Jump to content
 

Harlequin

RMweb Gold
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,559

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Harlequin

    Bachmann 94xx

    in Bachmann

    Posted · Edited by Harlequin

    7 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

    If Locomotion is involved, doesn’t the original have to be in the National Collection?

    Good point.

    So what is in the NC that involves Collett (Mike's clue) that has never been available RTR?

     

    Never mind. We'll find out in 2 hours. (Note to self: Don't get pulled into the froth.)

     

    • Like 1

    Bachmann 94xx

    in Bachmann

    Posted

    Locomotion/Rails/Bachmann, in fact.

    "... New ready to run locomotive. This model has never previously been available in ready to run form in OO Scale."

     

    The Great Bear?

     

     

    • Funny 1

    OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

    in Dapol

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

    Innovations?   An ability to actually pull  train would be a start.   We have several Airfix/Mainline/Hornby Prairies, and they sit on shelves or on shed looking pretty while a Grafar  81XX with Triang Chassis and a Wills 61XX share banking duties as they can both push a decent train.   Haven't been able to test it but I reckon the Grafar would to mis quote GJC  pull two of theirs bloody backwards."

    Why cast aspersions before anyone has had the chance to test one for real?

    We don't know what their pulling power is yet.

     

    • Agree 3

    OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

    in Dapol

    Posted

    26 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

    Latest mail shot from Hattons informs that Dapol say they are due “within the next few weeks “. So then,a case of wires crossed or mixed messages .

    Well, Rails' optimistic prediction did not come to pass, despite their close working relationship with Dapol.

     

    Loco model colours measured

    in GWR Rolling Stock: model and prototype

    Posted · Edited by Harlequin

    10 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

    This review https://www.cnet.com/news/3-color-sensor-gadgets-to-take-the-pain-out-of-paint-matching/ describes the Nix device as being the best, but reading the review that probably should be the best of bad bunch as it plainly never gets RGBs spot on, rather it generally gives nearer readings than the majority  given by the other two devices in the review.

    Thanks, that’s really interesting but the reviewer in this article has not understood that you can only compare colours numerically if you know what light source was used. She looks up the manufacturer’s stated RGB value of a paint colour then measures a painted sample. Apart from RGB not including illuminant info, there are too many uncontrolled variables in that process. Having carefully explained how DeltaE is used to describe colour differences she doesn’t state the DeltaE between the hoped for RGB values and the measured values - and of course she can’t because she’s not working in CIELAB space with known illuminants.

     

    Loco model colours measured

    in GWR Rolling Stock: model and prototype

    Posted · Edited by Harlequin

    To assess which of my two devices is the more accurate I needed a well defined set of colours that I could measure so I bought a CIELAB colour fan:

     500663213_SAM_4519r.JPG.852abb05b11ecaf4c780fefca9e32fc8.JPG

     

    Here are a typical set of results for the colour in the middle of the screen CIELAB = 75 -20 50:

    1468302150_SAM_4518r.JPG.a764730572af01ee569ab7c4f577df0c.JPG

     

    You can see that the result from the Chinese device on the left is significantly further away (76.18, -13.08, 37.97) than the Canadian Nix device on the right (76, -21, 49). Similar results are seen when measuring random colours across the fan - the Chinese device is never as close as the Nix.

     

    So I will be trusting the Nix from hereon in. The Nix uses a D50 illuminant - this is important to know because it allows comparison of colours independently of light sources.

     

    Just as an initial indication, the first data point: The Hornby Prairie 6110 measures as CIELAB = 24 -6 8 (right tank),  or CIELAB = 25 -5 7 (left tank).

     

    More data to follow...

     

    • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1

    Little Muddle

    in Layout topics

    Posted · Edited by Harlequin

    The landlord has obviously installed that most modern of appliances, an indoors toilet, and upstairs to boot! (See the waste pipe.)

    Now, as we all know, the cistern has to be mounted as high on the wall as possible to produce a really powerful flush when you pull the chain.

    So the window was rather an inconvenience (sic) and had to be blocked up, erm, hopefully unlike the toilet...

    Aihthangyaw.

     

    • Like 1
    • Informative/Useful 2
    • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
    • Friendly/supportive 2

    New Dapol O Gauge GWR Railcar

    in Dapol

    Posted

    1 minute ago, ROSSPOP said:

    Well I`ve just pre-ordered GWR No 10 through Rails of Sheffield for £297 DCC ready......

     

    so...what shall I do with my ancient kit built No 12 ????

