Scalefour Forum

Sounds right, ordered my Pannier conversion kit from Ultrascale on 14 April and was told 12 weeks which is also what it says on the website. At least I should have some track to test it on by the middle of July!

Right, I've just spent 3 angry hours F****** about with it, dropping the wheels in wasn't much of a problem, however, when I applied power the wheels span and stopped, from then on was just a vibrating 'brrrrrrrr' So after lots of wheel faffing and bogey gear faffing I spent about 10 minutes trying to pry the body off, scared I was going to bugger it.

Is this REALLY nessasary?


I don't have 16 hands, trying to unclip everything and pull everything all at the same time is a really un userfriendly design.

ok so I'm inside... great, motor, flywheel, drive shaft, universal joint, virticle gearbox, horizontal gear box, on both sides. Cue an hour or 2 of no progress.

Motor/flywheels were just 'brrrrring' side to side as if obstruction but could never find where it was, now when I test power there is just a quiet 'buur' with hardly any noise or movement at all.

I've removed wheels and put old ones back in and all sorts but no different.

Really unhappy and %$^&*() now cus I've got to find someone who knows what they are doing and repair it. Easy conversion may arse! Would have been if the model didn't decide to die on me.

Its easier to use stiff card or credit cards (when they are full..) to lift the clips clear if you need to as they wont damage anything like the assemblage you have can. Personally though i haven't had issues with a careful unclipping of each corner in turn then sliding the top off in my hand over an apron.

Turn the motor over by hand then remove the shafts and try the motor then work on each tower.

Tbh i've had the wheels in and out of mine as I tend to strip the keeper plate off to demo how it looks with Kean Maygib/Black Beetle wheels fitted (the former are more the correct diameter than the latter).

Heljan bodies can be challenging to remove, especially the first time (for you and the loco); well done on persevering and getting inside.

I'd be happy to take a look at it if you bring it along to the West Midlands Area Group meeting in Fradley village hall, not too far from Nuneaton, on Friday 11th, 7-10ish pm. Test tracks, refreshments and lots of help and advice available

Thanks for the meeting offer, I'd love to but cannot make it. I can never go to a meeting friday night or saturday.

I have no clear idea why it has possibly died on me, I think possibly something has got jammed, but I turned the flywheels and the wheels still moved so maybe not, then I thought maybe a short circuit possibly has gave the motor a beating, they are the only two possibilities I can think of to be honest.

Really do not know.

No idea how to remove the flywheels/motor and tower gear box without breaking it.

That's a shame, but you know where we are should your circumstances change so you can get out on Fridays

Sounds like it's OK mechanically. Have you maybe damaged a wire while removing the body? Check especially where the wiring runs over the metal chassis block, it would be easy to get a short circuit there.

Simon_S wrote:That's a shame, but you know where we are should your circumstances change so you can get out on Fridays

Sounds like it's OK mechanically. Have you maybe damaged a wire while removing the body? Check especially where the wiring runs over the metal chassis block, it would be easy to get a short circuit there.

Spent hours checking but couldn't find anything. Kind of 'burrrs' with a mild vibration and thats it.

Friday-saturday thing. circumstance will never change, ever!

I'll have to look at mine to see how the towers come off, on Bachmann its normally nice and easy with a screw on top. Ted Scannell may know http://clag.org.uk/hymek.html just do check he put it back together again after .

With Heljan locos, you have to unclip the plate at the top of the bogie in a similar manner to the keeper plate at the bottom. This top plate includes the top bogie pivot point so removing it releases the bogie from the loco. It's bit of a fiddle getting the bogie, pivot yoke and driveshaft all back together at the same time afterwards though

Before doing that though, check that the pickups are making good contact with the backs of the wheels. If they are, then my next move would be to remove the bogies as above and test the motor now it's mechanically isolated by applying power directly to its connections on the PCB.

We seem to have strayed rather far from turnout construction. Maybe the Heljan part of the thread could be transferred to a new thread - how about "Knuckles Heljan De-construction Log"?

DT

DaveyTee wrote:We seem to have strayed rather far from turnout construction. Maybe the Heljan part of the thread could be transferred to a new thread - how about "Knuckles Heljan De-construction Log"?

DT

Well, ironically all last night and today at work I've been planning to do just that! I got it sorted but the problems were more than one, I'll be doing a new thread on it shortly and will link you all to it from here.

Knuckles wrote:

DaveyTee wrote:We seem to have strayed rather far from turnout construction. Maybe the Heljan part of the thread could be transferred to a new thread - how about "Knuckles Heljan De-construction Log"?

DT

Well, ironically all last night and today at work I've been planning to do just that! I got it sorted but the problems were more than one, I'll be doing a new thread on it shortly and will link you all to it from here.

Hooray!

Glad that it didn't defeat you, and intrigued to hear what the issues were.

Flymo
(a long way from being a D&E modeller, but always keen to learn)

Maybe Keith could be persuaded to put all the postings about the Heljan loco onto a new thread so that we could have a continuous narrative about it. I must admit that I'm looking forward to hearing what the problem was, and how it was resolved.

DT

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2023

Well, here is the thread, write up done.

It was me being a Mooses bum hole.

-

I'm more of a steam fan but a good selection of Diesels, especially early ones I like too.

Still need to sort stretcher bar out for Exactoscale's C10.

Now on to C&L's B6.




I've decided to tackle a right hand as the other was a left, however, before I even start is this normal???




