Stockrington - Mojo ignited. Thanks, Heljan!

[David Todd]

I have a long way to go to catch you up, d.t....

 

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

Edited August 3, 2013 by ferriesdover

[jukebox]

Hmmmmm.  Curious fact:  KOYLI is not a Co-Co, but rather a B1-1B.

 

The central axles are not powered.

 

I'd say that, rather than the material, could be a major factor in the poorer weight-to-power ratio of the Bachmann model - the dynamics of the way the model gets traction might be inferior when the driven wheels are next to each instead of spread apart on the bogies... Maybe?

 

And to top it off, the inner axles don't have pick ups, either (not signifigant to me - all my turnouts are live frog, so pick up is not problem, but for anyone with insulfrogs, every bit of collection helps...)

 

***

 

I've added the lead to the sides of the boiler of the mogul;

 

There's actually room for some sheet lead under the cab roof, and also for another lead slug underneath the chimney in the space Bachmann have left for a decoder, but as I'm using a direct plug in TCS, I won't need it - but will hold off adding that extra weight till I see what I have gained so far. 

 

The idea of a "direct plug in" decoder is all well and good, but even with a UK centric chip, I am finding a lot of models do not have the space above the socket for even a small chip like the TCS; the Heljans had resistors fouling the chip, KOYLI had a fan moulding in the way that required surgery with a hobby knife; the K3 needed to have the metal of the chassis opening shaved by 0.5mm as the space in the chassis was the same size as the width of the chip; and for reasons I will explain in a post on another day, I know that you can't fit a 21-pin-to-8-pin convertor plus an 8 pin chip to a Dapol Western if you want to screw the body onto the chassis ...

 

I was reflecting with a friend during the week that 30 years ago, as a kid with a train set, unscrewing the body of a loco just wasn't done - you didn't open them, as there was little good you could do by doing so.  However in the world of DCC it's mandatory, and you just have to get used to the idea - a fear I am sure some less adventurous modellers may struggle to conquer.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

[Jaz]

Isn't there a RING missing........

 

So....

 

Cheers to everyone on the well wishes after Day 1 of operations - I must say I am seriously pleased with the Bachmann K3.  It has showed itself to be a really nice model - and tolerates the gradients and turnouts (and turnouts on gradients) with reassuring consistency. 

 

As Robert (4479) suggested, there was more than a little playing done this week, but that had an end game as well, as I do need to work my way through my roster of locos and determine which can do what, where and when, as it were.

 

If you have been following this thread from the start, you'll recall I kicked off just as the room for Stockrington was being completed.  So 90% of my locos and stock are in storage tubs, wrapped up.  What is available immediately is what I have acquired in the two years since the house extensions became a real thing - so there's just a number of D/E units and some Mk1 Pullmans (fear not, steam fans, I will be getting the rest out - the plan is a lot of testing before I continue track laying...)

 

So on hand I have DP1, KOYLI, Kestrel and Falcon, and these all had a run, and I also put the CMX into action behind them, to see how they went hauling that.  Curiously, the Bachmann units were not as powerful as the Heljan locos, and these couldn't lift the CMX across the Peco NS turnouts at 3% - but Kestrel did, and Falcon just romped away with it.  I only have 7 Pullmans on hand, and that also didn't stop Falcon.  Once I have more stock unpacked I will see how much I have to add before it has reached it's haulage limit.

 

I tried the K3, and was able to get three Pullmans up 3%, and four up the steel rails - but again, the Peco NS proved too slippery.  I am in the process of adding some extra weight inside the boiler, as I'd like to see the K3 with four on getting up that slope. Having said that, I stacked an extra 83g into KOYLI, taking it from 597g to 680g, but was still not able to get over the Pecos - yet Kestrel at just 598g romps away.  Must be down to some slippery metalurgy in Bachmanns wheels...