     

    DSC01420.JPG.d2a9c8b7b6de871952de0cfdf13c7b13.JPG

     

     

    It's beautiful! Keep it, compare it with the Dapol version. Put it in a display case and admire it...

     

    :smile_mini:

    • Like 2
    • Agree 5
    • Thanks 1

    Warren Branch

    in Layout topics

    Posted · Edited by Harlequin

    A while ago I found a little station in Wales that was in a cutting (single line through station with passing loop, can't remember it's name). The goods yard was very cramped with a thin shed whose loading bay was in one end rather than opposite the siding as usual.

     

    The weighbridge and office were on the public road above the station, outside the goods yard gate, conveniently next to the pub!

     

    There's a prototype for everything. :smile_mini:

     

     

    • Informative/Useful 3
    • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1

    electrofrog point isolations?

    in Electrics (non-DCC)

    Posted · Edited by Harlequin

    11 hours ago, Brian said:

     

    I can not agree with these comments!

    If you cut the two closure rail link wires you should install some other form of frog polarity switching.

    I don't care what S or X says, if the link wires are cut and nothing else is done the rails from the closure rail gaps to the IRJ on the end of of the Vee rails will become electrically dead.  Period! 

     

    Do not try and make matters far worse by saying bonding X to Y and adding droppers to W & Z will resolve as this just make the whole process far worse to understand by the novice and act upon! 

    What on earth is wrong with the very simple process of cutting the two link wires and adding frog polarity switching by whatever means is chosen. 

    IMO your comments are just making matters far more complex and confusing to everyone who may read this article.  Its so simple to do and your / other suggestions make more work than is ever needed!  

     

    The frog will always be switched. No one is suggesting leaving the frog and the V rails unpowered. Suzie’s method just allows someone to choose how the frog is switched after the turnout has been installed, with one of those options being to rely on the point blades in just the same way as the turnout works out of the packet. So there’s no need for an external switch in the simplest case and the turnout does not need to be removed to later change the switching method. But to avoid having to remove the turnout later the links must be cut before installation.

     

    It’s simple and very clever - no more difficult to do than the usual recommended best practice for modifying electrofrog turnouts. I wish I had done it on my little test layout.

     

    Dave gets it.

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1

    electrofrog point isolations?

    in Electrics (non-DCC)

    Posted · Edited by Harlequin

    20 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

     

    You don't need to cut the wires underneath in order to switch the frog (which means you can install the switching at a later stage if needed) but as mentioned best practice is to do it all from the outset.

     

    11 hours ago, Brian said:

    Hi,

    Whatever you do do not cut the closure rails gap underneath the rails linking wires unless you have some form of frog polarity switching in use.  Failure to ensure this and you will have a dead section from the gap in the closure rails to the IRJs on the end of the points Vee rails.

     

     

    This advice is contrary to @Suzie's method and may be confusing in light of the recent conversation.

     

    Suzie says cut the links and bring droppers from the switch rails through the baseboard so that the links can effectively be remade under the baseboards. You can then choose to wire the electrical switching of the frog either the same way as the factory turnout, using the point blades, or using an external switch. And most importantly you can change it without having to rip the turnout up.

     

    And critically, you MUST cut the links under the turnout if you ever intend to switch the frog via an external switch. If the links are still intact when an external switch is installed then the frog will be switched by two different circuits and you may momentarily get a dead short if they don’t move at exactly the same time.

     

    Suzie’s method allows the links to be cut, the turnout to be permanently installed and frog switching method to be changed at a later date without any risk of momentary shorts.

    • Agree 4

    I have so many ideas I don't know were to start.

    in Layout & Track Design

    Posted

    I think the shape of the space is too complicated to make full use of. You'd do better to think about simpler baseboards with more usable proportions. Here are two suggestions (although it's not a good idea to start any layout design from baseboard shapes!)

     

    L shaped terminus to fiddle yard:

    H2.png.820c1b66f6b7a63702c2bff63cc3bc1d.png

     

    Roundy-roundy with the smallest practical width operating well (610mm) but no fiddle yard:

    H1.png.15c2c0f91e938657e78dec78bbe4b7c3.png

     

     

    • Like 2
    • Agree 4

    Positions of signals and layout of point levers.

    in Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure

    Posted · Edited by Harlequin

    If you are really attempting to have a realistic lever layout you probably shouldn't attempt to control the points in your yard or shed areas from your simulated signal box(es).

     

    You could maybe put those controls on a separate panel, possibly in a different form to clearly distinguish between the "proper" signalling and the model controls.

     

    • Agree 1
×
×
  • Create New...