Slowing down a Hornby Smoky Joe
Jo Martin
speeds. Does anyone know of regearing information, or perhaps an
onboard voltage reducer to stop it running 4 times as fast as anything
else?
TIA
Jo
David Westerman
Go DCC, fit a decoder and re-set the maximum voltage using a few keystrokes.
By far the easiest solution and another less publicised advantage of going
digital.
Dave W.
John Sullivan
<j...@nospamhereihug.co.nz> writes
Do what I did with a Tri-ang "Nellie".
Replace the awful wheels with Romfords. You can use the original
coupling rod screws to fix the original coupling rods to the wheels. If
you use Romford's 1/8" axles you can get "top-hat" axle bushes to fit in
the axle-holes in the chassis. South Eastern Finecast do a motor mount
for something to replace the X04, and I used a Romford 60:1 gearset.
Drill a 1.8 mm hole through the shaft of a Kadee No. 20 coupler and use
an 8BA bolt to screw the coupling in the original coupling fixing hole.
Nellie now runs very slowly. It still won't pull much, however.
--
John Sullivan
OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html
My next scenery project: model a coalmine's slag heap tip in 4mm scale.
Mark Dickerson
> From: "Jo Martin"
> > I'd like the Hornby Smoky Joe to run at slightly more realistic
> > speeds. Does anyone know of regearing information, or perhaps an
> > onboard voltage reducer to stop it running 4 times as fast as
anything
> > else?
> Go DCC, fit a decoder and re-set the maximum voltage using a few
keystrokes.
> By far the easiest solution and another less publicised advantage of
going
> digital.
Alternatively (and more cheaply) add some weight? There's not a lot of
extra room in the body, but Liquid Lead or something could be used.
Personally, I improved the running of my Pug by switching to a
Gaugemaster feedback handheld controller. It's not quite as meteoric
anyway - the problem now is some stalling on pointwork at lower speeds,
which I suppose I could fix by building one of the small tenders used on
the prototype and adding pickups. Performance still not quite good as
I'd like, but I'm in two minds as to re-gearing as presumably if you're
sticking with the existing motor the worm will have to be changed when
the current one wears out.
Mark.
John Turner
"Jo Martin" wrote
Could you not fit a electrical resistor in the circuit somewhere? Don't ask
me for ratings because it would be beyond me, but I suspect it would work.
John.
PhilD
I get beautiful running from two of these machines, just by being
careful how much I turn up the controller, and keeping wheels and
track clean. My controller is a Gaugemaster product, but I cannot
remember what type.
Hope this helps.
PhilD
--
<><
Jo Martin
The Smokey Joe already has as much lead as I can get into it, and
fitting Kadees was an absolute bitch - I had to build a new platform
at each end in order to get the coupling at the right height. As for
DCC - I'm not ready to spend that much yet, but it is an idea...
It does stall over points occasionally (Atlas) but that's probably
because they have too much paint on them. I wanted to run it slower
so that I can run 2 trains on the same loop. At the moment it catches
up a bit quick.
It will pull at least 10 trucks (on the flat) - and most of them have
at least four 4 inch nails as ballast weight. The problem is when it
attempts the 1 in 25 gradient - wheelspin about 15 inches up the
grade.. Needs more weight, but as it's full of lead then maybe DU is
the only answer.
I'm still trying to slow it down.....
Jo
John Sullivan
<j...@nospamhereihug.co.nz> writes
>It will pull at least 10 trucks (on the flat) - and most of them have
>at least four 4 inch nails as ballast weight. The problem is when it
>attempts the 1 in 25 gradient - wheelspin about 15 inches up the
>grade.. Needs more weight, but as it's full of lead then maybe DU is
>the only answer.
In my opinion, 1 in 25 is too steep. 1 in 50 is the maximum incline I
would use.
--
John Sullivan
OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html
My next scenery project: model a coalmine's slag heap in 4mm scale.
Mark W
"John Sullivan" <jo...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0dFE06P7VMo$EA...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk...
