2mmFS Long Melford

[justin1985]

After the very sad news of Bill Blackburn's death in the winter I posted some pictures of his layout "Long Melford". A few months ago I had some conversations with members of the MRC in London/2mm Scale Association, who were helping his family with his modelling equipment and tools. I  heard that no one with both the space and inclination to finish the layout had been in touch with his family. One thing led to another, and after very generous help from Mike Randall crating it up and moving it, the layout is now occupying my garage! (excuse the spare mattress etc)

 

 

I've spent my modelling time over the last few weeks mainly taking stock of what there is and what needs to be done. The first thing I actually did was to sort through the two old briefcases full of research and construction notes that Bill had assembled. These include some very useful and neatly drawn sketches of mechanical aspects of the layout (this was very much Bill's forte) and meticulous plans of the full layout, as planned, as adapted, and more or less as built (so far). There are also scores of 6x4 photo prints of the location modelled. The whole lot now fills one of the very thick "presentation" binders.

 

 

I carefully measured to make sure the layout would fit in my garage (only just - it will only really be able to go up in its entirety when more of the stuff we're storing for friends is gone). Bill's plans show the layout more or less as he has built it so far. The only completed section is the bridge at Rodbridge - the Sudbury (south) end of Long Melford. There is then a short board containing a crossover, which also houses the electrical core of the layout, which is permanently wired to the bridge board, but only contoured rather than fully scenic-ed. The remaining boards (still crated up) have the return loops completed (slightly differently to the plan), but the fiendishly complicated junction hasn't really been begun yet. 

 

 

Obviously the layout doesn't include a station - the bridge was to the south of the station, and the junction to its north. This is clearly now Bill had intended to build the layout in the immediate future. However, I had a slight shock when I saw the pencil sketches for the two additional boards that were planned to include the station, and the maltings that stand next to it. Each of these boards was to be 750mm long. The total layout would therefore be 5.8m (19') long - much too big for my garage! 

 

So, in the short term I'm planning to make the layout functional in its current form. I've already spent several evenings finishing off the tracks on the traintable, which is finally complete. The traintable is a marvel of Bill's engineering, with a very positive mechanical locking system, interlocked with two microswitches at each end of each road to energise each track correctly as the mechanism locks it in. The table itself runs on three more of the small castors which you can see around the edge centring it, but it does sag a little on its way around, relying on the locking mechanism to pull the track surface up by quite a few mm when the brass pin engages with the plastic furniture corner block underneath - perhaps not ideal long term. So I think I'll have to add another two castors closer to the track connections to level it out a bit.

 

 

Although this fiddle board is wired through to a 9-pin serial cable socket, there doesn't seem to be a corresponding one on the main board yet, so I'll have to figure out the connections. The wiring area (not really a control panel) has been wired for a pair of PICtrollers but everything is so neatly tided and clipped in, its actually very tricky to trace back where other connections are made. I'll have to get hold of a meter with the ping on connection feature! 

 

Once I've got the electrics sorted out on the completed boards, I think the next aim will be to get it to a stage where through running is possible - but probably not with the full junction functional, at least in the first instance. I suspect that will be the time to take stock and consider whether the purely through-running configuration of the layout in its current "short" setup is a go-er. Otherwise, as I can't accommodate the ultimate length originally planned, I might need to revisit the plans to potentially further compress the scene/reduce the junction, to incorporate some form of the station and add operational interest. 

 

One step at a time though! I've promised Bill's family that I will exhibit the layout once its finished (or at least much more complete) - but they're well aware that this will take a good few years yet.

 

Justin

[Nigelcliffe]

Justin,

On some of my visits to Bill's house (previous to his last bungalow), he referred to the layout you currently possess as "Short Melford", and was clear that it would work as drawn, but the addition of the missing station element would convert it into the full "Long Melford".  
Its good that you have the reference documentation.   There may be some aerial photographs in the collection, I recall Bill took a flight with a neighbour over the area to do some extra research (one of his farming neighbours had a light aircraft). 

 

I'm pleased someone with the space to store things has taken on the layout.   It would have been a huge shame to have it either broken up, or re-laid as N gauge.   Putting together enough stock for the short form will be a fair bit of work in itself. 

 

 

- Nigel

[justin1985]

Thanks Nigel, thats really helpful. Its interesting to hear he referred to it as Short Melford.

 

Its certainly not short in absolute terms though, a full 4m in length (of the just over 5m length of my garage). Once the mattress and never-used bike are gone, there should be enough room for it to go up in its entirety, and leave enough room to still get to the workbench and the freezer etc. But further extension is out of the question, hence potentially altering the plans. I have no doubt it would work as drawn, but I wonder if it would provide enough operational interest (as both a home and exhibition layout) without a station? I do like a bit of shunting. 

 

Yes, there were a whole sheaf of prints of aerial photos of the row of terraced houses that run along Station Road in Melford - the model would depict the otherwise inaccessible rear view of them. 

 

I did buy a few boxes of "bits" from Bill's family when I collected the layout - including the two PICtrollers and a lot of half finished wagons. I think the family had other plans for the completed stock (I think some being display-cased, and some on loan to Copenhagen Fields). As it turns out, most of the wagons in the boxes I acquired are scratch built fish wagons, and Association cattle wagons, plus some big four opens. I'm certainly planning to concentrate on the pre-grouping period, but cross over slightly into the earlier LNER period (whereas I think Bill had been aiming for late 1940s, if I remember conversations with him correctly). Most these wagons should still be useful. I might need some help identifying the prototypes of some of the scratch built wagons! 

 

The only working 2mm locos I have at the moment are a J94 (finished as a generic industrial) and a J39, so that will probably be the main priority on the stock front. I've got a full selection of David E's kits, so there will be some J15s and Buckjumpers appearing at some point. Some Dapol Gresleys should serve as a stop-gap on the coach front until I have the chance to build some of David's 4 wheelers and some Bill Bedford GER bogie stock that I have in the gloat box.

 

Justin

[chris p bacon]

 there were a whole sheaf of prints of aerial photos of the row of terraced houses that run along Station Road in Melford - the model would depict the otherwise inaccessible rear view of them. 

 

Very interested in seeing this develop, If I'm right with the location a friend owned one of the cottages and we used to head to LM twice a year to make repairs, we used to walk a bit of the trackbed while eating lunch.

Always thought it would make an interesting model.

[Izzy]

. But further extension is out of the question, hence potentially altering the plans. I have no doubt it would work as drawn, but I wonder if it would provide enough operational interest (as both a home and exhibition layout) without a station? I do like a bit of shunting. 

 

 

Justin

 

Perhaps you could alter the track a bit at the junction - I can't remember how far it had got when I saw it - and fit in a small exchange yard in lieu of the station. Or even off the long top siding in the plan. I was sort of thinking of the sidings at Haughly where the MSLR joins. So wagons coming of the Bury branch could be left to go on to Cambridge etc.  Goods trains could reverse, Bury to Cambridge and visa versa. And of course Passenger trains could be 'held' at the junction signals awating the road to overcome the lack of a platform in which to pause.

 

Anyway, very glad it has survived. especially considering all the care that went into the baseboard construction, which is beautifully made to a high standard. Thanks for sharing more shots of it.

 

Izzy

[Nigelcliffe]

An idea for developing the station -  I think (quick adding up), that if the station were added, and the whole of the junction and reverse loop stored away, and replaced with another train-table assembly, that the whole would be around 4.5m, so might fit the garage.   That gives an operationally interesting option, but without the long runs of the reverse loops to "give a loco its legs".    I think the traintable could be linked with the hidden rear siding so that trains didn't just shuttle back-forth. 

 

Somewhere in Bill's collection of bits would be his home-made controllers.  These I think would be a better than Pictrollers, which have an indifferent reputation for 2mm use.  Bill's home-brew controller might be in Pentroller performance standards.   

 

 

 

- Nigel

[justin1985]

Thanks Nigel. I think it might well end up going down that route, but I'll see how I feel when some more track is down. The junction board, as it stands, only has the sleepers (PCB) glued down - no chair plates and only a few of the rails tack-soldered roughly in place. Unfortunately I didn't find a detailed track template or anything, only the broad outline sketches - so it might be tricky to reconstruct the exact configuration he had planned when laying the sleepers.

 

 

Alan Smith has done most of the sorting of Bill's workshop, but hadn't mentioned anything about home-made controllers. The box of "layout bits" included one Pentroller and two handheld PICtrollers. But the layout has very clearly been wired for the walk about PICtrollers. Perhaps a surprising decision if he had made better controllers himself. I'll try and ask Alan if I can.

