look at the new Broadway Limited offerings. They come with traction tires as an option that the owner can fit and it causes no problems. Rivarossi fitted traction tires to many of their models as did Lima, Jouef and many other continental manufacturers. With plastic bodies and insufficient weight in many models, including some very expensive brass models, it's either add weight or put up with a light load behind coupler. Or you could build a DJH kit that has plenty of weight and will pull a fair load given a good motor and gearbox.

Ozzie21

 

[Ozzie21]

QUOTE (ChrisE @ 9 Mar 2006, 21:13)Secondly that modern shallow flange depths are much more likely to cause derailments that the coarser wheels of a few years ago

Thirdly that Code 75 rails makes the flange problem worse.

Chris
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry have to disagree completely with the above. The flanges provided on most UK made RTR stock are big enough to cut cookies with. RP 25 profile wheels are designed to work on Code 100 rail down to code 70 rail with the US standard being Code 83. RP 25 wheels do have much smaller flange but the tyre face is 0.098" wide to run on code 100 rail. RP 88 wheels that I use have much smaller flange again and have a tyre face 0.086" wide. Scale wheels have a tyre face something in region of 0.061" wide. With most RTR run models the the guage of the wheels is usually out, I think you use back to back measurment. I use an NMRA standards guage which allows you to adjust the wheels by aligning the flanges in two slots in the guage. This allows you to have a little leeway in seeting the wheels. On Hornby and Bachmann models as well as many American models, which are mainly made in China as well, the "back to back" I guess is to narrow allowing the wheels to ride up in point frogs and strike point rails. So I adjust them all and they all run fine on my code 75. If after you check and reguage your wheels they still derail I'd start checking my trackwork.

Ozzie21

 

[Ozzie21]

QUOTE (Gary @ 12 Mar 2006, 22:34)To be honest OZ the typical railway modeller in the UK won't have a clue what all this stuff about wheelgauging is about. I don't!

I like to open a box, stick an item on the track, and watch it go. I prefer to use track that permits this and if that means I use track that offends pure scale modellers then tough. I do run new and old models and find Hornby track copes well with nearly all rolling stock produced over the 50 years that Hornby have been producing trains (I won't say models as we live in a PC world!

)

Hornby and Bachmann know their typical customers and I suspect a very high number think like me and like things to be very simple.

What this has to do with poor running I don't know but if Hornby and Bachmann, by pandering to the whims of those that demand perfection and finescale, are starting to produce locomotives that run poorly and won't pull the skin off a rice pudding and won't go up gradients, then is this progress?

A 1967 Triang Hornby Hymec with Magnadhesion on steel track could pull 11 coaches according to press reviews of that year. On nickel silver track it struggles to pull 5 coaches! It can only pull 2 Hornby Dublo tinplate coaches on nickel silver track. As for any steep incline on nickel silver track forget it.

A Hornby Dublo diecast loco can easily pull 6 tinplate coaches without magnadhesion.

It seems that locomotives now have to be heavy to pull any weight.

The truth is you simply cannot put heavy weight into a steam locomotive. Diesels yes you can and tenders yes you can and possibly this is why tender drive became fashionable.

I wonder how many of todays UK steam train modellers actaully haul more then 4-5 coaches? Even todays high detail locos can cope with that. If 95% of modellers who buy Hornby and Bachmann models haul 5 coaches or less then they are going to be very satisfied with running performance.

The other thing is of course is that you cannot compare UK outline OO with the rest of the worlds HO. UK steam tenders are generally much smaller due to shorter distances travelled so less space for weight in there even with tender drive. USA HO steam locos are much bigger even in HO scale so can be heavier. There is plenty of double and triple heading in the USA and elsewhere in the world so modellers can model this and pull long consists. If UK outine locos tend to be lighter then this is the very nature of the animal as they are smaller.

