DCB

2024-04-25T16:36:57Z

The OP lists his P.D rights but they do vary from area, conservation areas often don't have p.d and some houses have had P.D removed as part of the original permission.

Our railway shed is purpose built 24 X 8, wood, insulated, central heated , has lasted 40 years and has subsidence issues. The railway is 00

The garden shed is a lot younger, lists a bit its on paving stones has not subsided but not suitable for a railway. Just not robust enough. A Stable would be better, we put a 3 bay stable up for our Parish Council store, and lined out and insulated would make a great railway shed
16 X9 (8X4.5 in oo speak) is a bit small for a railway. A lot of old modellers in 0 had the station in the shed and a garden railway, Some covered the outside lines for year round running and some ran from shed to shed, 16ft station and line running outside to do a 180 and come back in, or even a 180 both ends would work well. Grab some 1960s / 70s Railway Modeller and Model Railway constructor mags for inspiration

2024-04-25T00:50:21Z

On 09/04/2024 at 15:25, The Johnster said:

Quite, unless there's something else going on to provide some action. But a few seconds, perhaps five or so with the loco stopped, to show that the operator is aware of the procedure, makes a huge difference. I will certainly walk away from any layout where the loco sets back on to the stock and unceremoniously pushes it towards the buffers (fine with goods shunting of course), though. In reality, the stock is left with a handbrake and the vacuum brakes hard on, so the move is physically impossible.

One would not perhaps expect it on overtly train-set layouts without scale pretensions, or Lego and such; fair enough, but it has spoiled the effect for me on some otherwise superb layouts, including P4 examples. Of course, there is no reason that I should assume that layout operators, especially in this day and age, are conversant with traditional railway operating procedures, but the information is out there, and the procedures can be observed on heritage railways, and I think it is reasonable to expect a grounding in the basics.

I could go off on a rant about standards of driving and operation at shows, but will restrain myself for now... Much of the problem is that layouts are only erected to be operated at shows, and the operators are thrown in at the deep end with no experience of operating the layout, no 'route knowledge'. I reccomend operating sessions to train them up, as well as to check the layout for problems before going to the show, but this can be a problem for large club layouts. Ideally, in a perfect world where operation is correctly prototypical, one would need almost as many people working a station as the real thing did, see Borchester Market...

I find it astonishing that brakes on coaching stock are not standard for DCC layouts. You can just about couple up a 1950s 3 rail Hornby Dublo Duchess to a rake of 3 rail metal wheel coaches without moving them but it seems completely impossible with 2020 era models, the whole train moves before the coupling couples!
The number of operators is relevant, it should be possible for several operators to work a medium size "Buckingham" or even "Marylebone" Terminus with DCC pilot driver, main line driver(s) signalman.
Then again with decent signalling even a BLT can come alive with little action, a few block bells clanging, the signals coming off, train arriving, signals going back. loco setting stock back so it can use the loop, running round setting back onto the stock and then fast forward 2 hours. Signals off, train starts train entering section. Train disappears into hidden sidings. and wait for someone else to look interested. And then the daily goods OK the 20 times daily goods at an exhibition sorting wagons to be left from out going. It would look a lot better than "Flashburton / Moronampstead" with a Manor on 2 coaches, a Dean goods in primer on shed and a Terrier tank as station pilot,

2024-04-25T00:14:32Z

Some companies seem remarkably stupid in failing to realise a model in their livery can be a valuable free advertisement for them. Unless it is a model of a Tesla with a smoke unit or similar.
However watching the Horizon Scandal rather shows stupidity is not the preserve of the less intelligent, but is manifest in some of the most intelligent and indeed highly qualified individuals in society.

2024-04-25T00:00:23Z

Bere Alston to Tavistock would be interesting, especially the Tavistock end high on the hill above the town. BR connection available at Bere Alston.

Wednesday at 23:41

25 minutes ago, Hogan22 said:

The power supply I’m using for this setup is a 16v ac to dc adapter power supply ( like a power cable from a DC controller).

Good to know a dmm wouldn’t really be able to measure the volts going from operating switch to point motor (after switching).

that means the issue would likely be the tension of the turnout springs right?

I wouldn't weaken the springs, sliding the holder back in its clip on some points can fine tune the tension but too weak and fine flanges will find the gap between blade and stock rail and split the points.

The Peco motors are a bit marginal throwing Peco points. at the best of times, 12 volts DC which is effectively, 16 volts AC rectified is not enough,in my experience. My first thought would be more volts, my Duette delivers around 21 volts DC off load on a nominal 12 volt output some other 12 volt controllers deliver anything between 12 and 24 volts off load and a capacitor will charge towards this off load figure.

