The Heybridge Railway, 1889 to 1913

[simond]

In spite of my best efforts the chassis still had a pronounced squeak on every revolution of the wheels. This came from one crank pin (rear left) - I had already opened up the hole in the side rod here but obviously not enough. So the tiniest amount of work with a five-sided broach, maybe half a thou added to the diameter of the hole, has pretty much removed the squeak. This means, I have ended up enlarging the hole in one boss by about 2 or 3 thou in all. The other five bosses are still untouched. I don't know whether this is typical or if I need to find a better way to set up axle bushes and crank pins. I think I can be a perfectionist at times but a non-modelling friend suggests more likely all the time.

might be a bit late, but I have learned that making the bush smaller is better than making the hole bigger. New bushes are cheaper than new rods…

that said, easing one rod hole is not at all unusual.

 

[Richard Gawler]

might be a bit late, but I have learned that making the bush smaller is better than making the hole bigger. New bushes are cheaper than new rods…

that said, easing one rod hole is not at all unusual.

Making the bush smaller crossed my own mind but I had set it with Loctite 601.

I actually gave up applying the Loctite for the last three bushes but the problematic one was one of the first three. As of course it had to be

 

[Richard Gawler]

Whilst S7 wheels will look nice in their own regard, I’m not sure what is to be gained by using them on 32 or 31.5 track.

Without doing the sums, I expect that using S7 wheels (set to 0F BTB) on 31.5 track would be much like using 0F wheels on 32mm track, a compromise that leads to adequate but not smooth running. And using S7 wheels on coarse scale track is likely to lead to derailments unless the loco chassis is particularly compliant, and speeds are obviously slow. And the dimension that “matters” is the check gauge, or BTF.

There are three standards, S7, 0F and 0C, which are not interoperable. 0MF, which I have used for my track, is a subset of 0F, using 0F wheel standards, which seems to me to give the best compromise of running, and interoperability. It is possible to build universal points which will accept 0C and 0F, and they were popular in garden railways some years back, but i helped convert one large railway to Peco because they were more trouble than they were worth for the one or two visiting locos with coarse standard wheels.

My approach and recommendation is to build your locos & stock to 0F standards, and your track to 0MF.

Lots more more info on the Templot forum.

hth
Simon

Simon this does help a lot, as do all many many of the thoughts and sentiments expressed here. I'm a lot happier seeing a bit of feedback, sometimes a workbench topic can seem like a monologue and indeed I wonder if I am sometimes putting in too much detail.

As in other fields, we do love our standards and that's why we have so many of them . . . I suspect I could get away with a shallower flange on an 0-F wheel (which would look better on a loco like the the MW class F), but a narrower tread is going to drop into an 0-MF crossing vee just like an 0-F wheel drops into an 0-F one.

 

[Eastsidepilot]

To use wheels with a S7 dimensioned flange ( disregard the tyre width) on 32mm gauge track you have to set the back to back dimension to 29.49mm, the effective flange width for S7 is 0.63mm so 29.49 + 0.63 =30.12 mm
F/S back to flange face is 30.00mm
F/S standards are so sloppy that 0.12mm is of no significance but the problem you'll have is to increase the BtB on a Slaters axle, packing washers I suspect which is not something I personally like, not good engineering.

If I were you Richard I'd just stick with the F/S standard wheels and track mate, it's pointless worrying about scale flanges when the track gauge is under scale in the first place.

As Simon says you can't mix standards, not that O gauge has a standard to be honest, just be done with it and go S7

Col.

 

[Dog Star]

Whilst S7 wheels will look nice in their own regard, I’m not sure what is to be gained by using them on 32 or 31.5 track.

Simon,

My response suggesting that Richard looked at the S7 Group wheels was in response to Richard's concerns about the crank pins being screwed into a hole in the nylon moulding... S7 driving wheels have a metallic bush, as an insert in the moulding process, which presents a threaded hole for the crank pin.

regards, Graham

 

[Richard Gawler]

At the moment I am very happy with my 10BA crank pins for at two reasons:

1) The tapped bush locks the screw into the wheel centre (which I have also tapped to suit), so there is no need to smear Araldite or whatever over the head on the inside of the wheel to stop the screw turning;

2) The larger size of nut is more compatible with my fingers. Not one has gone onto the carpet.

I realise, the 10BA fittings may be a bit chunky when combined with outside cylinders . . . I'll cross this bridge when I meet it.

To my mind, the provision of a metal bush for the crankpin in a S7 wheel is a good engineering idea, but thousands of modellers before me have used Slater's wheels with complete success so I will accept them for what they are. I still do like the "feel" of tapping out the holes 10BA and seeing the screws lock up tight. Having seen two RTR models loose crankpin screws during running (both on layouts without ballast!), I might have a go at retrofitting them with the same hardware as my Y14. I had to buy enough 10BA hardware for 25 wheels to make the eBay postage costs worthwhile.

 

[Richard Gawler]

I just noticed the batch code on my Canon motor - for anyone jumping into the thread here, this is one of Jim McGeowns' kits

 

[simond]

I always tap Slaters' wheels 10 BA and glue screws in from behind. Tap the bushes 10BA and file or mill flats onto the flange to tighten. Only had one failed screw, clearly had not degreased it, or the hole, properly when I assembled, and it screwed itself into the frames. Not difficult to fix, but annoying.

Lots of folks use Slaters' as they intend, with clearance holes for 12 BA screws in both wheel and bush. I'm sure it works fine but not to my taste.

atb
Simon

 

[Richard Gawler]

On Nellie I lopped off the surplus crankpins with the Xuron track cutter. This leaves a bit of a burr on the stud which may just help to stop a loosened nut falling off completely.

 

[Richard Gawler]

Simon,

My response suggesting that Richard looked at the S7 Group wheels was in response to Richard's concerns about the crank pins being screwed into a hole in the nylon moulding... S7 driving wheels have a metallic bush, as an insert in the moulding process, which presents a threaded hole for the crank pin.

regards, Graham

Please, do we know whether the crankpins from the S7 Group will fit into a Slater's FS wheel? I am happy to try different methods on different locos as I come to build them.

 

[Dog Star]

Please, do we know whether the crankpins from the S7 Group will fit into a Slater's FS wheel? I am happy to try different methods on different locos as I come to build them.

I think that you need to ask Paul Stokes @pcalkel who is S7 Group Stores Manager. As for "different" methods, one that I favour and is rarely mentioned are the crank pins and retainers that can be obtained from MOK.

regards, Graham

 

[Eastsidepilot]

On Nellie I lopped off the surplus crankpins with the Xuron track cutter. This leaves a bit of a burr on the stud which may just help to stop a loosened nut falling off completely.

A very small amount, just enough to fill the threads, of a thread lock such as Loctite 243 will stop the nuts coming undone.

 

[Eastsidepilot]

Please, do we know whether the crankpins from the S7 Group will fit into a Slater's FS wheel? I am happy to try different methods on different locos as I come to build them.

Any crank pin option is easily fitted, it's just a matter of boring out the boss to take the pin, it should be a press fit and they are normally retained with a c/s machine screw from the back.
Ideally the wheel needs to be held in a jig in what ever machine you're using so that every wheel has the pin bore exactly in the same dimension from the axle centre, if you just drill through an existing hole in the boss such as Slaters wheels have there is the danger of the drill wandering off centre slightly, you shouldn't try it free hand either as you'll never get them parallel to the axis.

 

[Richard Gawler]

Any crank pin option is easily fitted, it's just a matter of boring out the boss to take the pin, it should be a press fit and they are normally retained with a c/s machine screw from the back.
Ideally the wheel needs to be held in a jig in what ever machine you're using so that every wheel has the pin bore exactly in the same dimension from the axle centre, if you just drill through an existing hole in the boss such as Slaters wheels have there is the danger of the drill wandering off centre slightly, you shouldn't try it free hand either as you'll never get them parallel to the axis.

The beginner's luck I am enjoying e.g. tapping threads in wheel bosses with the wheel held flat on a bit of board and holding the tap wrench by hand is going to run out sooner or later.

A pillar drill would be a useful acquisition but I need to find some space to put one.

 

[Richard Gawler]

Trial runs on my test track



The Y14 chassis has a temporary body, the dowels go inside weights from the kitchen scales.

So far the chassis has pulled its tender (which weighs 400g, about as much as 4 wagons) plus 16 small wagons The wagons included my Lomac-L carrying 250 grams of weights, so about 18 "effective wagons". This was with the chassis carrying 8 + 4 oz kitchen weights.

I guess I am discovering a downside of radio control: the payload of the power tender reduces the possible maximum weight of a train. Batteries in the loco instead of the tender would provide ballast for traction, and this would be sensible for a larger tender loco.

 

[Richard Gawler]

Trial runs on a stud-contact garden railway


A trial run of the Y14 chassis plus tender on the railway belonging to a club member was very promising, with the chassis hauling its "power pack" plus their 16-wagon train with ease and needing only the 4 oz weight to provide enough adhesion. So it looks like the body (not started yet, probably 250 grams) will give the chassis enough adhesion to haul a decent train without adding much if any additional weight.


Some of the trackwork dates back to the 1960s. The owner build the pointwork without plans or standards, and the crossing flangeways are a little more generous than Peco Setrack ones. So the Slater's FS wheels gave a pronounced wheel drop, but they stayed on the track.


The only problem was derailments caused by holly seeds, of which there were a few dozen to pick up.

The garden is large by modern standards . . . I carried the r/c transmitter about 18 m (say 60 feet) away from the loco and control remained robust. This distance is further than I can imagine wanting to go to control a model train.

So really, a fine trip out.

 

[Rob R]

Richard,
Did you have any control issues with the tunnel?

 

[Richard Gawler]

Richard,
Did you have any control issues with the tunnel?

We didn't try the tunnel!

Because, if control had failed (or more likely we had a derailment) then we would have been in a pickle.

The tunnel is well oversize for height and width but behind and below shubbery - looking at it I don't think there was much chance of RF screening.

 

[Richard Gawler]

One conclusion from the runs on the garden railway is, the Omni control system needs to be "driven" by the operator. If you set the loco to move at a low speed at the head of a freight train then the loco will stall after a while as it picks up the weight of successive wagons. So, after the loco is moving, you need to open the throttle to make sure it keeps moving. There is no feedback (detection of back emf) here.

I doubt I will notice this behaviour with the three- or four-wagon trains at home but I think it is worth recording here.

 

[simond]

Some years back I approached Herr Ziegler of Zimo, asking him to produce a version of one of their standard HO sound decoders with built in radio receiver, and maybe a matching transmitter, though of course, using an existing standard would be ideal.

He explained that it was not their current strategy, which is a shame. The Zimo decoders seem to me to tick all the boxes except dead-rail compatible (they are but it’s a fight) and it would be great if he changed his mind. Maybe if enough of us got together it could be crowdfunded…