Help!!

Model and prototype rolling stock, locos, multiple units etc.
adigill

Help!!

Postby adigill » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:57 am

Okay, what am I doing wrong? Following on from my last post regarding rigid/ compensated chassis I took the advice offered and have built a compensated one. The kit I'm building is a London road models 3f using Gibson wheels and High level horn blocks, I have a Holiday Hobbies master chassis jig and a GW wheel quatering jig. So here's the problem despite reading everything to do with buliding a chassis and following all the instructions to the letter the chassis when being pushed along my test track bind's badly. I've tried opening the coupling rod holes slightly, I've tried to adjust the quartering but nothing seems to work and I'm now getting fustrated. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Philbax

Re: Help!!

Postby Philbax » Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:10 am

Does it run ok without the connecting rods?
I have experienced the screw head on the back of the wheels catching the horn blocks.
Have you tried it as a 4-4-0 and then as a 0-4-4 this might locate the bind.
Have you assembled the gearbox and motor in place? Another cause could be the gear wheel binding on the axle even though the grub screw is released
Just some ideas to look at
Philbax

User avatar
HowardGWR
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:42 am

Re: Help!!

Postby HowardGWR » Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:26 pm

2-4-0 and 0-4-2? Good advice Phil. I shall probably be taking it myself shortly (just about to drill AG crankpin holes - first ever go, heart in mouth).

User avatar
Andy W
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 8:11 am

Re: Help!!

Postby Andy W » Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:00 pm

It's difficult to analyse the problem at such a late stage in the build. Did you check smooth running at each stage right from the start? i.e. run the motor with no gear box to check it's o.k. (unlikely to be a problem,but it eliminates one if there). The check the motor with gears; then the with an axle; then with the axle in situ; then with the wheels but no rods; then with rods - etc etc.

By checking at each step you should be able to move forward knowing that if you encounter a problem the last step you took has caused/amplified it.

hth

Andy
Make Worcestershire great again.
Build a wall along the Herefordshire border and make them pay for it.

User avatar
John McAleely
Posts: 1181
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Help!!

Postby John McAleely » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:21 pm

adigill wrote:Okay, what am I doing wrong? <snip> So here's the problem despite reading everything to do with buliding a chassis and following all the instructions to the letter the chassis when being pushed along my test track bind's badly. I've tried opening the coupling rod holes slightly, I've tried to adjust the quartering but nothing seems to work and I'm now getting fustrated. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


It's possible you've done nothing wrong at all, and one final push of adjusting is expected and all that's needed.

I've not got the biggest pool of experience to draw on, but having constructed two apparently square/true chassis, I've had binds in both, and a minor round of tweaking to the coupling rod holes has solved the problem for me.

There's no substitute for stripping the chassis down and confirming each part is sound - so you are well advised to check the gearbox runs true, the chassis is actually sound (the jigs can be misused, despite the best intentions), and that each pair of 4-4 wheels in your 0-6-0 run well.

There's some discussion of this here. The loco in question now runs very sweetly.

adigill

Re: Help!!

Postby adigill » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:58 pm

Thank you for your suggestion's, I'll give the 4-4-0/0-4-4 trick a try. Just to say the chassis run's (pushes) very well without the coupling rods on and I've not yet put the motor and gearbox in yet thought I'd try and get the chassis moving smoothly first.

User avatar
HowardGWR
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:42 am

Re: Help!!

Postby HowardGWR » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:21 pm

adigill wrote:Thank you for your suggestion's, I'll give the 4-4-0/0-4-4 trick a try. Just to say the chassis run's (pushes) very well without the coupling rods on and I've not yet put the motor and gearbox in yet thought I'd try and get the chassis moving smoothly first.


Isn't a 3F an 0-6-0? (see earlier post). Hope this reveals the answer.

User avatar
Mike Spence
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: Help!!

Postby Mike Spence » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:43 pm

HowardGWR wrote:
adigill wrote:Thank you for your suggestion's, I'll give the 4-4-0/0-4-4 trick a try. Just to say the chassis run's (pushes) very well without the coupling rods on and I've not yet put the motor and gearbox in yet thought I'd try and get the chassis moving smoothly first.


Isn't a 3F an 0-6-0? (see earlier post). Hope this reveals the answer.


Howard,
The trick is to try and isolate bindings/tight spots with coupling rods so............
font & centre drivers first then centre & rear drivers 4-4-0/0-4-4
in theory this should hopefully solve the running problems.
If I have screwed up with this theory sorry, corner of car boot would not close properly as my head was in the way!

Mike Spence

User avatar
HowardGWR
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:42 am

Re: Help!!