Happy modelling
Gary
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gary, You may be right as to how many UK modellers know how to re guage their wheels or modify drawbars, add pickups or even add weight to their models. A lot of this stems from the fact that the manuafacturer has changed his philosiphy and is producing a more accurate model, a change in materials from die cast bodies to plastic bodies. Even governments can influence the hobby with no lead in toys or lead based paints. Magazines have had a big change on modeller attitudes. Why spend hours sourcing parts, even longer putting it together when you can just buy it, put it on the track and hey presto away it goes and the magazine gives a glowing review. I have some Model Railway Constructor magazines from the late sixties to the early seveties and half the articles that appear in the magazine are either on modifying existing models or scratchbuilding models be they rolling stock or buildings. It is true that UK models while larger in model form are smaller in real terms to US or European prototypes. But even US models are light in weight. Diesels are okay but who wants a powered boxcar. Bachmann US produced a model of a USRA light mikado or 2-8-2. A very nice model, beautiful detail and wouldn't pull more than 5 passenger cars on the level. Now Bachmann make a couple of models with cast boilers, a lot more weight, that allows the model to pull more of a protoype load. Perhalps this is the way Hornby and Bachmann UK should be heading. I would only add weight to the tender of a loco if the tender was bouncing around and derailing a lot as that extra weight is something the model has to pull if it's loco drive.
I have added weight to quite a few Hornby locos, BR/LMS Princess in particular, so that it can pull passenger cars that I have weighted to NMRA standard. Most UK modellers may not be familiar with this but this is what it is the initial car weight 1oz or greater plus 1/2 an ounce for inch of length. This makes for a very stable car or wagon but it can make life difficult for a light model loco so we weight the loco and if it slips on a grade add a banker.

Ozzie 21

 

[Ozzie21]

All good points OZ. My old copies of model railway magazines are full of detailing and scratchbuilding projects and little else. It is a bit different these days. And Russell also seems reasonably accurate with his assessment of current hauling power. Its not that the motor can't cope. Its that the wheels slip.

It has occured to me that you could get small lead pellets that can be glued in place and this seems like the ideal solution for adding weight. They used to be advertised in Model Rail at about £18 for a jar full. I may be wrong however I don't recall seeing them advertised recently. For steam locomotives this appears to be a reasonable solution for getting weight into any available void of any shape. However, these days with the need to keep voids clear for DCC bits and bobs and the more accurate boiler and model shapes there are few voids actually free in anything other than streamlined locomotives.

We now have finer scale flanges on loco bogies that are definitely more lightweight than 20 years ago. Again, with manufacturers pandering to the whims of the few who demand detail in these areas, we are suffering with bogies that derail. With the introduction of dampening spring type designs on current models I do occasionally find that the natural bogie height at rest is sometimes set too high relative to the main drive wheels and this is something that can be adjusted.

Remember that there are still model railway exhibits around the UK. One in Poole, one on the Isle of White and one in Exmouth that I have visited. They are all massive claiming to hold world records for length or for something else. And they have locomotives running non stop throughout the day that don't derail. What are they doing right?

What I do notice at all of them is that they run older locomotives! Why I don't know. But they do.

The other thing is that they have few points and they normally make sure that any loco is running against the point rather than into it.

Now for those who have tail chasing oval layouts who like to run there trains continuously for hours on end then good layout design is very important. Always run against the point if you operate continiously and you probably won't go far wrong with any loco. Keep shunting areas away from the main running area. Avoid diamond crossings and uncoupling ramps on main lines. And so on.

Common sense really.

Happy modelling
Gary
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
[/quo
Gary, you can by lead shot from any gunsmith or fishing tackle shop and most plumbing supply shops carry lead sheats. I use 00 shotgun pellets which I mix with PVA glue and layer it into the body shell of the required model. With a rigid or non suspension chassis you have to make sure you balance the load so the weight distrubution is even. On a chassis with with suspension it is even more important. If for some reason I can't find room in the body shell I will mill parts of the chassis and fill it with lead. This will work on most models and all you need is a Dremel motor tool with the appropriate cutter. With a lot of the British models I have I have been using the tender to house the DCC decoder rather then in the body of the loco. As you only need four wires, no lights to worry about, I just move the DCC socket to the tender by extending the wiring harness with some removable jumpers that I disguise as the water hoses and steam lines between tender and loco. I have a Triang Princess and coaches from 1968. It does weigh a few ounces more than the modern Horby Princess. The difference as I see it is that 1968 version is a toy whereas the 2005 version is a scale model.

I can't really comment of the on the tourist exhibts except for Pendon which uses mainly scratcbuilt models from the sixties on EM guage track. A work of art and credit to the fine modellers who built it.

I suppose in the end it's horses for courses. I guess the average british modeller doesn't have the space to build an empire so all those wonderful little branchline plans that have appeared in the press over the years is all they can hope to have room for. I have a purpose built train room with 40'x25'. minimum radius is 40" and it had two decks. I used 26boxes of peco code 75 track and 122 sets of points when I built my American layout. Now I'm hoping after I clear the last vestiges of the old order out to build something approximating the old Somerset and Dorset in the last years of steam if I can ever find the time.