> In message <3fa0bcb2...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz>, Jo Martin
> <j...@nospamhereihug.co.nz> writes
> >It will pull at least 10 trucks (on the flat) - and most of them have
> >at least four 4 inch nails as ballast weight. The problem is when it
> >attempts the 1 in 25 gradient - wheelspin about 15 inches up the
> >grade.. Needs more weight, but as it's full of lead then maybe DU is
> >the only answer.
>
> In my opinion, 1 in 25 is too steep. 1 in 50 is the maximum incline I
> would use.
What's the steepest prototype gradient?
K.D.Ba...@lboro.ac.uk
Well, one of the standard gauge heavy rail companies with the steepest
gradients is the Sudost Bahn in Switzerland at 5% ( 1 in 20). Originally
contructed with a weird type of rack that was quickly abandoned in favour of
adhesion only.
A few pictures/details at:
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/list/switzerland/switzerland_sob.html
http://www.trainlgb.com/album/sob/sob.php
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/list/switzerland.html#37
--
Cheers, Keith. elm/lynx staffi
John Turner
"Mark W" wrote
> What's the steepest prototype gradient?
The climb up to Goathland on the NYMR is regarded as severe and that is
1:49.
John.
Ashley Sanders
>
> Well, one of the standard gauge heavy rail companies with the steepest
> gradients is the Sudost Bahn in Switzerland at 5% ( 1 in 20). Originally
> contructed with a weird type of rack that was quickly abandoned in favour of
> adhesion only.
I think the Hopton incline on the Cromford & High Peak was 1 in 14. It
started out as cable hauled but also quickly reverted to adhesion only.
A multi-meadia CD-ROM called something like Trains and Trails featuring
recollections of the C&HPR has, I think, some footage of the last train
up the incline.
Ashley.
MartinS
That was originally cable-hauled, though not on the same alignment.
One time I was at Goathland, The Schools Class 4-4-0 had to stop on the
gradient before the station due to a signal malfunction. It took a great
deal of huffing and puffing to restart and reach the station.
--
Martin S.
Gregory Procter
John Turner wrote:
In Germany, the DRG experimented in the late 1920s with using large tank
locomotives on the various rack lines they had inherited around Germany.
Their conclusion was that gradients up to 1:15 were more economically
worked using normal 2-10-2T or 0-10-0T locos, 1:10 and steeper by rack
locomotives and those in between dependent on curvature, route etc.
This means I can legitimately use 2-10-2Ts to pull 3 wagon trains on my
branch line :-)
Regards,
Greg.P.
Spyke
>What's the steepest prototype gradient?
>
mentioned elsewhere, there were steeper gradients on more minor lines.
--
Spyke
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. The opinions I express do
not necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.
Mark W
"Spyke" <ne...@spyke.org.uk> wrote in message
news:5DpUkfEO7Vo$Ew...@gawain.bughunter.co.uk...
> >
> >What's the steepest prototype gradient?
> >
> Steepest main-line gradient in the UK is the Lickey, at 1 in 37. As
> mentioned elsewhere, there were steeper gradients on more minor lines.
What about going into city thameslink station?
Arthur Figgis
MartinS <m...@my.place> wrote:
>"John Turner" <nos...@myplace.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Mark W" wrote
>>
>>> What's the steepest prototype gradient?
>>
>> The climb up to Goathland on the NYMR is regarded as severe and that
>> is 1:49.
>
>That was originally cable-hauled, though not on the same alignment.
Quite significantly not on the same alignment! It is more than a
realignment, being a totally new railway from just outside Grosmont to
a mile or so south of Goathland.
--
Arthur Figgis
Surrey Interested in the
UK Hull & Barnsley Railway?
http://www.hullandbarnsleyrailway.org.uk
MartinS
> Ashley Sanders <a.sa...@mccx.acy.ukz> typed:
>>>> What's the steepest prototype gradient?
>>
>> I think the Hopton incline on the Cromford & High Peak was 1 in 14.
> It also had the tightest curve (55yards radius).
