Dad-1 - Workbench - West Bay Wagon Works

[6C]

That kit is a real survivor Geoff, I have one but I think I will buy some more. It is weird that the Dapol 16T mineral was built to the wrong wheelbase when they inherited the old Airfix kit with the correct proportions.

Yeh weird indeed, Airfix GMR RTR did have a dodgy 10ft open wagon too - as P130286 - ref: 54366-4 - but the Dapol RTR one seems to have come via Wrenn/dublo ancestors....

[Dad-1]

Another interesting one, again being built in a hurry for West Bay layouts
first public showing on 12th January. It's not that the wagons need to be
rushed, but the actual layout has to come back home for additional work
and that will fill available time as it involves fitting working lights.

Anywys, here we have the rather raw Ration 'Toad' - exactly What Toad it's
meant to represent is a little vague, I want a AA19, I think, but the allocation
numbers must be down in the shed.



This will be named 'Weymouth', but now my paint has gone all funny. It's a home
blend that I'll never be able to repeat and it's going stodgy, adding thinners just
stops it being a paint.



As you'll notice the paint wears off with handling - Oh for a few pots of 1980's
Humbrol paint !!

I have moved the chimney to where it should be although my books on GWR
wagons are so vague in comparison to my BR library. Next to add Kadees.

Geoff T.

[Dad-1]

Kadees on



Also a chance to see my 'New' mix for GWR grey. It's Humbrol grey 27 with an unmeasured
addition of Revell No.8 matt black. Still too grey, needs to be darker, but as the tinlet is
now full I'll have to use this for a while before adding more black. As the GWR grey seems
so variable it's not a problem. Now for re-painting the van body to that lighter grey on
the foot boards and chassis.


Geoff T.

[Bufferstop]

I don't know how pernickety the GWR would have been about the shades for goods stock. Whereas passenger vehicles would be marshalled into semipermanent sets and still show variation from newly painted to dire need of a repaint, goods stock was randomly distributed to the needs of the loads, so a pale mix of one of the colours would be unlikely to stand out against surrounding stock. Besides which goods stock was painted to protect the woodwork, passenger stock was painted to project the company image, even at the end of the 19th Century.

[glencairn]

- Oh for a few pots of 1980's
Humbrol paint !!
Geoff T.

I don't know about 1980s Humbrol paint, but today I have found a shop that stocks Humbrol paints. -- And it is an ordinary store, not a model shop.

Glencairn

[Dad-1]

Hi Glencairn,

I suppose if modellers are giving up on the current coloured paste
that passes for paint they need different outlets ?

Today I'm taking the HS-2 layout to the club rooms cellar and
will return with West Bay. It needs some time consuming work
on getting the Kadees working acceptably. I've been trying to
set-up the West Bay wagons on the shunting layout, but now
need to match the magnets ........... "The Kings Clothes" of
a product. We love the promise BUT ............................

More wagon work going on, but not taken any photos.

Geoff T.

[Bufferstop]

I'd love to know how out-of-the-box US models fair, assuming the come pre-fitted, or do American modellers have to fit their own? The height gauge seems to feature as an important item so do they have some fiddling to do?
It would have been so easy to standardise the NEM pocket further back, then produce European and KD couplers with longer shanks. The mini tensionlock can't be made any shorter and the gap between wagons is now glaringly obvious.

[Dad-1]

Hi Bufferstop,

The 'British' problem for Kadees is the magnetic wheel sets on such short wheelbase
wagons. There is a whole lot of tripe said about the height and the Kadee No.206
height gauge isn't that much good.
It's not the height of the knuckle that causes a problem so long as all, repeat ALL
are set at the same height. A mm higher, or lower isn't a problem at all, but all
ones wagons need to be harmonized to YOUR standard.
The critical thing is the trip pin (Kadee terminology) these are to be set to 0.8
above rail height, or just kissing the No.206 tool's foot plate. Again these all need
to be highly accurately set on all so fitted stock.

Having done all that you still have problems, all to do with magnet strength. I have
just spent an hour and a half using different spacers below the sleepers. Because
different manufacturers tracks have variances in sleeper thickness, let along the
use of differing rail profile. These small differences are NOT so small when setting
up Kadees. Take SMP track, that is 1.4 mm closer to your magnet than Peco code
100, with code 75 being different again. I found a small variance between Hornby
& Peco code 100, not enough to cause problems when used together on a layout,
but ANY small variance can influence your Kadees.

Then you have the difficulty of ALL couplings being firmly held on the wagon centre-line,
believe me even Bachmann show off centre fittings on much RTR. Not enough to influence
tension-locks, but easily enough cause Kadees to be unreliable.

A final variable becomes the lateral slack on wheel sets, this can allow a vehicle to track
slightly to one side or the other. Running the widest Back-to-back you can reduces this,
but every layout have variables and too tight will cause derailments.

Quite a lot to get right me thinks.

I have initially got pleasing results on West Bay that came home just after 15.00 Hrs
and had my attention until 17.20 ......... On just 1 magnet !!!

Geoff T.

[Bufferstop]

My modeling goes back far enough to have used the Hornby Dublo/Peco Simplex knuckle type coupling. It was a vastly overscale device that needed frequent straightening and tweaking and I suspect it would fail to couple most of the time on modern free running stock. When introduced there was probably nothing better, suitable for mass production, it had the advantage that you could lift one wagon from the middle of a train without a problem. They could be uncoupled magnetically provided the field was vertical, but they were equally as ugly as original tensionlock and could be tempremental when collecting a lone wagon, on a bad day you could end up chasing it to the buffers.

[luckymucklebackit]

Has anyone tried using the standard "N" gauge coupling on 00 gauge stock, the "N" gauge couple looks equally overscale on the stock for which it is intended (even more so perhaps) but it would look quite neat on a 00 gauge loco.

Jim

[Firefly16]

An interesting idea luckymucklebackit, especially if used with SR stock, but like the broad gauge, isn't it just a little bit too late?

[Dad-1]

Hi Jim,

Errr No, I tried working in 'N' once and it's just too small.
My saying is "If it 'aint fun, don't do it" and I didn't find
'N' fun !!!

I've spent many hours watching the Kadees, and making subtle adjustments.
I hope I've found a way of using them with a high degree of operational reliability.
For 'West Bay' I must have 100% free shunting available.

To prevent trains being broken as they just pass over our magnets I need more
wagon braking. Having used a tight brake that caused occasional wheel locking,
but still to enough hold, I've now gone to brakes on all axles, but with each being
slightly softer. The extra drag keeps couplings locked together, even at quite slow
speeds, but at times it may be necessary to move over the magnets a little faster
than I like....... As the train lengths can't exceed 4 + a brake van, most locomotives
can pull against this increased resistance.

Today's work though has been fitting Kadees to the Heljan 1363 saddle tank. The NEM
pockets are too low and to compensate I've had to file some of the couplings fish-tail
on the upper level. Then replace that thickness on the underside by sticking on a thin
sliver of plastic. They now sit in line - a basic requirement.
More testing tomorrow ?


GeoffT.

[Bufferstop]

Having to do that makes a nonsense of the NEM pocket, but if manufacturers involved in the UK market can't even agree on the dimensions of the non patented slim tensionlock what chance do we have?

[Dad-1]

In a single word Bufferstop

NONE

I have reached the end of my tether with Kadees. I'm going to have a quick look
at their electro-magnets, we could probably get away with just one and keep one
fixed magnet where we do little more than drop the train.

Basically Kadees are not up to the job of single wagon BR wagon shunting. Just not
fit for purpose. My magnetic wand is 100% reliable at uncoupling exactly where I want,
so long as it's in comfortable arms reach. I'm currently thinking of running West Bay
using my wand and general stock of wagons, all of which have been converted for this
method.

It's at the stage where I will refuse to carry out further tests and experiments as the
problem is impossible to solve. There is NO chance where at times it's too much magnet,
and others too little.

A couple of pictures added to the West Bay layout thread ...... That little Heljan loco is
a beauty !!

Geoff T.

[Bufferstop]

Jim's thought on adopting or adapting the N gauge coupler to 00 would be history repeating itself. The original Triang tensionlock for 00 was the one that they had developed for their TT3 range, with virtually no change to the coupler, just the provision for the centre fixing on the 00 chassis. The original Triang (big ugly) chopper fitted onto a slotted plastic block with a horizontal rivet through it. When someone suggested changing the 00 to tensionlock someone else pointed out that the TT3 coupler would fit with minimal changes.