 

Justin

[justin1985]

I thought people might be interested to see this intriguing video footage of the bridge scene, and level crossing, in 1961: East Anglian Film Archive

 

The crossing keeper was, she said, Princess Madeline Von Dembinska of Poland, who was waiting on her inheritance.

 

The video also gives some great shots of the operation of the crossing, and Class 31 diesel and 101 DMU crossing the bridge which Bill has modelled so well using David Eveleigh's etches. This particular crossing, at Rodbridge, has been compressed out of the model, but the identical one at Liston, north of Long Melford, is there at the north end of the layout. Bill built a wonderful delayed action mechanical system to operate the gates, currently powered by a 9v battery - he wrote up a four-gate version of this in the Association Magazine a few years ago. The scenics at this end of the layout, and the crossing keepers cottage, remain to be built.

 

Justin

 

----

Edited to correct link

Edited August 2, 2017 by justin1985

[chris p bacon]

The link didn't work for me.

[Adam]

The link didn't work for me.

 

Nor me, but if you go the the search page: http://www.eafa.org.uk/search.aspx and enter 98971 into the box the video comes up... with the URL Justin posted. Odd, but a delightful bit of film.

 

Adam

[EddieB]

Try this: http://www.eafa.org.uk/catalogue/98971

[2mm Andy]

Justin,

 

I'm really glad to see that the layout has gone to a good home. From my discussions with Alan Smith following Bill's death, there seemed to be a real risk at one point that the layout was destined to be broken up with only parts saved for posterity which would have been a terrible shame given the work Bill put into it. Taking on a layout designed and built by someone who is no longer with us can be quite a challenge, but I'm sure it will give you a lot of enjoyment in both finishing it off and operating it.

 

Btw, it's a class 105 DMU in the film, not a 101. Fascinating subject though! There is another similar film here.

 

Regards,

 

Andy

[Phil Copleston]

Try this: http://www.eafa.org.uk/catalogue/98971

 

What a delightful film! Full of railway and personal charm. I wonder whether she ever received her inheritence?

 

 

Edit: A Quick internet search shows that her real name (on her death certificate) was Carmen de Tesca von Dembinska, Princess of the Royal House of Lothringen-Rawicz. She had a son, Prince Adam von Dembiński who claimed he had won his legal case against the Polish government but had never been paid. This was an hereditary title of Count of Galicia from Emperor Josef II on August 2nd 1784. The title is now extinct. Just a little non-railway background!

Edited August 3, 2017 by Phil Copleston

[justin1985]

I've spent a good few hours on and off over the last few weeks trying to figure out the way that the layout is wired. In fact only the small board with the crossover was wired up fully by Bill - this was clearly intended to act as the electrical nucleus of the whole layout, containing sockets for the AC and DC power feeds, and connections for two PICtrollers on DIN sockets.

 

 

Now, while I'm actually OK-ish with electronic logic in terms of coding and programming, my mind tends to melt into a fuzzy mess when confronted with a cat's cradle of traditional wiring. I've never had a layout using more than one controller, and have been using DCC (Roco MultiMaus) with my modern image N gauge. Bill had wired everything up so incredibly neatly (with the absolute minimum of slack and plenty of cable ties) that its very difficult to keep track of what is connected to what.

 

 

I upgraded from an old analogue meter to a digital one with an audible connection buzzer, but even so I'm a bit stumped by the electrical switching for the crossover. The basic scheme seems to be that the main through line is wired red\black, and the loop blue\white, but the track at toe end of the mainline side of the turnout is also switched by a pair of microswitches, which seems to result in a persistent short. The complication seems to be something to do with the way it is wired for two controllers - there is a DPDT switch that switches the blue\white feeds between "Controller 1" and "Controller 2", by of a cat's cradle of tag strip connections.

 

 

In my current confusion and frustration, I'm actually quite tempted to rip out the provision for the second controller and revert to a single controller setup with simple on\off section switching for the loop and siding. The vees of each of the points are independently fed via microswitches directly from the adjacent stock/switch rails.

 

 

I do see the advantage of a twin controller setup, and the flexibility of being able to drive a loco through from the loop onto the mainline using the alternate controller (if I could get it to work). But this actually just makes me think DCC might be a better option to allow that kind of flexibility. Especially considering the fact that so little of the layout is wired already, and as I only actually have two completed and working 2mm locos at the moment, so conversion isn't so much of an issue. I had been resisting putting DCC into my 2mm models, partially out of fear of more shorts in kit/scratch-built locos - perhaps time to reconsider?

 

Justin

 

 

[2mmMark]

It's possible Bill might have used a common return system which can be somewhat of a head-scratcher.  Denys Brownlee used it on his layouts. The advantage is that it reduces the number of wires required.

[justin1985]

Thanks for the pointer Mark. A bit of Googling seems to suggest that most people now use "common return" simply to describe using a bus bar type arrangement for wiring the return, but I did manage to find one or two references to the twin controller method - e.g http://rail.felgall.com/crw.htm . I can't say I'm much the wiser though. It seems like both poles of the blue\white track feed are switched between controllers though, not just one, which that site suggests.

 

I'm still leaning towards simplifying the feeds for a single controller (or DCC), I think. If its foxing me now, that doesn't bode well for future maintenance etc, I guess. 

 

Justin

[Phil Copleston]

I'm still leaning towards simplifying the feeds for a single controller (or DCC), I think. If its foxing me now, that doesn't bode well for future maintenance etc, I guess. 

 

Justin

 

Hmmm... I can see your problem. But having operated a fair number of DCC layouts over the years - from simple to complex - I find the wiring convolutions and constrictions of old DC layouts now seem quite baffling, antiquated and unnecessary. 

 

From your description of how the layout is intended to operate (from a train movement point of view) it would seem to me you'd be best off in the long term stripping out all this over-complex wiring and either put in a system YOU understand... or converting the whole layout to DCC. Then you can concentrate on running the trains, not worrying about which section switch has to be on or might conflict with another section. Or if the old wiring goes wrong, how on earth you can fix it. 

 

It's a personal choice, of course, and you may feel you want to retain as much of Bill's work as possible. But on the other hand, you've gotta live with it! 

[Donw]

Justin great that you can take this on, but it also has to be something you want so if you need to change some things do so. I hope you can keep the scenic bits Bill has done but the planned but unstarted bits I think you can amend them. As for the electrics, in my experience wiring up layouts is  very personal. I have operated layouts wired by others and been very surprised to find limitations on what you can do ( one double track terminus where you couldn't run trains in and out simultaneously).  With DCC you do not get the same problems it gives the flexibility to cope with  any traffic pattern. With DC you have to be aware of the traffic patterns like knowing whether tail traffic like a van would be pulled off or added to a train by the train loco or the station pilot. A loco depot siding just long enough to hold two large engines or three small ones is very tricky to provide isolating sections. So if you are unsure of where you are going, DCC makes good sense.

 

Don 

[justin1985]

I had a very busy with autumn with work, and didn't get the chance to do any modelling at all really. Since Christmas I've been easing myself back into it with a few other projects, but Long Melford has been sat next to the workbench, making me feel guilty. 

 

Yesterday I decided to grab the nettle and tackle the wiring. It seems such a shame to mess around with Bill's ultra neat wiring looms on the crossover board, but after thinking it over many times, I keep coming back to the conclusion of going for DCC. It took me long enough to get my head around the cab control wiring on the single board that was wired, I didn't rate my chances of being able to fault-find on it in future, or indeed of being able to wire up the remaining boards in a way that would work with Bill's scheme (nothing else was complete in terms of wiring). I don't currently have any 2mmFS locos that are chipped, but I've chipped enough normal N gauge locos for the process not to be too much of a concern. 

 

So, last night I started ripping out all of primary\secondary controller switching and associated cross-wiring, and the blue\white secondary track power feeds. I'm aiming to standardise all of the power feeds as normal red\black, at least in the main wiring runs, but leaving the actual droppers from the track as is. 

 

I'll leave isolating switches for the feeds for the sidings, and for the longer sections of hidden track approaching the train table (calling-on roads, I guess). 

 

This does raise a few questions.

 

The main stock of wire that I have is 16\0.2 - is that going to be sufficient for the main power "bus" on a DCC 2mm layout of this size? This is definitely meatier than the normal "equipment wire" that Bill used for droppers, and seems about the same as the wire he used for the main feeds. Should I actually replace this with something even thicker?

 

The inter-board connections that Bill used were 15-pin D-SUB connectors (surprisingly hard to find these days - anyone remember the old MIDI\Game socket on a PC in the 1990s?). Are these connectors going to be able to handle DCC voltages and current? Should I separate out the main DCC bus wiring onto some beefier connections? I have a small stock of the RC type two pin connectors used on KATO track feeds etc, which might do that job?

 

Cheers for any thoughts!

 

Justin

[nick_bastable]

I have used the  copper earth core from twin and earth cable as my DCC bus  easy to get,  easy to install,  passes through baseboard supports easily  ( small hole ) and easy to solder droppers to

 

Nick

[Ian Morgan]

The critical thing about wiring for DCC is to ensure that a short circuit at the far end of a layout will cause the command station/booster/District Cutout to trip and cut the power supply to the track. The current supply capability of DCC systems is often many times that of old analogue controllers because they are intended to supply a number of locomotives (maybe sound fitted) all at the same time. So, if your DCC system is set to supply, say, 5 amp, then the total resistance of your wiring, connectors and solder joints only needs to be 2 or 3 ohms before a dead short across the rails would only draw 4.9 amps from the supply, not enough for it to trip. I say 'only' 4.9 amp, but that would be continuous, until you noticed what was shorting the rails. The power being dissipated in your wiring and connectors during that time is I (current) squared times R (resistance), or about 60W. Do you remember how hot a 60W light bulb used to get?

 

16/0.2 wire is said to be good for 3 to 4 amp, but will depend on its overall length. A 10m length of this wire would have a resistance of about 0.4 ohm. I would say that the connectors will be the weak link. Cheap D-Sub connectors are only rated at 1amp per pin, so you might need to parallel up 4 or 5 pins per wire. Contact resistance could be up to 0.02 ohms.

 

So, check the cut-out current your DCC system is set up for, and do the sums.

 

Finally, after wiring up and switching on, do the 'coin test'. Put a coin across the rails at the furthest away tracks. If the DCC system does not cut out, you have got your sums wrong.

 

Good luck,

Ian

Edited January 29, 2018 by Ian Morgan

[Donw]

 The wire you use should be capable of carrying the current and also not have too much voltage drop. I would be most impressed to see a 2mm layout where the cable runs were long enough to make voltage drop an issue.

16/0.2 is approx 0.5mm2 and rated at 3A usually. Depending on what size cable nick is talking about assuming he is using the earth from 2.5 Twin and earth where the earth conductor is 1.5mm2 or 1.5 twin and earth has 1mm2 earth conductor.

 

If the DCC is only to run the locos the 16/0.2 should be sufficient for 2mm. If you are also running other devices you could need more. However the sort of devices that need more current such as solenoids are best in my opinion powered separately from the locos.

 

If you are doing alteration to a place and recover any mains cable the red and black cores make good bus bars. It might be worth checking how 1mm or 1.5mm twin and earth compares with layout wire the volume sales may keep the price well down.

 

Don

[justin1985]

Many thanks for the advice. I just picked up some 24/0.2 from Maplin that is (suposedly) rated for 6A (the equivalent from Rapid etc seems to be 4.5A, so I suspect Maplin have been optimistic ...). I have got some mains cable sat around, but I don't really fancy wrestling solid core cable through the rather constrained space under the layout unless its absolutely necessary. 

 

The booster for the Roco DCC system I've got has a rating of 3.5A, so either way that should be within tolerance. I'm certainly not planning to run any solenoids or point motors from the same power bus. The point motors and uncouplers that are already on the layout are wired entirely separately, and I'll probably stick to that set up for the foreseeable future. I can't imagine ever having more than two or three locos 'live' at any one time on this layout, so current draw under normal circumstances shouldn't be a problem - mainly concerned about shorts etc? 

 

On the basis of Don's comments, I would have thought it would be OK to use the 24/0.2 for the bus, and the 16/0.2 for droppers and shorter runs to tag strips etc. 

 

Would it be acceptable practice to stick with the D-SUB connectors between boards, but double up the bus connections? 

 

Justin

Edited January 29, 2018 by justin1985

[nick_bastable]

sorry I meant to add I use the 12amp version of these as inter-board links  https://www.rapidonline.com/pluggable-terminal-blocks?ra_source=tier-middle-image  the sockets I mount to vero board with four tracks interconnected   ( 8amp capacity)   although the booster  I have yet to build is 5amp  

 

Nick

[Ian Morgan]

I would suggest 3, or even 4 D-Sub pins per wire to be on the safe side. As I explained, it is not about the normal operation current draw, which for 2mm locomotives will be far less than an amp, but to prevent overheating/smoke/flames in the event of an almost short circuit that goes un-noticed and does not cause the DCC system to cut out.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Ian Morgan