 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / January 2010Whole new vistas of worry
Well the lad has been on the internet and now 'knows about model railways' So, in a room ten foot square, in OO, we have the mountain section, the station(s), industrial sidings etc. It's all going to be DCC and he seems to think DCC can be programmed like a computer to run shuttle services. His missus picked up some Lilliput lane building for the town (which I seem to remember are to 1:144) Meeting him on Saturday in Liverpool to visit Hattons, dare not let him go in alone. Any DCC stuff to avoid? I suspect we will be leaving with some kind of 'starter set' at the very least. As his time is limited he's a bit keen to get on. Any thought welcome. Regards Mike >Well the lad has been on the internet and now 'knows about model railways' >So, in a room ten foot square, in OO, we have the mountain section, the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Any thought welcome. DCC is probably a very good way to go if you are starting from scratch. Which system you use is very much an individual choice. You could try specialists such as DCC Supplies or Digitrains. Be wary of some of the 'entry level' DCC systems as they will probably need to be upgraded if you are planning on doing something a bit more adventurous that a couple of locos on a simple oval of track - and that could cost more than getting a good system to start with. I note that you are going to Hattons. They should be able to sort most of your needs, but I can't just let it go at that. Have you thought of going American? There's a whole wealth of rolling stock and information available. The National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) sets the standards that most of today's manufacturers work to. As a member you can also get a number of discounts from UK based supplies - whether you buy Us or British outline. Look at www.nmrabr.org.uk for some examples.  SignatureMike Hughes Marketing Co-ordinator NMRA British Region Modelling North American? Share the hobby, double the fun with the NMRA Interested in American trains real and model? Look here http://mikehughes627.fotopic.net/ The National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) sets the standards that most of today's manufacturers work to. Allegedly :¬) > The National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) sets the > standards that most of today's manufacturers work to. Allegedly :¬) Here in the UK, the NMRA influence things only as far as DCC is concerned. John. >> The National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) sets the >> standards that most of today's manufacturers work to. Allegedly :¬) > > Here in the UK, the NMRA influence things only as far as DCC is concerned. > > John. But I've noticed that OO wheels are pretty close to NMRA profiles now. In fact the Bachmann GWR pannier and coaches that I received recently all pass the NMRA wheel gauge. ;-) cheers, wolf k. > But I've noticed that OO wheels are pretty close to NMRA profiles now. > In fact the Bachmann GWR pannier and coaches that I received recently all > pass the NMRA wheel gauge. ;-) I wish Hornby would follow suit. It wouldn't surprise me if they were to NMRA standards, but they could equally be the result of just a general fining up of standards. John. >> But I've noticed that OO wheels are pretty close to NMRA profiles now. >> In fact the Bachmann GWR pannier and coaches that I received recently all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > John. I suspect that Bachmann just used its existing manufacturing equipment for the wheels, easier and simpler than retooling for some odd-ball version of "OO wheels." And Bachmann uses the RP25 profile. ;-) cheers, wolf k. >>> But I've noticed that OO wheels are pretty close to NMRA profiles now. >>> In fact the Bachmann GWR pannier and coaches that I received recently [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the wheels, easier and simpler than retooling for some odd-ball version of > "OO wheels." And Bachmann uses the RP25 profile. But with OO being a very slightly larger scale than HO, the wheels should seem even better! :) > "Wolf K" <wekirch@sympatico.ca> wrote in message [...] >> I suspect that Bachmann just used its existing manufacturing equipment >> for the wheels, easier and simpler than retooling for some odd-ball >> version of "OO wheels." And Bachmann uses the RP25 profile. > > But with OO being a very slightly larger scale than HO, the wheels > should seem even better! :) True, but regardless of scale, any wheel profile standards depend on track standards and vice versa. Gauge is less fussy, but turnout and crossing dimensions are critical. I've used Peco's "universal" turnouts in the past, and found that their check rails, spaced to accommodate Hornby et al, allowed NMRA wheels to go down