Are the SPDT switches all left off. unless one s being thrown? because any left on will drain the capacitor.

It might be worth ensuring the blades are free to move? You shouldn't feel the motor when changing a point manually, if you can its's out of alignment or gummed up.
I don't like under track direct point mounted point motors as they get crud in. I prefer the bell crank system or wire in tube from a horizontal motor.

Tuesday at 23:32

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

I don't think you'll be getting any spares for these on the website, they haven't made them for half a century!

Maybe that is a possible revenue stream for Hornby, spares for older models , which seem to last for 50-70 years even if their recent efforts don't.

The Nellie/Polly/Connie locos seemed to start with a black loco with solid non see through wheels a steel strip chassis with Mazak spacers rivetted in, unique I believe for Hornby and an X04 motor, 2 start worm small worm wheel (same as transcon ) Later they received separate steel tyres and much later shiny plated tyres. Some plated tyre ones have a huge dome and some have a Can motor similar to contemporary Scalextric cars, not as good as an X04 similar but not the same as 101 smokey Joe etc.. The Romfrord 30/40/60:1 gear sets fit the chassis and X04 as does the Triang TT single start worm for slower sub 100MPH top speed.

Its a pretty little thing but could not be built as a full size loco as the firebox would hit the crank axle and the connecting rods would foul the leading axle . It needs outside cylinders and ideally outside valve gear unless the drive was from the front axle a la Dolgoch I am planning stretched 2-4-0T versions which would have leading axle drive from inside cylinders for my 5 X 2 00 gauge layout. and maybe a non stretched outside cyl 0-6-0T version.

Tuesday at 00:22

3 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Smoke and steam don’t scale down - all I see is ‘Michael Bentines Potty Time’. Also wonder what the long term effects of water based emissions will have on electrical components around the layout and card structures.

Maybe vape oil might work, if the cars full of vape fumes are anything to go by

4 hours ago, ColinB said:

On non Hornby models firebox glow is controlled by a decoder port, but currently nobody writes software that synchronizes the decoder output with the shovelling sound. I am sure it can be done.

Has anyone ever heard a shoveling sound from an actual steam loco actually in steam let alone actually running? The sound of shovelling precedes the glow of the door opening when working hard when the glow is more a brilliant flash. This weekend recording locos on the NYMR P3 ( J27?) Std4 Tank and Black 5 shows the background hiss of boiling water is the dominant sound of a steam locomotive, the hiss of escaping injector steam, steam leaks sizzling safety valves. To be fair they don't sound anything like any DCC sound, but that's because the sound is synchronised with loco speed, where the pulses should be synchronised with wheel speed and the volume by the operator, depending on whether accelerating, pulling hard, coasting or just powering along gently.

Sunday at 10:35

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

Perhaps you would be better off explaining why you don't think that DCC can do such a thing?

Just about any DCC set up has a 'Master' unit for want of a better term, to provide a command station, an interface if you like. Then you can use 1 or more controllers to actually control the trains, by dialling up their address - one per operator is best, although there are plenty of dual units too.

They don't even need to be identical units, as DCC is largely an industry standard with many suppliers.

I suspect that you believe that DCC is still the original Zero 1 or the Airfix system, with the limitations of such legacy systems.

It's the interface issue.

But the real thing which irritates me is the unrealistic operation DCC enthusiasts think is good. Full size Trains can't creep for extended periods unless Slow speed fitted for MGR operations , but they can stop to the nearest 6" or less so coaches never move when couping up.
I am working on sound, So many sound locos chuff like they are pulling 400 tons when running light. Real ones usually give 4 or 8 chuffs then coast.

But its the interface. I want a speed control knob Hand held one handed. ideally wireless. Everything else can be on the console, Whistle button would be nice

Saturday at 21:35

8 hours ago, kevinlms said:

I don't see why ANY DCC system can't do that. Use one controller to operate the train loco and a 2nd controller to operate the banker - DO NOT consist them.

As always, your statements suggest that basic DCC functions are harder than they really are.

Please give one example of a suitable controller or pair of controllers , where two operators can operate Railway traction similar to two cars being operated on the same lane of a Scalextric Digital track.

April 20

My first train was Hornby Dublo 3 rail and I had two Duchesses and an 0-6-2 tank The tank would just haul all my 17 (?) wagons around my not exactly level layout at a crawl but stopped dead if it slipped, very realistic. The opposite to most RTR where a burst of wheel slip gets a stalled train underway again.
What I want from DCC is a capability for me to drive the train engine and my son drive the banker independently, rather than to consist them. I am pretty sure we could do it with Scalextric DCC Hand throttles but I'm not aware of any Model railway DCC equipment giving that sort of immediacy of response.