> http://www.goingloco.neave.com/highpeak/part1.html
55yards = 26 inches at 1:76!
That's a great site on the GCR, BTW.
On a summer Saturday in 1963, I rode a Bournemouth-Bradford 10-coach
through train (boarding at Oxford) via the GCR, Sheffield, Penistone and
Halifax. From what I remember, the loco attached at Banbury (I don't
know what it was) worked through to Bradford Exchange; it required a
banker on the gradient near Halifax.
--
Martin S.
Chris Wilson
"Mark W" <mark.w...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bnrohh$147jpb$1...@ID-182137.news.uni-berlin.de...
Or that bit of track that runs into Lewisham (Hither Green Line) by St
Johns.
--
All the best,
Chris Wilson
That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply
address is blackholed)
http://www.britwar.co.uk - British Wargames
http://www.the-dormouse.org - (coming soon the Dormouse Line 4mm Model
Railway)
Stu
"Chris Wilson" <bou...@britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bnrt58$15dcle$1...@ID-163332.news.uni-berlin.de...
The Hunrucksbahn from Boppard in Germany has, I believe, a gradient in parts
as steep as 1 in 16 (worked by diesel loco and two coaches - quite a sight)
Stu
John Sullivan
<bou...@britwar.co.uk> writes
>
>"Mark W" <mark.w...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:bnrohh$147jpb$1...@ID-182137.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> "Spyke" <ne...@spyke.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:5DpUkfEO7Vo$Ew...@gawain.bughunter.co.uk...
>> > >
>> > >What's the steepest prototype gradient?
>> > >
>> > Steepest main-line gradient in the UK is the Lickey, at 1 in 37. As
>> > mentioned elsewhere, there were steeper gradients on more minor lines.
>>
>> What about going into city thameslink station?
>>
>
>Or that bit of track that runs into Lewisham (Hither Green Line) by St
>Johns.
>
Chris Wilson
> >>
> >
> >Or that bit of track that runs into Lewisham (Hither Green Line) by St
> >Johns.
> >
> The bit that runs past St Johns station is only 1 in 45.
Bloomin' eck ... it looks worse and on those rare occasions when I've been
down it - felt worse ...
... except once, when whilst standing a rather charming lady broke my
'fall'.
Jo Martin
wrote:
In NZ , we have the following:
The Rewanui Incline, maximum gradient of 1 in 26, 3½ miles (5
kilometres) long, opened in 1914, (Fell) centre-rail removed in late
1966, closed in late 1980's.
So 1 in 25 is prototypical (well almost)
Incidentally other Fell railways are as steep as 1 in 15, but as far
as I know were never used by normal traffic.
Jo
>
>
MartinS
>>> >It will pull at least 10 trucks (on the flat) - and most of them
>>> >have at least four 4 inch nails as ballast weight. The problem
>>> >is when it attempts the 1 in 25 gradient - wheelspin about 15
>>> >inches up the grade.. Needs more weight, but as it's full of
>>> >lead then maybe DU is the only answer.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, 1 in 25 is too steep. 1 in 50 is the maximum
>>> incline I would use.
>>
>>What's the steepest prototype gradient?
> In NZ , we have the following:
>
> The Rewanui Incline, maximum gradient of 1 in 26, 3½ miles (5
> kilometres) long, opened in 1914, (Fell) centre-rail removed in late
> 1966, closed in late 1980's.
>
> So 1 in 25 is prototypical (well almost)
>
> Incidentally other Fell railways are as steep as 1 in 15, but as
> far as I know were never used by normal traffic.
See http://www.thecog.com/pr1.html - max. gradient 37.4% (1 in 2.67).
Steam-operated since 1869 - one coach per loco, speed approx. 2 mph.
--
Martin S.
K.D.Ba...@lboro.ac.uk
Arthur Figgis <arthur_...@invalid.bigfoot.com.invalid> wrote:
>As Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:54:18 -0500 appeared fresh and rosy-fingered,
>MartinS <m...@my.place> wrote:
>
>>"John Turner" <nos...@myplace.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The climb up to Goathland on the NYMR is regarded as severe and that
>>> is 1:49.
