Bigglesof266 wrote:By GL I meant "Good Luck (with your decoder mod project" . Just been around the net so long all those as standard as a smiley acronyms are so familiar deployed in common use one considers them universally understood rather than elitist pretension.
I didn't pick up on that (oops). I've been on the net for a long time; in fact, since before smileys became standard. I was a very early adopter of the Betamax® smiley (it's the other way around). I was upset when the rest of the world finally standardised on the normal ones, but I didn't change my ways. (-:
Continuing, Bigglesof266 wrote:In case it came across differently, no aspersion was intended...
Sorry, that was my fault. I wasn't trying to be defensive, and didn't mean it to come across that way. We've probably both spent a similar amount of time studying our insulated points, realising in the same way that the design is sound and should actually work - as long as all the wheels of a loco come down and hit something. I have one set of two points facing away from each other which is a particular problem; the track top height on one of the rails seems to be a few microns lower than the one it's fishplated to, and the length of the loco so unfortunate, that the loco ends up with two diagonally opposite wheels sat on insulated crossings, and both other wheels on one side (and only one side) on the track. I can rock the chassis over that diagonal axis very, very slightly. Applying torque to the whole loco gets the flanges playing the game, and the train moves off.
The problem would be fixed completely if the wheels could move up and down at all. They can move left and right, and they can rotate on their axle, but there's no vertical compensation at all. They're as rigid as can be. I'm tempted to try a modification of the chassis such that the front wheels (which are the least loaded; it can sit pretty on the back four) can lift or drop by a millimetre or so, which should also fix the problem. That's if my DCC capacitor hack fails, though!