It looks to me like it is a 00 plan, or does it not matter? can always cut the webs later but what you rekon guys? I don't know weather this is how they are all regardless of gauge or if it's another boob someone has made. I can't go further until I'm sure.

Also I can't number the sleepers with pencil because they don't match them template. The template has 31 but the real wood has 30. Going from the V frog there are 5 timbers to the exit on both, thus renumbering is confusing. ?

Looks quite useful to me as you can easily cut the webs prior to laying the turnout without having to try to stick the knife under the rail. Whether its accident or design I don't know though!

Yeah but will it cause a problem upon construction?

Also can you read my post again please, I just made a couple of edits. Sorry.

These Timber Tracks bases are made in two variants, 00 or EM/P4. I would think you have the 00 version both from the spacing of the ties between the timbers and the missing timber. For any given angle the 00 one will always be shorter.
If you hover over the thumbnails on the catalogue page you will get a pic big enough to check which one you have.
This is the 00 page, http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=54#turnout
You can get to the EM/P4 one by going back to the index.
Regards
Keith

grovenor-2685 wrote:These Timber Tracks bases are made in two variants, 00 or EM/P4. I would think you have the 00 version both from the spacing of the ties between the timbers and the missing timber. For any given angle the 00 one will always be shorter.
If you hover over the thumbnails on the catalogue page you will get a pic big enough to check which one you have.
This is the 00 page, http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=54#turnout
You can get to the EM/P4 one by going back to the index.
Regards
Keith

Thanks, I've just checked that sites picture and the 00 one says 00 on the wood outer. I've just removed the bluetack and checked mine and it says "4mm Turnout B6 T4B6" Then I looked at the sites P4 version and it said the same. So it seems that maybe it is the right one? I counted the 00 timbers and it was correct at 31, yet the P4 one is 1 less. I counted the ones on the P4 picture on the site and it matched mine at 30. Odd.

This better work if I build on it! Still unsure because there is the chance the wrong thing was printed on the wrong one, but unsure.

This better work if I build on it! Still unsure because there is the chance the wrong thing was printed on the wrong one, but unsure.

Personally I would always prefer to cut my own timbers from strip, its a very simple job anyway and the amount of waste ply inherent in that laser cutting design does not appeal to me.
That said its not clear what compromises they have made in adapting the design to 00 so they may well have closed up the timber spacing.
The one illustrated for EM/P4 does not follow the usual template available from the Societty or Exactoscale but that may just mean it is a different company version eg GW. So long as you build with the gauges it will still work anyway, just put the nose of the vee over the closest timber compared to where the template shows it should be.
Best regards
Keith

Put the wood over the plan and if it all matches up then its fine..

I normally build the pointwork on top of a plan anyway to get the rails roughly in the right place as I also build from strip like Keith.

Check the alignment of the timbers over the crossing and diverging roads,do they remain at a right angle to the main road or are they at aright angle to the centre line of the crossing V ?

The first option is an R E A (Railway Engineers Association) standard and good for most major and minor companies, the second is G W R practice this variation will lead to differing numbers of timbers under the turnout.

Welcome to another mystifying facet of P W work!

Wally

wally wrote:Check the alignment of the timbers over the crossing and diverging roads,do they remain at a right angle to the main road or are they at aright angle to the centre line of the crossing V? The first option is an R E A (Railway Engineers Association) standard and good for most major and minor companies, the second is G W R practice this variation will lead to differing numbers of timbers under the turnout.

Hi Wally,

I think that is misleading. I have drawings here showing both square-on and equalized (skewed) timbering styles, both for the REA designs and for GWR.

Generally the timbering layout is determined by the traffic pattern. The square-on style puts all the strength in the main road and is therefore used in situations such as a crossover between running lines -- i.e. where the diverging turnout road is used less frequently and at lower speeds. This is especially true for a crossover in curved running lines, where the square-on arrangement is much more resistant to gauge-spread.

The equalized (skewed) style puts some strength in both roads and is therefore used for running-line junctions. Most notably in a double-junction, where the equalized timbers in the turnouts match in much more easily with those of the diamond-crossing (diamond-crossings and slips are almost always equalized).

The equalized style is also more economical in the use of timber and is therefore often found in yards and sidings.

Modern flat-bottom track uses the square-on style almost exclusively for turnouts. This is mainly to allow for mechanized maintenance rather than for any strength considerations, FB track being inherently much more robust than bullhead.

regards,

Martin.

Martin,

Perhaps this is the result of my trying to simplify the point I was trying to make, namely providing a means to identify the difference in timbering styles following a previous posting which suggested that possibly the "errant" timber work is a representation of G W practice.

Having been involved in the replacement of full size timbers on a large quantity of S & C work of both styles on a preserved line over the last twenty years I am aware of the variation possibilities.

Reference to the G W study group publication or the S4 notes is always recommended before making a decision on a particular application on a G W layout.

Wally

Hi Gavin, Wally,

I don't think we can say anything about the timbering discrepancy without some input from the manufacturer.

I'm surprised that a common timber track base is supplied for both EM and P4, and this may be the explanation. You can just about get away with this for plain turnouts, but not for diamond-crossings and slips. For those it is essential that the two crossing vees are exactly the correct distance apart, otherwise the other rails cannot be aligned correctly. EM templates are always shorter than P4, and in the case of say a 1:8 diamond-crossing the difference is about 10mm, i.e. a full timber space. It's impossible to build an EM diamond-crossing on a P4 template/base, or vice versa, and have the crossings correctly aligned to the timbers.

regards,

Martin.