the wrong side of the frog ("crossing vee"). I cured this by gluing a thin (ca. 0.005") strip of plastic onto the check rail. The wheels still bumped through the frog, though, so I gave up on Peco. I haven't tried their newer track made for the N. American market. BTW, NMRA is revising the "Standard" scale turnout and wheel specs. Some of the dimensions could interfere when extreme plus meets extreme minus tolerance. In practice, this almost never happens, since mfrs aim for the middle of the range. Cheers, wolf k. >> "Wolf K" <wekirch@sympatico.ca> wrote in message > [...] [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > through the frog, though, so I gave up on Peco. I haven't tried their > newer track made for the N. American market. I've had to do the same thing with Hornby points. With both Hornby and Peco I've also glued strips in the bottom of the frog to stop the wheels from dropping into the gap. I paint them Humbrol Coal Black. SignatureMartin S. >> But I've noticed that OO wheels are pretty close to NMRA profiles now. >> In fact the Bachmann GWR pannier and coaches that I received recently all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >It wouldn't surprise me if they were to NMRA standards, but they could >equally be the result of just a general fining up of standards. Airfix and Mainline used finer wheel standards than the Hornby of the time, who eventually followed suit. These were a lot closer to the EM stndards and similar to the wheels on Slaters and Ultrascale kits. Something like the OO fine that Iain Rice proposed, and there might be a society for. They have narrower treads and deeper flanges than RP-25, which the first time I saw them (on an RTR brass small prairie in the late 1970s) looked good from the side but not the front. >John. >>> But I've noticed that OO wheels are pretty close to NMRA profiles now. >>> In fact the Bachmann GWR pannier and coaches that I received recently all [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > first time I saw them (on an RTR brass small prairie in the late > 1970s) looked good from the side but not the front. There is now a "Proto and Fine scale" standard, see the NMRA website, S-1.1, 3.1, and 4.1, and RP-3 and 4. The old standards are being revised to eliminate one-sided tolerance specs. Note that S-1.1 acknowledges the pioneer work done in the UK. Several mfrs offer "code 88" wheels for HO, ie, 0.088" wide, which is the narrowest wheel that will operate on NMRA standard trackwork. The usual wheel is "code 100." The proto wheel would be a "code 66". cheers, wolf k. >>>> But I've noticed that OO wheels are pretty close to NMRA profiles now. >>>> In fact the Bachmann GWR pannier and coaches that I received recently all [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >the narrowest wheel that will operate on NMRA standard trackwork. The >usual wheel is "code 100." The proto wheel would be a "code 66". What about ready to run on both sides of the Atlantic? It's been a long time since I was in OO, and before I got rid of the older engines because they were too crude, I'd gone through a program of replacing wheels. I was already in 7mm scale when I emigrated to the USA. The ready to run American stuff has wheels a lot coarser than the Gauge O Guild fine standard that is pretty well universal in the UK. This is the reason Bachmann originally dropped out of the British O Gauge market. They produced some nice carriages and wagons but the wheels on their first engine (a J94?) were horrible. They had another engine almost complete (a 4F?) and had to withdraw production to get them right for the British market. So the project made a loss and they pulled out. If Tower Models hadn't stepped in to commission models to British standard from the same factory we probably wouldn't even have British RTR brass today. >cheers, >wolf k. > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:49:56 -0500, Wolf K <wekirch@sympatico.ca> [...] >> There is now a "Proto and Fine scale" standard, see the NMRA website, >> S-1.1, 3.1, and 4.1, and RP-3 and 4. The old standards are being revised [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What about ready to run on both sides of the Atlantic? Most HO RTR nowadays has RP25 wheels and knuckle couplers. Weight is usually close to NMRA recommendations, too. Prototype fidelity and level of detail is high, and it looks like mfrs are trying to one-up each other in this respect. Most locos are available in DC and DCC and/or DCC Sound. By and large, these models are _not_ suitable for children. Many older models have been upgraded, initially with better mechanisms, but recently with improved or even new tooling. The old style kit are dying out. Many mfrs of now offer tehir kits assembled and "ready to roll." One respected kit maker, Athearn, will no longer make the "blue box" kits that helped many of us get started when we couldn't afford brass or other RTR. Can't really comment on OO, as I rarely buy any. I've snipped your interesting sidelight on Bachmann and 7mm. cheers, wolf k. >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:49:56 -0500, Wolf K <wekirch@sympatico.ca> >[...] [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >older models have been upgraded, initially with better mechanisms, but >recently with improved or even new tooling. Are these the finer wheels or the older wider ones? >The old style kit are dying out. Many mfrs of now offer tehir kits >assembled and "ready to roll." One respected kit maker, Athearn, will no [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I've snipped your interesting sidelight on Bachmann and 7mm. That was just to show that the O-scale RP25 commercially available stuff is fairly coarse. They specify a comparatively wide envelope and any manufacturer whose products fit within it can say they are to RP25, but the RTR stuff and the track is at the coarser end. >cheers, >wolf k. >>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:49:56 -0500, Wolf K <wekirch@sympatico.ca> >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Are these the finer wheels or the older wider ones? With the exception of a few toy train sets, all current HO production uses RP25 profiles. Proto:87 and Proto:48 suppliets offer replacement wheels, if you want to go that route. Just google. And that Standard scales and Proto scale do _not_ intermix. Did you read S-1.1 on the NMRA standards page? The saemht is quite clear: Proto:scale is for the few, not the many. Keep in mid that Proto:Scale wheels also require exteemely well laid track, and /or working equalisation (compensation). cheers, wolf k. >>>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:49:56 -0500, Wolf K <wekirch@sympatico.ca> >>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >wheels, if you want to go that route. Just google. And that Standard >scales and Proto scale do _not_ intermix. That's not what I asked. Which RP25 profile? Are RP25 "standard" wheels narrower than they were 20 years ago? >Did you read S-1.1 on the NMRA standards page? The saemht is quite >clear: Proto:scale is for the few, not the many. That's not what I asked either. When I was in OO, RP25 wheels were wider than were coming into use from Airfix, Mainline and later Hornby. I don't think they have changed the standards because Hornby are still doing the models I bought from Airfix and Mainline. Are the RP25 wheels still wider? >Keep in mid that Proto:Scale wheels also require exteemely well laid >track, and /or working equalisation (compensation). I'm not talking P87. Just the wheel standards on ready to run stock. Saying they are RP25 tells me nothing. I have already explained that when I was into OO, RP25 wheels were wider than the wheels used by Airfix and Mainline, having a narrower back-to-back and shallower flanges. Have things changed? >cheers, >wolf k. [...] > I'm not talking P87. > > Just the wheel standards on ready to run stock. > > Saying they are RP25 tells me nothing. I gave you NMRA references. Didn't you read them? [...] wolf k. >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I gave you NMRA references. Didn't you read them? Of course. They seem to have tightened up track standards recently. But just saying RP25 still doesn't tell you enough because it doesn't specify how fine or coarse the wheels are, just the profile and relative proportions. It doesn't tell you how wide the tread is, or the back to back. It specifies a minimum tread width. But I've already mentioned a OO RTR GWR small prairie tank whose flanges were shallower but the treads were much wider than Airfix or Mainline. It seems to me that wide treads or deeper flanges both help keep the models on the sort of track we lay. Also the prototype US and UK wheel profiles seem to be different around the flange, with the UK one having a narrower, more pointed shape that angles toward the outside of the wheel when compared with the American one. This affects the check gauge. There is a diagram showing the UK prototype profile and the Gauge O Guild profile which British ready to run O-gauge uses at http://www.gauge0guild.com/manual.asp Unfortuately you need to be a member to see the full size diagram in the manual but it shows the shape. Compare this with the NMRA profile at http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25%202009.07.pdf There is nothing that says a manufacturer has to use a particular wheel code for a particular scale although some combinations will be ridiculous. These days I model 7mm scale. And the RP25 wheels on American ready to run O-gauge are coarser than on British RTR, with narrower back to back and wider treads. >[...] > >wolf k. >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > specify how fine or coarse the wheels are, just the profile and > relative proportions. ???? The page you claim to have read gives the dimensions of the wheels. These are standard guage wheels, not fine sacle. So I don't understand your comment. These wheels are not of course prototypical, but they aren't meant to be (that's what fine scale standards are for). BTW, it's called "RP25" because 0.025" is the minimum flange depth specified under the the old S-4 (now S-4.2). IOW, you're usinsg "fine" and "coarse" in a sense I don't understand. [snip] RTR is not for fine scale modeller. IOW, there is no RP25 for fine scale wheels. I don't know what your agenda is, but it seems to me that underlying your comments is some regret that fine scale wheels aren't fitted to RTR models. Well, I don't share your regret. I want commercial RTR to run well on the layouts built by most people, including those who aren't too careful about eliminating dipsy-doodles from their track work. RP25 meets that requirement. IMO, RP25 is just fine. It tracks well down to code 55 track (and even code 40, if you glue the rail instead of spiking it). It looks good from the usual viewing distances (which in OO/HO scale out to around 100 yards and often more). It looks good from the usual more or less side-on viewing angles. Granted, an end-on, low angle view will show the wheels to be too wide, but 99% of the time you don't look at them from that angle. RP25 wheels work well with turnouts built to the tight end of the NMRA tolerance range. I've built such turnouts with code 70 rail, and they look good, and work well. Some long wheel-base locos touch the open point rail as they pass it, but that's another issue. cheers, wolf k. >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >???? The page you claim to have read gives the dimensions of the wheels. >These are standard guage wheels, not fine sacle. So I don't understand I didn't say fine scale. I said it does not specify how fine or coarse the wheels are. Once again, I have seen RP25 wheels that were coarser than Airfix and Mainline apart from the flange depth. >>>> [...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Once again, I have seen RP25 wheels that were coarser than Airfix and > Mainline apart from the flange depth. please pick one: Main Entry: coarse Pronunciation: \'ko?rs\ Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): coars·er; coars·est Etymology: Middle English cors, perhaps from course, noun Date: 14th century 1 : of ordinary or inferior quality or value : common 2 a (1) : composed of relatively large parts or particles <coarse sand> (2) : loose or rough in texture <coarse cloth> b : adjusted or designed for heavy, fast, or less delicate work <a coarse saw with large teeth> c : not precise or detailed with respect to adjustment or discrimination 3 : crude or unrefined in taste, manners, or language 4 : harsh, raucous, or rough in tone 5 chiefly British : of or relating to coarse fish <coarse fishing> - coarse·ly adverb - coarse·ness noun synonyms coarse, vulgar, gross, obscene, ribald mean offensive to good taste or morals. coarse implies roughness, rudeness, or crudeness of spirit, behavior, or language <found the coarse humor of coworkers offensive>. vulgar often implies boorishness or ill-breeding <a loud vulgar belch>. gross implies extreme coarseness and insensitiveness <gross eating habits>. obscene applies to anything strongly repulsive to the sense of decency and propriety especially in sexual matters <obscene language not allowed on the air>. ribald applies to what is amusingly or picturesquely vulgar or irreverent or mildly indecent <entertained the campers with ribald folk songs>. >>>> [...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I said it does not specify how fine or coarse the wheels are. I have no idea of what you mean by "fine" and "coarse." > Once again, I have seen RP25 wheels that were coarser than Airfix and > Mainline apart from the flange depth. If you mean "wider", yeah, sure. So what's your point? cheers, wolf k. >>>>> [...] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >I have no idea of what you mean by "fine" and "coarse." In OO is code 75 rail finer than code 100? >> Once again, I have seen RP25 wheels that were coarser than Airfix and >> Mainline apart from the flange depth. > >If you mean "wider", yeah, sure. So what's your point? Duh. That just saying RP25 doesn't tell you enough. >cheers, >wolf k. [...] >>>>> But just saying RP25 still doesn't tell you enough because it doesn't >>>>> specify how fine or coarse the wheels are, just the profile and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > In OO is code 75 rail finer than code 100? It's closer to scale, so in that sense it's finer. Is that what you mean? Is it finescale or proto-scale? I don't know - I'm not up on UK rail profiles. It's 5.7" high rail in OO, which I suppose is close to the maximum height rail in the UK. Is it? >>> Once again, I have seen RP25 wheels that were coarser than Airfix and >>> Mainline apart from the flange depth. >> If you mean "wider", yeah, sure. So what's your point? > > Duh. That just saying RP25 doesn't tell you enough. It tells me enough: "RP25" is a well defined wheel profile. It's defined for every wheel thickness available. (The table lists a number of commercially available wheels, actually.) It's explicitly _not_ fine scale, which means in RTR contexts it applies to standard gauge wheels. In HO that's a code 110 wheel (I typed "code 100" earlier, sorry.) RP25 wheels are explicitly not finescale. If I wanted finescale wheels, I might get, say, code 88 wheels for On30 (1:48 scale, 30" gauge). Eg, a 36" (HO) wheel would be a 20" wheel in On30. Its thickness of 0.088" would represent a 4-1/4" thick wheel, which is reasonable. Is it proto-scale? I don't know - that would depend on which narrow gauge railroad I was modelling. So I don't get your point. RP25 is clear to me. if it isn't clear to you, well, I can't fix that. cheers, wolf k. >[...] >>>>>> But just saying RP25 still doesn't tell you enough because it doesn't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >rail profiles. It's 5.7" high rail in OO, which I suppose is close to >the maximum height rail in the UK. Is it? It is neither. Finer just means closer to scale, coarser further from. It's comparative, that's all. Something beig better or worse than something else does not mean best or worst, Lionel is finer than Hhornby tinplate but it does not mean it is finescale. >>>> Once again, I have seen RP25 wheels that were coarser than Airfix and >>>> Mainline apart from the flange depth. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It tells me enough: "RP25" is a well defined wheel profile. It's defined No, it isn't. Because it does not specify the width. Many other standards do. >for every wheel thickness available. (The table lists a number of >commercially available wheels, actually.) It's explicitly _not_ fine >scale, which means in RTR contexts it applies to standard gauge wheels. >In HO that's a code 110 wheel (I typed "code 100" earlier, sorry.) I never said standard or narrow gauge. I was talking about the width of the wheel. >RP25 wheels are explicitly not finescale. You keep arguing against something I never said. > If I wanted finescale wheels, >I might get, say, code 88 wheels for On30 (1:48 scale, 30" gauge). Eg, a >36" (HO) wheel would be a 20" wheel in On30. Its thickness of 0.088" >would represent a 4-1/4" thick wheel, which is reasonable. Is it >proto-scale? I don't know - that would depend on which narrow gauge >railroad I was modelling. Utterly irrelevant to what I have been saying. >So I don't get your point. RP25 is clear to me. if it isn't clear to >you, well, I can't fix that. What part of "it doesn't explain how wide a wheel is" is too difficult to understand? >cheers, >wolf k. [...] > What part of "it doesn't explain how wide a wheel is" is too difficult > to understand? What part of TIRE WIDTH N' is too difficult to understand? cheers, wolf k. >[...] >> What part of "it doesn't explain how wide a wheel is" is too difficult >> to understand? > >What part of TIRE WIDTH N' is too difficult to understand? A MINIMUM BUT NOT A MAXIMUM. Other standards specify an actualwidth or a fairly close maximum and minimum. Have you heard the expression "steam roller wheels? You can still have steam roller wheels and say they are RP25. Like the imprted Korean brass small prairie and pannier tanks I mentioned. Which had wheels WIDER than contemporary Airfix and Mainline models although the flanges were finer. >cheers, >wolf k. >>[...] >>> What part of "it doesn't explain how wide a wheel is" is too difficult [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >>cheers, >>wolf k. Back in the old days, with the wind up tinplate 0-4-0 engines and tinplate stock we could make track using unbrella ribs, not exactly finescale, but the trains didn't fall off on the corners. Seem to remember a warning not to over wind if the temperature in the railway room dropped below zero. Lot of fun was had though. Sigh. What ever happened to the Triang 'Big Big Train' idea, as I remember it seemed like a rather good option at the time. Mike [...] > What ever happened to the Triang 'Big Big Train' idea, as I remember it > seemed like a rather good option at the time. > > Mike It died. Pity. We still have the set I bought for my son w-a-a-y back, plus assorted additional bits and pieces picked up at yard sales (boot sales tpo you ;-) ). The grandchildren used to set up elaborate layouts from the den into the living room and back. cheers, wolf k. >[...] >> What ever happened to the Triang 'Big Big Train' idea, >It died For a short time it was revived by a Russian company. Novo >sales tpo you ;-) ). The grandchildren used to set up elaborate layouts >from the den into the living room and back. Myself and other relatives purchased a lot of Lego trains and tracks for my train mad nephew which let him build similar layouts. This was their 9v two rail system about 6 or 7 years ago. They have changed it a again to all plastic tracks and rechargeable battery power. Must admit that it was fun to visit and build something unusual using Lego components. One Sunday we built a reasonable interpretation of the Brighton Daddy Long legs. http://www.whitstablepier.com/volks/dll.htm G.Harman >> What ever happened to the Triang 'Big Big Train' idea, as I remember it >> seemed like a rather good option at the time. > It died. Pity. We still have the set I bought for my son w-a-a-y back, > plus assorted additional bits and pieces picked up at yard sales (boot > sales tpo you ;-) ). The grandchildren used to set up elaborate layouts > from the den into the living room and back. The tipper wagons are very popular amongst the 16mm people. Well, I don't share your regret. I want commercial RTR to run > well on the layouts built by most people, including those who aren't too > careful about eliminating dipsy-doodles from their track work. RP25 meets > that requirement. > > cheers, > wolf k. Precisely, and thats all most of us want :-) Speaking of Mainline, was at their home town today - Coalville - visiting the Museum at Snibston. There was a very nice looking OO LMS 2F in a cabinet, presume kit built, but no mention of the manufacturer. See K's used to do one - could it be theres (in other words could a nice looking 2F be K's). Am beginning to like their models, got a Johnson 0-4-0 tank with chassis complete but body not started. Bit of a pig to get motor in but may well be a fine example. Cheers, Simon > Mike Smith <mike@invalid.invalid> writes >>Well the lad has been on the internet and now 'knows about model [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > whether you buy Us or British outline. Look at www.nmrabr.org.uk for > some examples. If you are building a layout for the short term, with a double loop and a few sidings, why go to the extra bother and expense of DCC? He seems to underestimate the complexities of DCC. SignatureMartin S. >> Mike Smith <mike@invalid.invalid> writes >>>Well the lad has been on the internet and now 'knows about model [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > a few sidings, why go to the extra bother and expense of DCC? He seems > to underestimate the complexities of DCC. Thanks chaps - Personally, given what he is up against, I would have gone for DC, but then I understand DC and have experience with it. He hasn't done anything with model railways for nearly 50 years, got into women and racing driving, the former is what's keeping him going, the latter is what's finishing him off. The last set he had was Dublo three rail. I keep hearing Good Things about American outline, reasonable cost, reliability etc so I have been tinkering with what will fit with an eye to running either UK or US outline (basically a single track oval with a branch down to a lower level for a docks and some industry. The two-platform, double track 'station' being covered over to disguise that it is a four track fiddle yard - With a small shunter for the industrial/harbour branch he can run five locos without having an MPD. Other than buildings the only thing to consider will be the uncoupling system, with tension lock the old sprung lift set into the track (I assume they still make them) makes life easy, although you cannot uncouple and push. I haven't worked with the Kadee type uncouplers, so that'll be interesting! I think automatic uncoupling will be a big help, he isn't going to want to be jumping up to operate things and fiddle, I need to set it up so he can sit and control his own little universe in comfort. It will be 'an oval' in essence as I suspect he's going to want to sit back and watch the train run, was considering a double track main line but that adds a lot to the complexity of the pointwork, costs more and takes up three inches of real estate (I am staying with a max baseboard depth of two feet as he will not be able to lean over much in the near future. The door is in one corner, so a lifting section can be added for access cutting the corner. He should be up to the woodwork, he used to own his own fibreglass business, he's the lad that made all the bits and pieces for the French Disneyland (including the castle), and he made all the moulds for the job as well. I'll take a look at the website suggested, I assume all DCC is now interoperable, so we might get a UK and US outline engine and play with those to see how he gets on (if we get a couple of goods wagons I can find out how Kadee works as well) Meanwhile I'll make his missus a simple 3x4 N set for the buildings she bought, that I can do without thinking about it. Thanks again, Regards Mike >>> Mike Smith <mike@invalid.invalid> writes >>>>Well the lad has been on the internet and now 'knows about model [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > Mike Am not sure that DCC is all that complicated, suspect people make it complicated. Buy a decent system that your friend is happy with in terms of the controls - yes can be the Hornby elite. Then buy DCC installed locos, tis often said that theyre not the best but for new steam locos they should be fine. If there are any problems then just send em back and let the shop deal with them. Now I'm not keen on Hattons for personal reasons, would only suggest you look at anything you buy before leaving the shop and get it tested as soon as possible. You would be far better off getting a tame supplier that knows you will be coming back for more if everything goes fine (as in if theres anything wrong they fix it one way or another). Depends where you live, but our John is one of the finest, cant fault him. Order tonight then will be in post tomorrow and arrive day after. Oh and whats with this foreign stuff, go for LMS steam every time. As a special get a sound Duchess to play with. Cheers, Simon >I keep hearing Good Things about American outline, reasonable cost, >reliability etc so I have been tinkering with what will fit with an eye [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that it is a four track fiddle yard - With a small shunter for the >industrial/harbour branch he can run five locos without having an MPD. <blatant plug for NMRA mode on> If you are considering anything American that I can definitely put you in touch with someone who can help you. Exactly where are you in the UK? If you get to either Brighton Model world in February there will be a variety of scales and outlines on show - and the NMRA stand will be there. From the original posting I guess you are somewhere in the north east. There is an NMRA division (=club) which meets in the old Crewe signal box. There is also British information there. Let me know if you are near and I can put you in touch. As for couplings, if you are starting new then the Kadee couplings provide a fairly simple, effective form of coupling. There are a number of sites which also show how to fit them to UK stock, but the American outline often has them already fitted which may be easier. <blatant plug for NMRA mode off> Before you finally you decide it would be very wise to try to get top as many shows as you possibly can so that you can make a more informed choice. Good luck and let us know how you get on. SignatureMike Hughes Marketing Co-ordinator NMRA British Region Modelling North American? Share the hobby, double the fun with the NMRA Interested in American trains real and model? Look here http://mikehughes627.fotopic.net/ > > Mike Smith <m...@invalid.invalid> writes > >>Well the lad has been on the internet and now 'knows about model [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > a few sidings, why go to the extra bother and expense of DCC? He seems > to underestimate the complexities of DCC. If that's the ultimate limit of the layout, then it's a no brainer. One of the budget DCC systems will be fine. The EZ costs no more than a decent DC controller. If he wants to watch trains run onthe two loops whilst shunting the sidings then he'll need THREE DC controllers and you could easily justify the small extra cost of a better DCC controller such as the Dynamis. Buy ready chipped locos from one of the box shifters to keep costs down. Wiring will be far simpler - one power bus around the layout with droppers to both circuits and the siding, no section switches. For such a small layout I'd stick to wire-in-tube point operation. It's easy to attach frog polarity switches, but unmodified Peco Electrofrog will be OK if you check the whell back-to-backs. MBQ > If that's the ultimate limit of the layout, then it's a no brainer. > One of the budget DCC systems will be fine. The EZ costs no more than > a decent DC controller. But no-where near the quality of a similarly priced analogue controller. The EZ is about as basic as it gets, and offers little in the way of programability - which is one of the main benefits of DCC as far as I'm concerned. John. >> > Mike Smith <m...@invalid.invalid> writes >> >>Well the lad has been on the internet and now 'knows about model [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > It's easy to attach frog polarity switches, but unmodified Peco > Electrofrog will be OK if you check the whell back-to-backs. I have a 6' x 8' double loop with a third track on one side, plus sidings. I have two dual MRC280 DC transformer/controllers which cost me under £100. They give excellent low-speed control with 5-pole motors. Three controllers are each connected by a single drop feed to the three-track section: the fourth can be used for the sidings independent of the running loops. I have no section switches; I use the (insulfrog) points to control where the power goes. Since the layout is small, I have no problem with voltage drop by distance, or through points. I started out using DC 60 years ago; with my current layout, which is 10 years old, I see no advantage in going to the cost and effort of chipping my non DCC-ready locos or replacing my perfectly fine DC controllers. I can operate two trains on the double loop independently and shunt in the sidings, each with a separate control handle. Starting out from scratch is a different issue, certainly. Chipped locos and a DCC control system do involve some extra expense, which can be justified if one has longer-term plans to expand the layout. However, if it's in a limited space and isn't likely to expand, DC can a viable alternative that is less technically complex than DCC. I don't have any of the multitudinous problems with DCC operation that I have seen discussed on this group. In short, DC works fine for me! SignatureMartin S. > Well the lad has been on the internet and now 'knows about model > railways' So, in a room ten foot square, in OO, we have the mountain [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of 'starter set' at the very least. As his time is limited he's a > bit keen to get on. Automation isn't cheap in either DCC or DC. It can be made relatively less or relatively more expensive depending on equipment bought. Whilst DCC is standardised at the track level (thus any decoder will work on any command station), there is a complete lack of standards behind that. So, there is no standard for feeding back train position, turnout settings, etc. which allows a system to automate things. You tend to be in systems which are proprietry to a certain extent (or at least tied to a handful of maker's systems), though there are options to mix systems if there is a computer in the middle which can talk different makers protocols at the same time. DCC stuff to avoid if looking at a high degree of automation; anything lacking a computer interface to the wide range of software available (both free and paid-for software). So, that rules out: all DCC systems by Bachmann, Gaugemaster/MRC (their computer interface talks to their software only, nothing else), Hornby Select (the Elite may be worth considering, but its a long way down my ranking list of DCC systems). I'd be looking at the DCC specialist makers; Digitrax, ESU, Lenz, NCE. There are arguments for and against all of them. Simple things like "shuttles" which just run on their own are a doddle using "Assymmetric DCC" and Lenz Silver or Lenz Gold decoders. Cost is in the decoder, a few diodes in the track supply, and a switch/relay to turn the reverse circuit on/off. This doesn't need computers anywhere, and will work with any DCC command station of any maker; my local ScaleFour group layout has an automatic shuttle for a diesel railbus (railbus has a Lenz Gold+Power1 module), the DCC controller is a Bachmann E-Z from a trainset ! Automatic stopping infront of signals can be done with the same method *if* you restrict your loco decoders to those which support Assymmetric DCC (aka ABC); which is Lenz, Zimo and some, but not all, CT Elektronik decoders. But as soon as you use other decoders, the ABC braking doesn't work on those decoders, so those locos will sail past the stop instruction. More complicated automation and the costs start to mount, you require track detection (where the train has reached) and a method to control the automation (either hardware boards, or software in a computer). That won't be cheap. - Nigel SignatureNigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ >> Well the lad has been on the internet and now 'knows about model >> railways' So, in a room ten foot square, in OO, we have the mountain [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Nigel Thanks gemtlemen, some very useful pointer there. The Hattons trip is his idea, he lives near Northwich so it's no so far to go. I did suggest 53A but he's impatient and want to look round the shop. He's trying to run before he can even stand up, and he has no conception of scale or how that fits his available room, but I don't want him to get cheesed off and abandon the project. I think it's the sound he likes on the DCC stuff (had a demo of some German stuff in Waltons of Altrincham a while back, -very- impressive, - very very - expensive). I hope to keep him under control, get enough for a loop round the room with a branch and some sidings/ loops. That'll take a while to get done and in the mean time he will be getting a feel for space and scale. Thanks again, copious notes made! Regards Mike |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.