British N gauge: Nothing but frustration and technical issues

[Steven B]

It's worth checking that your wagons and coaches are free rolling. Even on new models some may be better then others. All it takes to put the brakes on a train is two or three wagons with wheels that rub.

Steven B

[Chris Morris]

Steven makes a good point. I had some Farish vans where the wheels were just lightly touching the underframe. The whole batch of this van were the same so I modified the lot and it made quite a difference.

You cannot check the wheels by just spinning them as that is not a real life check; you need to have the weight of the wagon on the wheels to see what is really happening. I found the best way is to let each item roll down a gentle slope. The difference between a free rolling wagon and one that is just a bit sticky soon becomes apparent. I tried this with all my stock, I found the previously mentioned batch of Farish wagons and also a few Dapol coaches hadn't quite got the wheels in perfectly. It's one little way to improve running.

[Roy L S]

I find weathered vans especially prone to having "sticky" wheels.

Roy

[Steven B]

Long trains are very much possible with British N; take two Farish diesels & 71 coaches:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4P4YBdrM

A few minutes later a single Union Mills 0-6-0 managed the whole train on its own.


Steven B.

[ntpntpntp]

...you are having problems with all of your new locomotives, yet the 23 years old Fleischmann gives no problem. Definitely seems to prove the necessity of running in a locomotive before putting it into service on the layout..

No, I agree with @njee20  it's a weight and traction issue.  Running locos in isn't going to improve haulage. 

So many of the British N models I encounter seem very light-weight compared to my European models. A Fleischmann BR 218 has decent weight and traction tyres.

There's a lot to be said for the old Arnold metal bodied steam locos, many of those are seriously powerful haulers with the twin benefits of weight and traction tyres       I've noted how some folk say their old Farish metal bodied steamers out-pull newer models, though of course the Grafars never had tyres.

[njee20]

I've got very high expectations for my Revolution 92 I must say. Given Revolution wagons are NMRA weighted, I really hope the 92 is correspondingly meaty and can manage a decent load. I've got 24 IPAs one needs to haul... 

On the HOAs I've removed the hopper bays (they just clip off), and I'm going to dry drilling the chassis there to take some weight out, it seems pretty thick; I'll be fitting loads, so any holes into the inside of the hopper won't matter! There comes a point though where the effort involved and risk of irrepairable damage outstrips the benefit and just running fewer is the answer!

[Dorsetmike]

I've been modelling in N gauge since Autumn 1974, yes there are a few frustratins and technical issues but that's part of the challenge of working at 1:148, as we used to say in the RAF - "If ya can't take the joke ya shouldn't have joined"

[dannyboy]

...you are having problems with all of your new locomotives, yet the 23 years old Fleischmann gives no problem. Definitely seems to prove the necessity of running in a locomotive before putting it into service on the layout..

No, I agree with @njee20  it's a weight and traction issue.  Running locos in isn't going to improve haulage. 

It was only a thought, especially as some posters seem to think that new wheels might be a problem.

[njee20]

I can see a minuscule difference if there's any tightness in the gears out of the box and any low friction coating on wheels getting worn off, but I don't think there'll be a material improvement.

I wonder if track type makes a difference. If you use (for example) code 40 the contact patch is markedly smaller than code 80; I don't know if that would make things better or worse.

[NeMo]

Steven makes a good point. I had some Farish vans where the wheels were just lightly touching the underframe. The whole batch of this van were the same so I modified the lot and it made quite a difference.

How did you modify them? I've got at least a dozen 12T vans for which this is true! At first I thought it was just one of them, but I went through the boxes of vans, and at least half don't roll. So absolutely, my locos 'drag' them along the track.

@ECMLfan, the newer specification, DCC-ready Dapol 66 is very lightweight, as others have said. Looks nice, and hauls smooth-rolling stock just fine. But anything more tricky, find it a trifle anaemic. FWIW, Farish locos do seem to be more reliable haulers. Dapol are a mixed bag, and the original 66, which had a metal chassis, was a decent hauler, if noisy by modern standards.

Cheers, NeMo

[Roy L S]

I can see a minuscule difference if there's any tightness in the gears out of the box and any low friction coating on wheels getting worn off, but I don't think there'll be a material improvement.

My V2s improved noticeably after they had run sufficiently to remove chemical blacking from the treads.

I guess I would raise a slightly different question anyway, which is to ask if there is really any need to weight the wagons quite that much to start with if people are finding it necessary to drill the weight out or otherwise remove it?

I have only my 12 Class B Tanks to go by (six Sturgeons too but never all run together). My experience of those is that my Farish steam locos, happy with very reasonable trains of other makes of wagons struggle with even seven or eight of them. Also, such is the weight of the wagons, when all 12 are coupled together behind a heavier diesel, when they actually stay coupled I get an oscillation through the train as couplings between them tighten and loosen. It is so powerful that when the wagon gaps close the oscillation actually "shoves" the loco! Now I love these wagons, they are exquisite, but I am afraid that NMRA standards or not they are just too heavy, they would be fine with half the weight inside the tanks, the issue with mine is I can't open the tanks to remove them, and this is made even more impossible if the weight is an integral part of the model.

Just an alternative thought...

Roy

[njee20]

I totally agree. I've said it several times that having NMRA spec wagons isn't much use when we don't have NMRA spec locos! It's why I have high hopes for the 92. The Pendolino is a weighty beast, I really hope the 92 follows suit. Otherwise it feels like a pretty fundamental failing. I genuinely don't know if NMRA standards, being predominently for the US, are flawed when applied to UK rolling stock. Over light stock is obviously a pain, but I've got plenty of (mainly Farish) wagons which run beautifully at a much lighter weight.

There are numerous reports of people removing (or wanting to) weight from the TEAs, class Bs and Cargowagons to get them to a more 'sensible' UK weight. Whilst it's a great design feature having a cast metal chassis on the HOA it has left me frustrated that I can't run a decent, even if nowhere near excessive rake. I'd possibly even counsel Ben and Mike to be cautious with their PDFs of suggested diagrams, as they showed one with 19 on, and unless you've got a CJM 66 that ain't happenin'. That said, I'm building for a prospective layout, so I've tested on a long plank of wood, which may not be wholly representative, and maybe lots of people are running 25 wagons without issue!

I want to keep fiddling with mine, partially through pig headedness, but it would be nice not to, and like I say I'm a bit nervous about some future rakes.

[stevewalker]

I've got at least a dozen 12T vans for which this is true! At first I thought it was just one of them, but I went through the boxes of vans, and at least half don't roll. So absolutely, my locos 'drag' them along the track.

Just pretend that the crew have pinned down some of the brakes to descend an incline

[Roy L S]

Having found it impossible to remove the end-caps from my red Mobil Class Bs previously, motivated by recent comments on this topic I have just grasped the nettle and tried the same on my one and only plain black one. This time, gently with a scalpel blade I managed it both ends so could access the weight. However it did not come out willingly, I had to be far more brutal than I wanted to be but success in the end and no damage I couldn't correct (a twist in the ladders). It turns out that even the weight is beautifully made!

Anyway, onto the track and even with no weight at all it runs quite beautifully and in fact the weight now is more in keeping with the Farish CovHop which is of similar size. It is now running behind the loco of a decentish train and bearing the entire weight of that through the coupling showing no signs of lifting or being pulled off the track.

I am not sure I dare attack any of my black Esso ones, but I have (for myself at least) proved the point that so much weight is unnecessary whether NMRA standard or otherwise.

Roy

[Kaput]

To me half the issue seems to be the rest of the world is still quite happy to use traction tires on locos while British modellers (in both major scales) kick up a fuss whenever the dreaded tires appear.
Combined with Revolution having wagons weighted to NMRA standards its a bit of a recipe for not getting on well. Although the question could be asked if it was Revolution that specified NMRA weights or if Rapido being used to the US market just made them that way out of habit. Not sure if anything Revolution has released yet has been made by anyone other than Rapido.