April 20

Someone could get a lot of free publicity for naming a loco inappropriately. Or a gasp at an exhibition when it or even 7930 "That's Hall" appears. They say you can't rewrite history but we modellers can. 70014 painted name Iron Duck anyone? My layout has posters for Harry Markle and Anton Deck appearing at the local theatre

April 20

4 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

So are you advocating the modelling of wheelslip?

Presumably could be achieved by intentionally mismatching the speed of a powered loco to the speed of a powered tender under DCC.

Is there a way of dynamically adjusting the characteristics of separate mechanisms in a consist, so that they run in sync at speed but not on starting?

There is something about a loco drive steamer easing away with just a hint of a slip , or judging how much wellie you can give it without excess slipping which the clunky Railway DCC does not fit well with. Its not a DCC issue, Scalextric DCC hand throttles are great, but no one seems to make a decent real time speed control for railways.
I keep planning something I call "Protoslip" for a Bullied where the drive is shared between a heavy tender and a light loco powered from the sae motor with a differential so it the drivers slip the tender loses power.
The gulf berween whats possible with DCC and what the trade churns out is well sad.
The Tender drive shown has traction tyres. I banned them because they make the tracks so filthy

April 20

My layout has hardboard projecting above the baseboard surface to stop stock falling off so leaning on it is painful.

Leaning on an exhibition layout is sheer bad manners, why it might damage the static grass or fencing which should like the railway boundary!

April 20

The signalling problem comes from the illogical track layout. I would expect the milk dock point to be operated from the signal box, locked in the straight position when either starter or home signals are off. But I would not expect the station to have a milk dock. Milk was typically dealt with at passenger platforms, loaded and especially unloaded., off peak in London. It was a fairly quick operation, rolling churns around on their edges prior to going to tankers.
The dock would never have a "Train" enter, just a few wagons propelled in. "Dock" platforms are often higher than the 3ft passenger platform maximum to make loading vans easier.;

April 19

1 hour ago, OnTheBranchline said:

The less said about Basil Liddell Hart, the better…

Why? He and Fuller, potentially saved millions of lives by inventing Blitzkreig in place of WW1 style trench warfare.

April 18

1 hour ago, Schooner said:

Back with design software, so for my own amusement thought I'd see if the sketch worked out. Might was well share in case it's ever of use to anyone.

Shown with 42' rolling stock, as that's all that comes with SCARM, to give some idea of 'actual' size:

EDIT: After 30 mins or so playing trains, I ended up with something like for my own interests:

for giving the most play value for the least visual complexity (shorthand for greatest space between tracks/distance between turnouts). The weird route of the line at the back is to have it as a gated private siding, to sell the excuse to have it worked by trip rather than as just another shunting move. With a penchant for Victorian industrials, it would allow me to get my branch workings, trip working and a variety of shunts - some potentially quite complex - for not much more than a textbook 4-point BLT.

I think operationally a std 4 point BLT would be more interesting. The sidings are very short, very awkward, and there is nowhere to put anything out of the way, sort of like a chess match unless you want to model BR steam circa 1965/7 with 3 wagons and a van. @Harlequin's solution is a lot more user friendly and visually better, though I would have deleted his short spur behind the goods shed as being little use.
In practice the tracks are so close to the edge that there is no real room for even low relief scenery, trans might actually hit the wall. It's too cramped. At present I am constantly moving the goods shed on my terminus "Ugleigh" not on software but physically moving it around the baseboard as what looks good on paper dose not translate to looking "Right" on the baseboard.

April 17

The 3901 was one of Churchward's few failures. He saw the French compounds, thought I can do better than that, and made the Saints, they pulled better but rode worse so he built the Stars, and then when everyone else had moved to Atlantics and 4-6-0s he said "Bring it on," and built the "Bear" He saw LNWR 2-8-0s and built the 97 and the 28XX, much better, but when Hoy on the L&Y brought out his 2-6-2 T which was supremely ugly Churchward said "I can do uglier than that" but failed (Just).

The 3901 was on paper a rebuild of 1890s 2301 class Dean Goods locos. Churchward wanted to build 45XX but new build money (capital) was not forthcoming so he used the repair fund to "Rebuild" Dean Goods retaining the wheels, /cylinders / motion etc with Churchward's 44/45/46XX tiny Std no 5 boiler and a 45XX cab and the ugliest tanks he could devise. Even though the 1890s Dean boiler was not as good as the final 2301 or indeed its progeny the 57XX there can be little doubt it was a better steamer than the std no 5. It's so much bigger. and the final 2301 boiler was much better than the Ivatt 2MT boiler when tested in the 1950 when they tried to replace 2301 with Ivatt and 78000 2-6-0s

On 15/04/2024 at 10:12, Paul H Vigor said:

They appear very tall locos? Looking at photos I can't decide if this is/was an optical illusion? The loading gauge was set.

