Hobby11

Actually SteveM6, the motor fault occurred with both the Hornby and GM controller with the OP, so not as clear cut as you like to make it out! Anyhow we'll see what GM say.

Have there? Do you have a link to your source? I've been using them for decades and never had any spikes, they've controlled a variety of locos with all sorts of motor types including coreless Z and N gauge ones perfectly.

As all of them have been "late" perhaps it would be best if we judged it on 3 months after the last one was released, rather than when the seasons happen... In which case Hornby have still got a few weeks!

If the other locos run OK but that one trips the controller then it sounds like that loco is shorting. It could be something as simple as having picked up a piece of metal such as a track pin. Check the underside carefully.

Think I'll just give up on these two threads as well! ;)

No I hadn't but with two threads and numerous posts I'm nit surprised I missed it! I'm not asking others, I'm asking him if he's had any issues since reverting to a single oval. He hadn't last time we heard but that was a day or two back. Hence I asked for an update. As I said before it would have been be better locking one thread but it's probably too late for that now!

It'll be interesting to see if they have any discounted Arnold stock at Warley like they did last year. Reading all the independent reviews of "Black Friday" sales it seems they are just a con anyhow, either old stock as said above or stuff that's been cheaper during the year but not sold so try again and make it look as if it's cheap. Another Americanism come to haunt us (pun intended!)...

I agree with that (RAF's comment above, new post arrived too quickly!), hence I suggested the back to basics single loop solution. I know Curly said that since he'd done that he hadn't experienced any more issues, is that still the case? Someone did ask many moons ago about his location as well, connected with the "spike" suggestion, TBH an electricity spike is not something I've ever had here in the UK but it could be if he's overseas or somewhere remote, did he ever clarify that as well?

Re the "ballast spreader", you can make your own, they are just a simple box with a slot in the bottom, a few lengths of plasticard and Bob's your uncle!

And there's the puzzle, no-one else seems to be having motor failures at the level Curly has, I believe one or two (out of a lot) have had armature issues, but that's about it. He could be unlucky and keep getting all the duff motors Hornby have or it could be something else, hence the current "one oval" check. We'll have to wait and see.

With such issues it's best, as I suggested, to go back to basics and do a process of elimination, hence I said to remove the inner circuit altogether. Rule One of Fault Finding. Then run the locos and controllers and see what happens. If nothing then it's a fault with the wiring or faulty points. However it seems people just want to overcomplicate things. I give up.

I did think about that, but I don't like the way the layout is wired so my suggestion is to go back to basics. A miswire can burn out an electric motor. We know that he has used two controllers and its happened with both. We also know that it's affected more than one loco, even when they've been fixed. Hence I'm reluctant to accept its a controller or faulty loco issue. The wiring, to me, seems odd and as it's an intermittent issue points towards it happening when the points are set in a certain way. Lastly no-one else seems to have the same issues. So I suggest back to basics, process of elimination, remove the inside oval altogether along with sidings and run it fir a while as a simple oval and two sidings. If nothing happens then it rules out controller or loco faults and points towards a wiring issue.

That's what I thought, though that's what is suggested on that link to the 00 trackmat! It's not the way I'd do it. Though I wouldn't use one controller on a double track oval either! I've just finished laying the track on my double track oval and have insulated joiners on the two crossovers connecting the two ovals. Belt and braces, I know, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Even then I have to ensure they are wired the same way so I can transfer a loco from one to the other by having the two controllers set at the same speed, but that's basic stuff which I learned 55 years ago when I was 10!

Thanks, RAF, what a shame. Is it possible to lock one thread with a link to the other?

It's a reasonable comment, but random motor failures could also be as a result of a short circuit, and I'm not so keen on the "controller issue" several of you are pushing, as from what he's said on the other thread it's happened when using either of the controllers he has, that too me is very unlikely (two different makes showing exactly the same issue?!!), as is the mains power surge as that would also affect other household appliances at the same time which haven't been reported. Sorry, but I'm still of the opinion the issue is with the way the layout is wired and/or a track fault (faulty point for example) giving a short circuit that's frying the motors. May I make a suggestion to Curly52? Remove the inside circuit altogether (actually remove it!), just have the one power supply (by the station) and remove the others, then play trains for a while just using the outer circuit and sidings and see if you have any motor issues. If you still get motor burnouts with just an oval and sidings then it's a controller issue, if not it's wiring. PS if this is still about the same issue, motor failures, why have we two threads? Best to combine them?

Thanks, for that link, I was trying to find it! Personally I'd get a second controller, there's no point in having a double oval and one controller, it defeats the whole object of having two ovals! And it simplyfies the wiring.

Thanks for that! The first comment I'd make is that you have what is called a "double track oval", two separate circuits where you can run a train on each independently. Therefore if you are trying to run the whole layout using just one controller then it's inevitable that you'll have issues. A double track layout like that needs two controllers, the Gaugemaster D would be OK, or you need another controller similar to yours, one powers the outside circuit and one the inside. Looking at the layout you only need two feeds, one for each circuit, I'd put them at the front, by the station, you have one there on the outside circuit, you just need another on the inside circuit. I suspect the issues have been caused because you're trying to run the whole layout on one controller which doesn't really work.. The way to look at feeds for DC is to feed at the tow end of the points. So if you look at that layout you will see that if you put the feeds (one from each controer) on the straight by the station before (to the left of) the crossover the electricity will feed all the sidings and the crossover. There is no need for any more feeds if you are running two controllers. Hope that makes sense and sorry that I've been the bearer of bad tidings in that you'll have to spend some more money! One thing, though, is that you'll get to run two trains at once!

If it has a crossover between the two you could possibly have a short circuit if the crossover points are set a certain way. I tend to put double insulating rail joiners between the crossover points to make the two circuits electrically separate. It's difficult to diagnose issues like this without seeing the layout itself, would it be possible to get a photo of it and mark where the track feeds are?

Simple answer is "No"! It's due to the design of the track, to make the rail look smaller they've used code 80 rail with an extra "foot" and embedded the bottom of the rail in the sleeper mesh. It makes it easy to bend and then stay put, unlike ordinary flexi track, but the downside is that you can't slide the rail easily and it's a bit of a faff to cut out the odd sleepers. As an alternative Tillig do flexi track which is conventional code 83 and will match Hornby's track.

Judging by the off/on nature of the failures I'm wondering if it's a short circuit causing a temporary overload as P-Henny says, some sort of spike. Do you have a track diagram showing where the track feeds are? As said it's unusual for there to be motor failures in the first place, having six in three different locos is highly unusual, two different controllers and getting the same issue to me points to some sort of track issue.

A Jinty could have the issue as it has a front splasher (wide tyres and larger than scale flanges on the wheel could cause clearance issues), but we'll have to wait and see!

It mainly affects locos with outside cylinders and valvegear. As mentioned earlier it's a compromise for RTR to allow sharper curves, wider wheels and thicker connecting rods. Although the headline figure is 2mm (by my measurements) in fact, as we only normally see one side it's only a noticeable difference of 1m, so if you look down the side of the train you probably won't see it. From head on it is noticeable if you are aware of it, on the affected locos as the photos show. I suppose it's down to schematics but I would not call it an error as that implies it's a mistake, it isn't, it's deliberate, hence I use the word compromise.

Track laid and baseboard track joiners fitted, slowly getting there!

Must have missed all those people talking of true scale, the only ones I've seen were the scale/gauge ones, of which I'm one. I do feel, however you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I doubt most people would notice that the loco is 1mm wider than the coach when viewed from the side, it's simply a compromise that works. I do remember early on, before the launch of any stock the issue of over scale wheels and valve gear being discussed at length on the RMWeb Hornby TT120 thread and 3mm finescale modellers saying there would have to be compromise and those of us who wanted to model in TT120 agreeing but happy to accept the compromises as they would be less than they were in the 50s when Triang launched their range. As it turns out that's exactly what has happened. I'll leave you to it, I don't see any issue, though I accept finescale modellers might! grinning

I'm sorry but I don't see the same thing as you. For a start it's only certain stock which has the width compromise, the coaches are scale width, as I expect the forthcoming diesels will be. It's a compromise for locos with splashers and valve gear, not all stock. Triang had to do what they did because of the manufacturing constraints of the time, I don't remember much criticism at the time it was launched, same as I didn't when HD (00) was launched. We can't get round it physics of it, but I'd suggest that Hornbys TT120 models are a better compromise than 00 or TT3. Also where is this "true to scale" coming from, what I remember is that it's been pushed as true gauge/scale, which isn't the same thing. To take your argument to it's extreme, we accept plastic bodies instead of metal bodies, steam and diesel power is replaced by an electric motor. As I said it's the individual that has to accept the compromises, for me TT120 does it better than 00, TT3 and N.