>>
>>That was originally cable-hauled, though not on the same alignment.
>
>Quite significantly not on the same alignment! It is more than a
>realignment, being a totally new railway from just outside Grosmont to
>a mile or so south of Goathland.
The originally cable-hauled is more than 1:49, surely. Seemed
like it to me when I walked up it!..
Arthur Figgis
rosy-fingered, K.D.Ba...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
That's what I mean. The cable line was a maximum of [reaches for book]
1 in 10, though after closure part of it was steepened to test a South
American rack loco.
The current route is a totally different line which just happens to
link the same places, and I thought someone who hasn't been there
might get the impression from the OP that the Grosmont - Goathland
line was somehow adapted for adhesion working, which it wasn't. The
incline was only part of the route.
--
Arthur Figgis
GLANVILLE CARLETON
diodes in the feed to the motor? That should drop the voltage down so
'Smokey Joe' should run a bit slower. Crude but effective.
>
>
>:
>
>> >
Gregory Procter
GLANVILLE CARLETON wrote:
How about ten diodes in series? (drop 6.5 volts ;-)
John Sullivan
<pro...@ihug.co.nz> writes
impression that you needed to apply a minimum voltage for a motor to
start, and if you reduce the maximum voltage you are going to supply you
thereby reduce the range of voltages through which you can control the
locomotive.
That is why I prefer to regear my locomotives and use a slower-running
motor.
Keith Norgrove
<jo...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>How about ten diodes in series? (drop 6.5 volts ;-)
>>
>Do motors really start turning when you apply voltage?
Usually, they certainly won't start without it. <g>
> I was under the
>impression that you needed to apply a minimum voltage for a motor to
>start, and if you reduce the maximum voltage you are going to supply you
>thereby reduce the range of voltages through which you can control the
>locomotive.
Yes indeed, reducing the max voltage will cut down the maximum speed
but it does nothing for the minimum, which is usually more important
for an industrial shunter.
>
>That is why I prefer to regear my locomotives and use a slower-running
>motor.
For a loco like Smoky Joe a High Level kits 108:1 gearbox with a
Mashima 1020 should do nicely. Might have to build a new chassis for
it. And all this will cost much more than the loco. So better just buy
a High Level kit for an industrial shunter, enjoy building it and have
a real nice loco.
Keith
Make friends in the hobby.
Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/>
Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
GLANVILLE CARLETON
Norgrove) wrote:
I agree, but I gathered from the original mailing that the Smokey Joe
was on a 'tail-chasing' layout and kept on overhauling the lead loco.
'Smokey Joe' would hardly be my choice for a good slow runner either,
but my elderly Jintys (25+ years old) are both superb crawlers, but
perhaps my pulse width controllers may have something to do with that.
I use the same principle with my cars -I don't consider them run in
until they get at least 100 thou on the clock :-)l
>
>Yes indeed, reducing the max voltage will cut down the maximum speed
>but it does nothing for the minimum, which is usually more important
>for an industrial shunter.
>>
>>
Enzo Matrix
> 'Smokey Joe' would hardly be my choice for a good slow runner either
Oh, I dunno. At the Norwich MRC exhibition earlier this year, I was watching
a layout when a young lad asked the operators if they would run his new
Smokey Joe, which he had just bought. They did so and it ran superbly, far
better than the layout's own. It happily hauled five coaches at little more
than a crawl. On being questioned, the lad said that he had paid £16 for it,
which was a bargain by anyone's standards. Cue both operators dashing off to
buy one each!
--
Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Chris Wilson
news:106779395...@damia.uk.clara.net...
> GLANVILLE CARLETON
> > 'Smokey Joe' would hardly be my choice for a good slow runner either
. On being questioned, the lad said that he had paid £16 for it,
My best ... £8 for a semi-detailed Mainline Collett ... I've had it for 12
months now and it just keeps getting better.
Gregory Procter
John Sullivan wrote:
> In message <3FA45F42...@ihug.co.nz>, Gregory Procter
> <pro...@ihug.co.nz> writes
> >
> >
> >GLANVILLE CARLETON wrote:
> >
> >> Back to the point, team. What's wrong with putting two opposing
> >> diodes in the feed to the motor? That should drop the voltage down so
> >> 'Smokey Joe' should run a bit slower. Crude but effective.
> >
> >How about ten diodes in series? (drop 6.5 volts ;-)
> >
> Do motors really start turning when you apply voltage?
Well, at a guess, the Hornby motor should start turning at 2.5-3 volts.
> I was under the
> impression that you needed to apply a minimum voltage for a motor to
> start,
Exactly. But if you supply pulse width modulated voltage (12 volts for short
periods followed by 0 volts in proportion) you can cause the motor to revolve
at slower speeds than that 'natural' starting voltage.
> and if you reduce the maximum voltage you are going to supply you
> thereby reduce the range of voltages through which you can control the
> locomotive.
Certainly.
You problem (:-)) is that the prototype probably had a speed range of
4-30mph while your model has (pure guess here) a speed range of 30-200mph.
You might use the 30-60mph speed range but the 60-200mph range tends to look
out of place on the services a little tank locomotive gets used on.
>
>
> That is why I prefer to regear my locomotives and use a slower-running
> motor.
Sure, you probably also fit new valve gear, soldered brass chassis with
compensation, Alex Jackson wheels and a white metal body with lost wax brass
details and do a beautiful job of airbrushing, lining and weathering, but I'm
assuming Glanville is not yet at that stage. ;-)
Regards,
Greg.P.
John Sullivan
<pro...@ihug.co.nz> writes
>
>
>> That is why I prefer to regear my locomotives and use a slower-running
>> motor.
>
>Sure, you probably also fit new valve gear, soldered brass chassis with
>compensation, Alex Jackson wheels and a white metal body with lost wax brass
>details and do a beautiful job of airbrushing, lining and weathering, but I'm
>assuming Glanville is not yet at that stage. ;-)
What? For a loco that cost less than a tenner? You jest!
I tend to use Romford Wheels, top-hat bushes in the original chassis
with no compensation, ....
(I thought "Alex Jackson" was couplings?)
>
>Regards,
>Greg.P.
Gregory Procter
John Sullivan wrote:
> In message <3FA5463F...@ihug.co.nz>, Gregory Procter
> <pro...@ihug.co.nz> writes
> >
> >
> >> That is why I prefer to regear my locomotives and use a slower-running
> >> motor.
> >
> >Sure, you probably also fit new valve gear, soldered brass chassis with
> >compensation, Alex Jackson wheels and a white metal body with lost wax brass
> >details and do a beautiful job of airbrushing, lining and weathering, but I'm
> >assuming Glanville is not yet at that stage. ;-)
>
> What? For a loco that cost less than a tenner? You jest!
Frequently ;-)
Hopefully with sufficient content to not waste everyones time.
>
>
> I tend to use Romford Wheels, top-hat bushes in the original chassis
> with no compensation, ....
I added compensation/springing to one axle of an 0-4-0 after initially building it
rigid, the running improvement was such that I'd never build any other way now.
Adding top-hat bushes to a sloppy plastic frame will reduce wear but also stop
that fourth wheel from touching the rail!
>
>
> (I thought "Alex Jackson" was couplings?)
OK - who is the wheel fellah?
Jim Guthrie
<pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> (I thought "Alex Jackson" was couplings?)
>
>OK - who is the wheel fellah?
Jackson was actually Jackson Products, marketed by W&H I believe.
Their best known products were their rolling stock wheels which were
supplied for 16.5mm and 18mm gauge to BRMSB standards. Many is the
Airfix kit which had Jackson wheel sets running in Peco cup bearings
melted into the plastic axleguards :-)
Jackson also did couplings and some other bits and pieces.
Jim.
Gregory Procter
Jim Guthrie wrote:
I was thinking locos - lots of spokes, crank-pins etc.