Postby HowardGWR » Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:46 pm

Mike, it could be me that's had a bang (actually I did today on the fridge door, not cool). My point is that if you leave off two coupling rods, say the rear ones, from an 0-6-0, you then have a 0-4-2. However, if you leave off the front coupling rods instead, you have an 2-4-0. Or is my bump worse than yours? :D

User avatar
John McAleely
Posts: 1181
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Help!!

Postby John McAleely » Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:00 pm

HowardGWR wrote:Mike, it could be me that's had a bang (actually I did today on the fridge door, not cool). My point is that if you leave off two coupling rods, say the rear ones, from an 0-6-0, you then have a 0-4-2. However, if you leave off the front coupling rods instead, you have an 2-4-0. Or is my bump worse than yours? :D


I think that 2-4-0 or 0-4-2 is another way of describing the result, if the experimental loco that results can be actually described with the notation. After all, we're producing something that never existed, and that won't exist beyond the experiment...

When I've been doing it myself, sometimes I've been running an 0-4-0, and sometimes a 2-4-0, depending on whether the spare axle is actually still present...

User avatar
Mike Spence
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: Help!!

Postby Mike Spence » Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:11 pm

HowardGWR wrote:Mike, it could be me that's had a bang (actually I did today on the fridge door, not cool). My point is that if you leave off two coupling rods, say the rear ones, from an 0-6-0, you then have a 0-4-2. However, if you leave off the front coupling rods instead, you have an 2-4-0. Or is my bump worse than yours? :D


Howard,

Put an imaginary 4 wheel bogie on the front (as in City, Flower etc) weight the chassis accordingly and you have a 4-4-0.
Quarter the middle axle first, then the front axle. Once happy that all is well do the same for the middle and rear axle.
The quartering of the middle axle is not touched again.
Now try reverting back to an 0-6-0 with all wheels coupled and in theory you should have a sweet chassis 8-)

Mike Spence

ps mild concussion so cut me some slack :mrgreen:

User avatar
MarkS
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:15 am

Re: Help!!

Postby MarkS » Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:40 pm

IIRC, the GER ran the occasional "Buckjumper" without the leading coupling rods, although I do not recall why.
Would they be 2-4-0 or (*)0-6-0 tanks?

With (*) representing "I'm not quite sure what I am looking at?"
Cheers,

Mark.
"In the end, when all is said and done, more will have been said than done..."

Philbax

Re: Help!!

Postby Philbax » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:49 pm

HowardGWR wrote:
'My point is that if you leave off two coupling rods, say the rear ones, from an 0-6-0, you then have a 0-4-2. However, if you leave off the front coupling rods instead, you have an 2-4-0.'

Sorry everyone Howard is quite right, I obviously confused everyone with my 4-4-0 and 0-4-4 which of course was wrong

Philbax

User avatar
Flymo748
Posts: 2376
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Help!!

Postby Flymo748 » Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:01 pm

MarkS wrote:IIRC, the GER ran the occasional "Buckjumper" without the leading coupling rods, although I do not recall why.
Would they be 2-4-0 or (*)0-6-0 tanks?

With (*) representing "I'm not quite sure what I am looking at?"


The E22 class. I started building one from a Connoisseur Models kit last weekend at Missenden. I'll pop a couple of photos of the body when I find time to unpack everything. After a frenzy of modelling, work has meant that I've done nothing this week :-(

There are no photos of the chassis though, as I managed to forget to bring my Avonside jig with me, and all of the other ones around the room were being very industriously used. So I prepped a few parts and put them safely away until I can make a start on it.

There are a couple of pictures of them running as 2-4-0 locomotives on Adrian Marks' blog http://basilicafields.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/the-buckjumper-mk-ii-class-e22-the-blackwall-tanks/. Mine will be running like this as well :-)

Cheers
Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 1817
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Help!!

Postby Will L » Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:52 pm

When the next instalment of Buck Jumping on Mass finally comes along (the writing is about two month behind actual progress), you'll find my E22/J65 is going to run as a 2-4-0 too. Yeadon's register Volume 48 has various photos of 7155,(my chosen loco) in this state right up to BR days (as 68211). 7518 is also recoded in this state as are several others on Adrian Marks' blog.

Flymo748 wrote: The E22 class. I started building one from a Connoisseur Models kit last weekend at Missenden.

I didn't know Connoisseur Models did a E22/J65, or anything in 4mm. I know the do a C72/J68 in O gauge.

User avatar
Flymo748
Posts: 2376
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Help!!

Postby Flymo748 » Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:22 am

Will L wrote:
Flymo748 wrote: The E22 class. I started building one from a Connoisseur Models kit last weekend at Missenden.