They were as were the 42XX 56XX 31XX 3150 etc , But lets face it who checks the height of their locos from rail level apart from me as my clearances are minimal and ridiculously over height Hornby King and 2721 won't fit my hidden sidings.

But caveat time. Churchward locos had wooden cab roofs overlaid with (tarred?) canvas. Collett changed this to steel sheets which lowered the roof, most dramatically in the new build Prairies starting 6100 which earlier locos were altered to conform, but even the 42/56/72 XX had this change. It affects the cab eaves which almost every model gets wrong, Bachmann 56XX spectacularly so, as the drawings would not have changed. Changes started circa 1929(?) and were unpopular with enginemen from my reading of Engineman's reminiscences.
The model has the Airfix City of Truro boiler. The Airfix smokebox is too big in diameter for a std no 2 and too small for a std no 4 and is much larger than the std 5. 45XX That sort of hurts the illusion, massive loco tiny boiler. as do the photographs with the 45XX (should be same boiler) and 81XX (built 5 years after last 3901 scrapped) which emphasises the issue.
For me the lack of curved drop ends to the footplate is noticeable but lets face it you would need to be around 100 to remember them so full marks for creating something different.

April 17

Looks like a Taxi service from the free car parking at the Junction as by the station its pay and display or supermarket (Morrisons) 3 hr max.

Or... The Mallaig trains are often 4 car 2 X 2 units and the Glasgow 1X 2 car units . The units arrive as a pair from Mallaig and one remains at the buffers while the other heads for Glasgow picking up another at Crianlarich to arrive at Queen St as a 2 +2.
At some stage the units need to be swapped so the same one does not continually shuttle FY to Mallaig until it runs out of fuel.

April 15

You need to measure your stock. N gauge is notoriously over width, about 12 scale feet instead of 9 on some "Heritage" models but you should be safe with 1" per track plus around 1/2" at one edge very much as @Dungrange suggests.

I can't really get my head around why the sidings are between tracks and the three running lines so widely spaced, I would have the sidings outside, actually I would have a train lift one or both ends based on a Nellyvator but bodged with junk from a skip to suit my budget (Virtually non existant)

April 13

If you must have an engine shed, why not have a disused one.. I was de cobwebbing my BLT today and decided that it made a lot of sense for my one and a half Airfix engine shed to be rendered "Disused" and rented to an Engineering firm,

April 11

On 10/04/2024 at 10:17, woodenhead said:

This popped up on my feed this morning, gives some idea of the mark up for someone who buys and sells for profit over someone who is selling off items they no longer need.

If you ask me it's a lot of work when it lots of individual items in constant dribs and drabs.

How on earth is he getting the stuff so cheap. Boxed wagons for £2 to £5 sold for £10 -£15. A class 37 £12.50 sold for £40. Buying well below eBay prices. House clearances? The Yorkshire Auction House on TV gets derisory amount for models IMHO, so maybe that is the answer. Auctions and buy up anything cheap

April 11

Does the spare 3" actually exist? With Harlequins drawing twizzled round 180 to match the others I counted room for 24 wagons and an ability to run round 12. Its a good plan but I fear translated from thin 2B (or not 2B) pencil line to Streamline track on the board it will be cramped. My branch station "Ugleigh" is on an 18" X 7ft (usable) board and with the same number of roads (remaining) it looks cramped, and with an engine shed at the inside board edge it was awkward. "Ugleigh" has so far lost 3 sidings and an engine shed in an effort to make it less "Ugly" What "Ugleigh" has is well over 10 feet of main line to use for shunting, I think shunting would get tedious if less than 3 feet of extra main line was available ( 5 feet beyond the points )

April 10

April 9

1ft wide will allow about 5 roads between baseboard edges with 50 mm streamline spacing you can get 11 into 2 ft

There isn't much scope for anything more than a loop and a single siding if you want platforms and space for loading carts or lorries.

April 6

Looks like a 3 rail power bogie and a 2 rail trailing bogie. On mine also a 3rail convert, I used Romford Markits spoked driving wheels 14 or 15mm dia and picked up one side of the power bogie and the other ( well same but it runs the other way round ) side of the trailing bogie

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Events

Exhibition Layout Details

Store

Posts posted by DCB