Ozzie21

 

[Ozzie21]

I've been checking out the weights of few models having just appropriated a couple of diesels. A Bachmann class 25 weighs in at around 533grams or just over a pound and a Deltic around 563grams. A Hornby A3/A4/ Duchess/ Princess weighs in at 322grams, without tender. You can see that the steam loco is at a disadvantage as it's lack of weight will have a prounounced effect when load is increased or eight new Greseley coaches is the limit. I have added weight to the A3 to get it up to 441grams so now 13 Bachmann mk1's are the limit. It will slip when it gets near the top of my 1.5% grade which I think equates to around 1 in 100. If I could add another 20grams it'll go over the top . You are hampered by the lack of space in the boiler and attempting to keep the weight balanced. On the other hand my DJH Duke of Gloucester has no problems romps over the grade with nery a worry. My next weight project will be an unrebuilt BoB 222sqdn and I think with the space in the spam can I should have no problems. Another thing that can affect the adhesion of a model is springing of leading and trailing bogies. I removed the springs on Bachmann V2 after I found it struggled with six mk1's on the flat. I removed the springs from the front and rear bogies and it now hauls six mk1's without slipping but again it would benfit from additional weight. I also added a decent drawbar to the loco and threw that thing Bachmann fitted over the fence.

Ozzie21

 

[Ozzie21]

QUOTE (Ben Manicom @ 20 May 2006, 00:28) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I often here comments about old motors being bad and a lot about new ones being bad in my opion both work for me people critasize bachmann locos with split frame chassis's I have a bachmann pannier (present in my signature) that can out haul my Athearn SD45 (I dont know if this is a powerful or decent model by merican standards) and the pannier has the dreaded split chassis I also posess a Bachmann class 20 which outhauls anything and never derails even on our old railway Highdale's rough trackwork

The older motors weren't very efficient and had a fairly high current draw. Some of the older open frame motors like a Pittman, K's etc could also draw up to 1A in current. More modern motors like Mashima, Sagami, Buler, Tenshodo are a lot more efficient with current draws in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 mA. The newer can type motors also lend themselves more readily to conversion to DCC than the open frame type. Your SD45 is I take it one of the old Blue Box models and yes it was a bit on the light side. Many of the older Athearn models are a bit light but you should expect at least 20 free rolling 40" boxcars behind the coupler. Most of the newer range diesels starting with the Kato Dash9-C44 utilise a different chassis from the old flat ones that fills the almost all the model body. This design philosophy has now been seen on nearly all American HO diesel models , Athearn Genisis, Kato, LifeLike P2K, Atlas. Again this has it's drawbacks as a chassis that fills the whole model leaves little room for anything else.

Bachmann have started producing steam models with a cast metal boiler, Shay, Baldwin ten wheeler, USRA heavy mountain, C&O J-2 class heavy mountain. These models are all good pullers and to look at them you wouldn't know it's metal boiler. Time will tell with Brit models as they have changed much since I first gave then away in favour of US models to now and maybe we will see cast metal boilers on the likes of Hornby and Bachmann in the near future.

Ozzie21

 

[Ozzie21]

Quote
"
We should probably note that Lionel make O Gauge and this is the HO/OO board. However, another interesting and litte known fact is that they HAVE made both HO and, even more surprisingly, OO in the past! However, neither of those (unsuccessful) forays into 'little trains' lasted more than a few years each."

A thing to note with US modeling is that "OO" was a popular scale prior to the 2nd WW but even then it was severely overshadowed by "O" guage which was the major scale. HO scale came into the fore after WW2 when returning servicemen had found a Japan a great place to get things made. The Japenese craftsmen with little precious metals to work had turned there hand to other things like making models. The story goes that one serviceman had drawings for locomotive which he had made in brass for the the modest sum of US$12. It was the start of something big and by the early fifties a few companies in the US had started to get brass scale models made in Japan for very modest sums, A BigBoy for $40. Needless to say the orginal loco had been made in HO scale which was what the Japenese had used prior to WW2 so all the models coming out were in HO scale and it just took over. "OO" died a natural death, "O" guage shrunk in popuarity and "S" guage gained a few supporters. So here we have a scale that it is exact not a mongrel scale like we have had forced on us by the dark forces of commercialism.

Ozzie21