 

Interestingly, Falcon is extremely quiet - so much so that I was able to hear the flanges protesting in a couple of areas where my tracklaying is less than perfect - so I have flagged these and will go back and relay them to a better alignment.  The really good was that I didn't have anywhere where I was getting repeating derailments - just a few niggles where I had screwed down the track at a gapped joint using the collar screwes, and created some rough top, or a join between Peco and C&L on a curve where the gauge faces didn't line up.  With these sorted, I have been able to get consistant running with all the D/E's....

 

A big thanks to d.t. (ferriesdover) for a heads up on a sale on these:

 

030812 F.jpg

 

A perfect fit for Stockrington!

 

Cheers

 

Scott

[jukebox]

Isn't there a RING missing........

 

Don't be silly, Jaz!  If if was StockRINGton salt, where would trains on my layout take it to?

[jukebox]

You know it makes sense: what should a railway modeller born in the first week of August buy himself for a present?

 

A Lion, of course! Or is that a Great Dane?  A bit of both, really.

 

To wit, Heljan’s Lion prototype diesel, as seen on the EMCL in the early 1960’s.  Master Cutler, anyone?  Tyne-Wear Pullman, perhaps? That 3% looks imposing in telephoto view, doesn't it?

 

So that makes three very capable Heljan CO-CO locos for yard duties on Stockrington.  I am very impressed with the ride quality of the Danish products – they really are a treat to run, and I look forward to adding some subtle weathering to them once I am [a lot] further along with layout progress.  Happy birthday to me!

 

(Falcon's floating rear middle axle is telling me I have some perway work to do on that -5% chute curve!)

 

Despite all the above, there is no truth to the rumour Stockrington is going transition era D/E!    I've always known the chute and ramp down to the stoarge yard would be too steep and too tight for steam locos - one of my fundamental questions was "Can I use diesel haulage to get stock to and from storage?"  The answer, thanks to the three beasties above, is: Yes!

 

***

 

And with the body back on, and tipping the scale at 315g, the K3 has been re-tested and now is comfortable pulling four Pullmans up the 3% slope from the storage yard, so no more weight to be added there.

 

More disconcerting was the performance of Can-Pac, an out-of-the-box Hornby rebuilt Bulleid I bought what seems like yesterday but is probably close to a decade ago…  Despite the big drivers and generous boiler, CP could only managed 3 (!) coaches up the incline, and that was an utter effort.  It also exhibits Hornby rock-and-roll™, where the centre driver in marginally prouder than those either side, so when it stalled it pivots back and forward, with traction on only two axles, which is not helping.

 

It’s a lovely model, but it’s not suitable for a NE themed layout, and clearly is not going to have the legs for the grades I am going to use, without me working on it, so will probably make way for something a little more relevant. How about a J27, Bachmann?

 

***

Also tested (you can tell I opened my big storage box, can’t you?): a Bachmann 9F (Evening Star);  a good result here – 5 Pullmans up the grade, but not easily – in fact, rather realistically, in that she lost her feet briefly on the N/S turnouts, and then when she got back on the steel track, slowly started to regain momentum – the sort of “driving” that I think I want to emulate on the mainline, once I have a mainline built.

 

The other positive was that 92220 has no track holding issues, and was comfortable with all the reverse curves and changes of grade – something I had been a little hesitant about with it having a 10-coupled wheelbase. The flangeless centre drivers make all the difference.

 

***

 

What I did notice was that both those RTR locos showed signs of stiffness 1/. From being in hibernation for almost two years and 2/. Because they have never been “run in” on a layout from the time of purchase.  In due course I shall have to set them running or on the rolling road to free them up and have them at their best.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

Edited August 4, 2013 by jukebox

[Jaz]

The prototypes are gorgeous locos. We also are waiting until weathering skill set improves. but you can cheat and use powders (perhaps not the white lion) and just not set them so they will wear off in time anyway. Not that we are brave enough to try this idea you understand. 

[jukebox]

They are not perfect, by a long shot, Jaz - moulded horns, anyone? - but they have loads of character, and even with plastic (not painted) bogies, look pretty impressive in the flesh. Lion even has translucent panels on the roof (that, perversely, you can see the DCC decoder through!).  But the killer for me is how they "glide" - I think it's the weight, but they just seem to be so smooth both in speed control and track handling.  If I wasn't so skint, I'd plump for a DP2 in two tone green and maybe even offload KOYLI to take up some of the slack.

 

Considering they are reasonably obscure, I have to tip my hat to Heljan for making these.  They deserve some big kudos for giving modellers the opportunity to own models of some unusual (and colourful) prototypes.

Edited August 4, 2013 by jukebox

[Jaz]

I do love the way you update your title to match what you are doing, Great Danes on the loose....... I imagined these big dogs running amok on your layout!!!!!

[David Todd]

 Great Danes on the loose.......

 

So,..The Vikings, finally found  Australia,bet they had some nasty blister's on the hand's.........

It's nearly Friday, look forward to another......update.

[jukebox]

No major work on Stockrington this week - just some loco trials and mods.

 

I extracted my DJH Duke of Gloucester, and the 1948 loco exchanges had a 2013 revisitation, with me examining a very out-of-region for Stockrington Dapol Western for a friend.

 

For those who weren't aware, I'm going to detail that side of the action on my workshop thread, appropriately title Northmoor Works.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

[Jaz]

Ah that's where you have been hiding, some nice work.

[Removed a/c]

Just had a read through your thread. Very impressive. I shall continue to follow along and watch with interest. Although it doesn't really fit in with my layout I am considering buying a Lion myself. Such a unique looking machine. Can I ask how you rigged up the Kadees? Is it a Kadee mounted to a tension lock? 

 

Regards 

Scott 

[jukebox]

Thanks Scott, and welcome aboard.

 

Lion, as with all the D/E's, has NEM sockets - so a pair of pliers and a firm grip and they just pull out (in fact, I even seem to recall Lion's sockets were empty, as the buffer beam is already detailed, and the tension locks come in a small sachet to be attached by the owner... but that might have been Falcon - too many fittings in the last month, I'm sorry!)

 

 

Once you have an empty NEM socket, a Kadee #19 or #20 pushes straight in (#20 is slightly longer, and would be the one if you have tight curves - a #19 looks better and works fine):

 

 

BTW, Lion is currently on sale in Liverpool for £79 - minus VAT, because you're in Canada! - an utter steal, quite frankly. Go for it.

 

Regards

 

Scott

[Removed a/c]

Great thanks for the info. 

[jukebox]

Well, it has been about three weeks since Stockrington went live, and whilst I have not had as much time as I would have liked to get on with some form of comprehensive testing, there’s a few unknowns that have resolved themselves, and also a few new issues that have been revealed:

 

The Good.

 

The biggest issue I think I faced with my track plan was gradients.  For Stockrington to work, I needed to determine what restrictions a 2.5% mainline would impose.  I’ve not been able to undertake a comprehensive survey yet, but I do now know that a K3 with 4 coaches, or an A4 with 6 is achievable, consistently.  

 

And most significantly, the D/E power I have at hand can lift any reasonable sized train I make up out of the yard, and up to the scenic level.   One unintended outcome from this is that I can see, even with the 7m I have on the longest wall of my room, that an eight or nine coach train does not look good.  I had Falcon lifting a nine coach train up the ramp on the weekend, and as it passed along the long wall, I was struck how silly it looked – very “train set” like.  So my thoughts on not striving to run 8 coach trains have proved well founded.

 

The swing up section works.  It’s only been in place a few months, and its long term viability needs to be proven, but I am pleasantly surprised how problem free this has been.  I have only had one derailment there, and that turned out to be because I hadn’t soldered the rails to one pair of screws!    To anyone considering doing the layout duck under limbo, I can hand-on-heart recommend trying to build a swing up bridge.  Of course, let’s see how I feel after I add another four tracks, eh?

 

Turnouts on grades. I had worried that these could be a problem, but I have yet to have a derailment on any of the turnouts on the in and out ramps to the storage yard.  I did make an effort when I laid these to not put any twist or change of grade on or across them, so I am pleased that, to date, they have proved reliable.

 

The Bad.

 

I need a longer cord on my Powercab.  Or maybe to go wireless.  It is a pain in the keister plugging and unplugging the cord and walking to the other end of the room, and I suspect it will eventually weaken the RJ-45 plug and cause the locking clip to fracture.  This is exacerbated right now, as any major derailment would result in stock plummeting to the floor – once I have scenery in place, the results would be less catastrophic.

 

Some of the locos tend to surge on the -5% chute, as a result of the load of the train exceeding the speed set by the decoder. There may be a tweak I can tinker with in the CV’s, but it’s not a major issue, as I was not planning on running all motive power into the yard – however as Stage 1 is just the yard, it’s where everything gets trialled.

 

Even with a ~800mm radius, things like prototypical draincock pipes are out of the question.  There’s just too much movement in the front bogie – as I found out taking the A4’s for a run.  Disappointing, but certainly not a show stopper.

 

Trackwork.  I need to get better at laying track!  Nothing major, or unsolvable, but I have three or four curves that I need to go back to, and relay so they are smooth, and level, or at least smoother and more consistent than they are now. Not unexpected, in all honesty.

 

The Ugly?   Two problems: Curves and turnouts. But, ironically, not curves ON turnouts. 

This pair warrant a post of their own, which I shall get to in due course later in the week, once I have marshalled my thoughts.

 

*** 

The way forward from here? Well I am pleased that I have not seen anything that has slapped me across the face and said I can’t get to where I want to go – that steam haulage is out of the question, or a lower level storage yard cannot be accessed with the grades I have built, for instance. The compromises my plans require are, for me, no greater than the fundamental compromises of modelling in 4mm scale, such as gauge, curve radius, and selective compression.

 

I do want to improve the reliability of what I have built so far – as most of it will be hidden or certainly a lot less easy to access, once mainline trackbed gets underway.  So in the short term, I will be extracting a variety of motive power, shopping a set of regular coaches, and a string of four wheel wagons, to fit them with steel wheels, and continuing running trials.

 

I’ll also complete the last four tracks in the storage yard, so that I can manage these movements a little better.

 

Of course I have an urge to dive in and start on the mainline, but I know from what I have seen so far, that I must get this part right.  That will also bring the benefit of taking me into our summer, so that I can see how the layout handles the inevitable room warming that will occur when the mercury outside hits 42C.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

 

 

[David Todd]

Scott,.......

 

You ever though of becoming a Surveyor ?

You'd make a crust @ it.....read's like an 'ol,"Works Report", just need's filling out with some finer detail,when you get time......... .

 

Excellent, just what I have been waiting for, thank you.

See,........... plan,...... slow,.......methodical work.......patience ......pays off,...  ...................nothing like mine, of course...........

[jukebox]

Scott,.......

 

You ever though of becoming a Surveyor ?

You'd make a crust @ it.....read's like an 'ol,"Works Report", just need's filling out with some finer detail,when you get time......... .

 

Excellent, just what I have been waiting for, thank you.

See,........... plan,...... slow,.......methodical work.......patience ......pays off,...  ...................nothing like mine, of course...........

 

A surveyor?  Hell no ~ well not a traditional surveyor as I was taught it *cough* 25 *cough* years ago, when you had a field book and had to manually close it out (I never did master that!).  I wish I was that thorough - even my "carefully" laid rising 3% has two flat spots that are visible when a longer rake of coaches is traversing... the down chute is a real slalom, yet it's working.

 

But seriously, I just went back to post #1, had a read about where I thought I was going, and wanted to try and canvas the state of the layout in those terms.

 

Like everyone, I need to have my mojo before I do the important tasks - which is why it's good to have the workbench downstairs, where I can huddle and re-wheel a coach or two in a short session; I concede the per-way work is not terribly exciting.

 

S

[great northern]

Great attitude to the inevitable setbacks Scott. That will be a big help in keeping going till you get it right. I agree with you entirely about train lengths. On my loft layout, which had a 24ft scenic section, eight coach trains looked just right, whereas prototypical rakes of 11 just didn't, so i bit the bullet and standardised on eight, which also gave me two trains per road in the fiddle yard. It is always good to remember that we can't have everything, and to make the best of what we do have.

 

I've also gone back to your first post to remind myself of your original objectives, and I now wonder whether the answer to the train length problem would be portions. I've been looking at this quite a bit lately, as it is a fascinating subject, and one which i think would suit a lot of people who want to have main line trains, but haven't got the space. That of course includes both of us, even though we are fortunate to have layout rooms that most can only dream of. You are effectively modelling a large town somewhere off the NE main line. Rather than main line diverions then, why not have Stockrington portions of those main line trains? The real thing did it. There was a Newcastle- KX express with a four coach Saltburn portion for example. You aren't tied to a prototype, so as you are in charge, just decide how long a portion your town needs, and send it off down to York to join up with the rest of the train, just as the real thing did.

[Rowsley17D]

Hi Scott, I may be teaching granny but, I take out the weights that manufacturers put in their coaches with no effect on running with well-laid track. The opposite for steam outline - add as much weight as I can.

[jukebox]

Great attitude to the inevitable setbacks Scott. That will be a big help in keeping going till you get it right. I agree with you entirely about train lengths. On my loft layout, which had a 24ft scenic section, eight coach trains looked just right, whereas prototypical rakes of 11 just didn't, so i bit the bullet and standardised on eight, which also gave me two trains per road in the fiddle yard. It is always good to remember that we can't have everything, and to make the best of what we do have.

 

I've also gone back to your first post to remind myself of your original objectives, and I now wonder whether the answer to the train length problem would be portions. I've been looking at this quite a bit lately, as it is a fascinating subject, and one which i think would suit a lot of people who want to have main line trains, but haven't got the space. That of course includes both of us, even though we are fortunate to have layout rooms that most can only dream of. You are effectively modelling a large town somewhere off the NE main line. Rather than main line diverions then, why not have Stockrington portions of those main line trains? The real thing did it. There was a Newcastle- KX express with a four coach Saltburn portion for example. You aren't tied to a prototype, so as you are in charge, just decide how long a portion your town needs, and send it off down to York to join up with the rest of the train, just as the real thing did.

 

Thanks for the encouragement Gilbert!  Yes, I think the track building perfection that Coachman, Tetleys, et al achieve so effortlessly, is something that a mere mortal like me needs a lot more practice to deliver - which is why part of my cunning plan was to start with the non-scenic stuff to help me lift my game. And like eating the proverbial elephant, I know I just need to take a nibble at a time to eventually devour the problems that I have discovered.

 

Back in it's time, Lion hauled a Master Cutler just 6 coaches long; and there's some excellent photos from Steve Banks (?) of Pullmans being assembled and broken down at Leeds, so the ubiquitous 8-coach train is not always the answer.

 

I agree 100% re the idea of portions - another reason the 5-track station layout has a lot of potential, as I can built trains from both directions that way.  I've alway been a big fan of Kadees and how the Americans make hands free shunting seem so effortless, and the ability to remove a loco - or indeed break a train in half - just by careful shunting - was reason enough for me to adapot the Kadee for all my locos and the outer ends of fixed rakes of stock. It does require careful tracklaying - gentle changes in vertical curves - and setting up of the couplers, but on a layout that never leaves home, it's not an unreasonable goal to achieve.

 

Hi Scott, I may be teaching granny but, I take out the weights that manufacturers put in their coaches with no effect on running with well-laid track. The opposite for steam outline - add as much weight as I can.

 

Nice timing, Jonathan;  I am taking a rake of crimson and cream coaches out of thier boxes and adding steel wheels and Kadees as appropriate this week - and indeed, and removing the weights!  I will see how they travel, but agree the theory is sound. 

 

I was surprised how just a little extra weight made the Bachmann mogul such a good hauler - and knowing that my (elderly) Replica (?) B1 is such a slippery performer in the past, now wonder if I will be able to get a usable result out of her. Once I find her in amongst the stock boxes I will take her for a spin and see what she can handle.

[jukebox]

I’ve shared The Good, and The Bad… and so to The Ugly.

 

For what it is worth, The Ugly is relative, and is, I discovered in the last 72 hours, a moving target.

 

Part A of The Ugly is The Chute – or more specifically, the question mark shaped curve I have incorporated into the chute to get it “off scene”. At around 600mm radius, it seems that Bachmann Mk1 Pullmans with their cam-adjusting couplings, are not too happy about the severity or shape, or combination of severity and shape of the curve. I can hear and see some buffer lock, and just a general grunting and grinding as these coaches wind down the grade to the yard. Somewhat ironically, the Peco curved (facing, no less) turnouts on the -5.5% have proved faultless – not one derailment going into these.  As I mentioned, I do need to “shop” these coaches – lubricate, axles, cams etc… but that won’t change the laws of physics and radius handling.

 

The cure is straightforward, if not simple to execute – I need to rebuild the top part of The Chute so ease the radius out to 725mm or so. I have the room to do so, but was trying to avoid a big reverse curve here; by broadening the radius, I will need to swing the track harder to the right coming out of the double slip – but there’s room to do so, so I shall try it and see.

 

 

Part B of The Ugly are my Shinohara turnouts. A couple of issues have been revealed as I went about my testing – mind you, I have not spent any time trying to solve these, and they may yet prove insignificant.

 

The first came about when I tried running the K3 in reverse through the slip. As it swung back on the companion turnout, the tender derailed, lifting the rear axle as the tender passes onto the straight track beyond the turnout. This is a repeatable event – in fact, it proved impossible not to derail the tender making this move. The A4 tenders also react – although they seem to stay on track because of guidance from the other axles. No other stock is affected so far – but I need to run a suite of tests on the D/E’s, as they have bogies axle spacing not dis-similar to the K3’s tender.

 

This may not be a turnout issue at all – I am now wondering if I have some negative super-elevation at exactly the spot the dynamics of the vehicle want it to keep going at an angle to the mainline…

 

The point of no return - RH axle suspended in the air, 2nd from right also airborne...

.

This is a problem, as my track plan calls for locos coming off up trains at Stockrington to use the down line to travel back to the MPD, crossing tender first from down to up line to get to the shed arrival road – or else be forced to complete three laps of the room to arrive at the same spot on the up track.

 

The second part of the Shinohara issue is related to the A4 tenders. They are running on the sleepers/fastening on the Shinohara. I noticed the sound when hauling a test train – and when pushed by hand, it is a tactile sensation – I can feel every sleeper on those turnouts. The BTB has been set on these to OO-SF 14.75mm using a proper back-to-back gauge, so it’s not overtly wide gauge causing the issue. As an aside, the 4 axle A4 tender is a great device to check track work – pushing it along, I can feel every dip and twitch in the super-elevation, and how far out I have some of the joins in differing tracks.

 

Who ordered the pepperoni? Those pizza cutting flanges may also be part of the problem.... compare them to the K3 (above).

 

I had thought this was a clear issue of the Shinohara Code 70 rails not being “tall“ enough – I am having to shim all the joins between these and the Peco/C+L track, and not just because of differing sleeper thickness, but because of differing rail heights – but just to throw a spanner in the works. I re-wheeled a coach during the week using some Hornby wheels, and it runs like a dream when pushed across all the Shinohara track. Having said that, I can see, at slow speed, the suspension in the bogies of the Co-Co’s getting a workout as they traverse the frogs of these turnouts, too.

 

I’ve watched Coachman’s “never ending pursuit of trackwork perfection™” with plenty of respect, but also some bemusement, if only because I fall into the “function before form” camp on this issue. Delicate trackwork that looks like the dog’s jewels, but consistently (or worse sporadically!) derails stock, is something I would gladly sacrifice for compromised trackwork that delivers reliable, consistent running. Of course Larry lays his track the same way he paints coaches – with an effortlessness perfection and speed that us mere mortals just have to shake our heads at, and walk away from.

 

Before I committed to buying 150m of C+L Code70, I bought a single length to resolve the scuttlebutt that has appeared online about the flanges on some stock clashing with the moulded chairs (Result = I could not entice any of my rolling stock to make contact). So I know the plain track is fine. The Peco turnouts, as mentioned above, are also not causing any issues. But the Shinoharas…

 

So with all of the above in play, last week thoughts of ripping out the #8 double slip and swapping a Peco D/S in its place (which, being a good bit smaller, would give me some valuable extra room for that Chute curve, too) started to fill my head… but the result with the re-wheeled coach has reminded me not to look at trackwork in isolation: it, and wheel sets, together are a system. There must be a reason for some of these less than happy interactions, and I shall need to take some time uncovering the “why” before I do anything too drastic. The derailments can probably be pinned down to sloppy track laying (harsh, but true), however the sleeper/fastening/running tenders and frog-climbing bogies may be a more difficult animal to resolve.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

Edited August 24, 2013 by jukebox

[gordon s]

Scott, I'm fairly sure the B2B for 00-SF is typically 14.40mm.  14.75 takes it out to more like 00 'finescale'.  From memory the minimum B2B for 00-SF is 14.3mm.  

 

I would have thought that 14.40mm would be better suited to Shinohara pointwork and may help solve your problems.

Edited August 22, 2013 by gordon s

[jukebox]

Scott, I'm fairly sure the B2B for 00-SF is typically 14.40mm.  14.75 takes it out to more like 00 'finescale'.  From memory the minimum B2B for 00-SF is 14.3mm.  

 

I would have thought that 14.40mm would be better suited to Shinohara pointwork and may help solve your problems.

 

TBH I'm not sure what the recommend OO-SF setting is, Gordon - I'm just using the BTB gauge that was recommended for setting Gibson wheels, and that isn't causing any grief with either Bachmann or Hornby coach wheels.  But regardless, I did knock that particular problem over yesterday, by turning down the offending flanges. 

 

The tender wheelsets are old Bachmann split axle versions, so it was simple to take them apart, drop them in a drill, and carefully run them down by eye with a fine file. I took around 0.5mm off, and now they clear the Shinohara fastenings.

 

So that's one issue resolved - and one less reason to contemplate "doing a Larry". I shall go and do some QA/QC on my tracklaying and see if I can't iron out the other wrinkles!

 

 

Hi Scott, I may be teaching granny but, I take out the weights that manufacturers put in their coaches with no effect on running with well-laid track. The opposite for steam outline - add as much weight as I can.

 

Excellent advice for anyone with gradients: I removed 254g of weights from 7 Thompson coaches this week - on a test train, the K3 now easily pulls a 6 coach train up the 3% incline (not tried 7 coaches yet, and I can also feel one of the coaches dragging a lot more... so need to investigate that - arrrgh more work!), which is a very good harbinger for what can be achieved on a 2.5% mainline.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

[JZ]

I have a Shinohara code 70 scissors crossover on Tolmouth and had similar problems as you. Turned out it was the track gauge that was out.

 

 

 Gauge between switch and stock rail on the curve 16.97mm     . Start checking other parts of the formation and the minimum gauge is 16.7mm   

 

[jukebox]

Thanks Jules - I will also check the gauge in that area.  How did you resolve it in your case?