I didn't know Connoisseur Models did a E22/J65, or anything in 4mm. I know the do a C72/J68 in O gauge.


I must be imagining it :-)

IMG_7965.JPG


I also have two of Jim's J69 kits in the Gloat Box as well...

<thinks> If it was possible from the moulds, is there interest in a limited run of E22/J65 kits?

Cheers
Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 1817
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Help!!

Postby Will L » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:06 am

Flymo748 wrote:
Will L wrote:I didn't know Connoisseur Models did a E22/J65, or anything in 4mm. I know the do a C72/J68 in O gauge.


I must be imagining it
{Pictorial Gloat} :mrgreen:
I also have two of Jim's J69 kits in the Gloat Box as well...

<thinks> If it was possible from the moulds, is there interest in a limited run of E22/J65 kits?


Cant see I'd want two j65's but it would be intesting to compare these with the London Road Model (nee Riceworks) items. I'm having vague thoughts about doing a shunting version C72/J68 (also available from LMR) and a condenser fitted R24R/J69 just to complete the set so to speak, and I'm wondering what would be the best starting point for the R24R.

User avatar
HowardGWR
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:42 am

Re: Help!!

Postby HowardGWR » Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:07 am

Philbax wrote:HowardGWR wrote:
'My point is that if you leave off two coupling rods, say the rear ones, from an 0-6-0, you then have a 0-4-2. However, if you leave off the front coupling rods instead, you have an 2-4-0.'

Sorry everyone Howard is quite right, I obviously confused everyone with my 4-4-0 and 0-4-4 which of course was wrong

Philbax


That is very generous Phil, thank you, I just wanted to know I'm not quite as badly injured by the fridge door as was perhaps thought. Actually I am going bonkers, but as a result of having carried out a P4 (AG wheel kit) conversion of the Bachmann Pannier. I have followed the instructions meticulously but am now staring at a non-functioning result. I will not hi-jack this thread but will start off a blow by blow account later which I hope will provide more useful points for our experts to comment upon.

By the way, I can't go the 2-4-0 testing route unless I take off the knuckle join from the Bachmann coupling rods, which seems to defeat the object of using the RTR stuff in the first place! I've taken photos so hopefully my sad tale, which may become a triumphal one (I live in hope), will be of interest.

Hope it comes right for you Adi (? correct name?) and will follow with interest. Regards, H

User avatar
Flymo748
Posts: 2376
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Help!!

Postby Flymo748 » Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:08 am

Will L wrote:Cant see I'd want two j65's but it would be intesting to compare these with the London Road Model (nee Riceworks) items. I'm having vague thoughts about doing a shunting version C72/J68 (also available from LMR) and a condenser fitted R24R/J69 just to complete the set so to speak, and I'm wondering what would be the best starting point for the R24R.


Adrian's article on the R24R on his Basilica Fields blog http://basilicafields.wordpress.com/ suggests that it's easiest to do from the Connoisseur J68 kit. Okay, he's a ScaleSeven modeller, but the kit should be identical, if 4/7ths smaller ;-)

Cheers
Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

User avatar
David B
Posts: 1218
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:30 pm

Re: Help!!

Postby David B » Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:21 pm

Tim Watson (Model Railway Club, Copenhagen Fields and Missenden tutor) wrote an article in MRJ 94 (1997) where, on p85, he describes the method he follows to set up coupling rods and quartering for smooth running in 2mm.

Adrian, I will scan and send it if you care to let me have your email address via a PM.

adigill

Re: Help!!

Postby adigill » Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:44 pm

Thank's davidb, I've just got in from work and seen yoor post, going to dig out my copy of issue 94 and have a read. Need to sort this chassis out before it drive's me mad.

User avatar
HowardGWR
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:42 am

Re: Help!!

Postby HowardGWR » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:41 pm

Adi, as you gathered I too am suffering but i am adopting the 'examine the faults sequentially' approach, recommended by Phil.

What I can report, as a result of my investigations, is that it should not be overlooked that electric current may not always be reaching the motor. So I checked each set of pickups with the engine underframe upside down in a clamping device (a pair of bookends) and discovered that, in my case, the Hornby pickups were not touching the backs of the treads as it appeared that they were! Just going through each set and then making sure they were reliably so fixed (so not changing their position when I inverted the engine) cleared up about 3 reasons for failure. Then, on the track, without coupling rods, further problems of this nature were eliminated, the track itself not being particularly conductive! In summary, the current does need to get through, otherwise a 'bind' may just be a non-transmission problem.

I am of course, in my case, dealing with RTR conversion, and it seems to me to be a feather in the cap of RTR manufacturers that their processes lead to such reliability. Then we P4 types come and muck it up!


Return to “Trains: Model and Prototype”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest