Harlequin

March 30

3 hours ago, Andy Keane said:

Another reason for my now thinking the Helston carriage shed was for motors is the full length vent in the roof. Why would that have been done just for carriages?

Watering these motors also seems to have needed specialist facilities - the drawings on the GWS site shows hydrants inside the sheds at Southall and Catford. They also mention coaling from adjacent sidings, which again Helston had down there. If the motors were not serviced at that end of Helston station it is not obvious that running them into the main engine shed siding would have been very convenient.

All very interesting - I am now pondering if I need an ash pit at that end!

As far as I can tell, the Lewis SRM book doesn't say anything about special facilities away from the main sheds.

It does confirm that in 1911 No.96 was shedded at Helston (there were earlier allocations to Helston) and that it ran this weekday service:

Helston, Gwinear Road, Redruth, Camborne, Truro, Camborne, Redruth, Penzance, Redruth, Gwinear Road, Helston (and Mondays, Fridays and Saturdays added one final return trip Gwinear Road, Helston).

Lewis also doesn't say anything conclusive about coaling the SRMs. Either shovelling coal onto the floor or using sacks to transfer coal into the bunker. A while back there was talk on here about short platforms that can be seen in some photos that were obviously not for passengers and the thought was that they were designed for coaling SRMs - possibly using large wicker baskets.

Thinking about that, I have a vague recollection that you thought there was something odd about the coaling facilities at Helston - am I right??? Could that have been changed to suit the SRM as well? Maybe the change of the shed connection from the run round loop to the platform line could also be partly explained by the need for the SRM to run in there for coaling?

March 27

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

TBH, having slavishly followed it, I’m becoming suspicious of Peco’s diagram myself now!

I’ve fixed the unifrog double-slip down, so can’t look at the underside to see whether that offers any useful clues, but viewing it from above, thinking what must be connected to what, and “dabbing out” with a continuity tester, which confirms my thinking, I now can’t see why all, indeed any of, those rail-breaks are necessary for “live frog operation”, any more than they are for “dead frog”.

The only reason I can see for having rail-breaks is for sectionalisation if using straight DC with more than one controller in use on the layout (e.g. Up and Down Road controllers on a double-track circuit), and even more so if “cab control” is being used to switch sections between controllers, and I’m beginning to think that Peco have given instructions based on that case, just in case that is what someone is doing, rather than a long list of ifs, buts and maybes that could lead to confusion ….. it seems to be a sort of worst-case wiring diagram.

Thoughts?

Yep, I agree. The instructions look like a very conservative update of the previous code 75 version.

They could at least have provided separate DCC and DC instructions. I don’t think that would have been too confusing.

March 27

4 hours ago, Geep7 said:

Having laid and wired a few double / single slips now, of both insulfrog and electrofrog variety, it's safe enough to only put insulating rail joiners on the frog rails. It's always wise though to add feed wires as suggested by Peco on the outer 2 rails of the slips. Never rely on the rail joiners to do their job of conducting electricity forever, especially if you spray paint your track.

I can honestly say that switching the frogs on slips is pretty much essential, and will avoid ever using an insulfrog variety. It's just one of those items of pointwork that really needs as much juice given to it as possible, if you want to avoid stalling.

The discussion here is specifically about unifrog slips and whether they can be laid with metal joiners before you have decided whether to power the frogs or not.

The big advantage of unifrog turnouts is that they can be laid in that way and I’m a bit suspicious of Peco’s diagram above because it doesn’t show the electrical breaks within the part which are fundamental to the unifrog concept.

March 27

Tonight on Channel 4 at 8PM: George Clark's Remarkable Renovations Series 3 Ep 5.

"It's full steam ahead in Gloucestershire, as Marcus and Kathryn convert a derelict railway goods shed. Can they transform it into their dream family home?"

March 27

Here's Bruno watching a tattered butterfly that was trapped in the greenhouse:

He's mellowing out gradually. When I picked him up today he actually relaxed and purred!

March 27

3 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

Thanks Keith and Mike.

Thanks Keith - so my little whitemetal metro tank won’t be hauling them I guess.

It will be a shame if I have to split it into two rakes. I’ve got 6 on order

Thanks Mike. I don’t have the Dapol 61xx, instead I went for two Hornby 61xx.

These are carriages that were very much on my wish list when I set up the Toplights poll a few years ago. Maybe I need to reduce the order down to 4 carriages instead of the 6.

The first Dapol large prairies gave some people problems because the rear pony truck was too highly sprung and didn't have enough travel. So it tended to lift the drivers off the track and that was amplified on track that wasn't perfectly level.

Dapol say they have fixed this for the next batch, which includes the old square drop-ended 31xx that would be perfect for hauling M&C toplights if it has good traction this time.

But will they paint the black parts black or grey on this new batch???...

March 26

15 hours ago, BillB said:

Am I correct in thinking this means that if I use metal rail joiners throughout, a single power feed can be put anywhere on the layout and it will make the whole layout live, including all the dead-ends, headshunts, etc., with no short-circuits (i.e. left-rail meeting right-rail), and providing I have only one engine operating it will go anywhere the points are set to with no need for any electrical switching, providing I don’t wire any of the frogs to be live?

Yes, BUT...

If you rely on the track joiners to transmit power around the entire layout it might be unreliable because they might be loose, they might tarnish. It's recommended to have a few power feeds in strategic locations.
Because the layout will be DC if you ever want to run a second loco you will need a way to isolate one while you run the other.

15 hours ago, BillB said:

Also that the point blades perform no role in switching the current, so poor contact between point blade and stock rail ceases to be an issue?

Yes.

15 hours ago, BillB said:

If so I will put the feed where the station meets the FY to minimise distance for the little volts to travel!

And do the same principles apply to PECO HO Unifrog points?

Yes.

15 hours ago, BillB said:

March 26

9 hours ago, Outrunn said:

Thankyou everyone for your feedback so far, i have done an updated design and ive tried to incorporate as much of your suggestions so far to help the layout, ive also learned some new features of SCARM which helped. (Ive also changed the dimensions to inches rather than mm)

It seems i will have to keep the 18 inch radius for the branch line, so I will just have to be careful when laying the branch line. Ive also labelled everything better to give you all a better idea of how the folding baseboard/ track will work

That's a backwards step, I think, but hey it's a step in the process.

The formation at the bottom doesn't look realistic. The sidings are still too short. The tracks bottom right are too close together so that long vehicles will hit each other. The platforms are a bit odd because the island gives you two platform faces so what does the third, inner one do?

When you say "fold line" are you thinking about the two boards being hinged in some way?

Have a look at "GW Adventure" in my track plans album because it's similar to what you're trying to do and might give you some ideas. There's a tree-line ridge along the centre to create two different scenes and give trains somewhere to go to and come from, as someone talked about above. It could be done in Code75 but not bullhead because it uses curved and short turnouts.

March 26

19 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

That I get. But, if you connect them to the rest of the railway, no insulating gaps, and then later implement “frog switching”, won’t conditions exist where the section of rail adjacent to the frog ends up at the wrong polarity.

I’m not at home at the moment, so can’t study the turnouts or the instructions to be certain, so I’ll look closely later. It’s the double-slip that I’m thinking of particularly, but the concern may apply to all (no, it doesn’t apply to all, only the slip).

Sorry but I don't understand what you're driving at. The frogs are isolated in the double-slips in the same way and are the only parts that need to change "polarity". All the outgoing rails are permanently wired.

Obviously if the frogs are wired up and switched they will be at different "polarities" to the some of the adjacent rails but the routes set by the points will have the correct "polarity" throughout.

This is getting a bit Off Topic and DCB's notes about wiring up Unifrog turnouts for DC might confuse the OP.

March 25

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Just for education, since I’m not a DCC user: how does that work? Surely if you don’t leave the rail-breaks, then at a later stage implement switching of the feeds to the frogs, that will create short-circuits?

The rail breaks are built into the turnout. The frog and the wing rails are isolated from the main rails:

So out of the packet there's a very short un-powered section a bit like Insulfrog but it's metal and can be switched via the attached dropper lead.

March 25

Hi @Outrunn,

I agree with the concerns above about the tightness of radii in Code75 bullhead but I'm sure it can be done if you're careful. You need to stagger any rail joins in the curves and hold the track securely in position so it can't develop any kinks. For that reason it might be better to glue rather than pin the track (and that saves all the anguish of trying to drive tiny pins into the baseboard).

The platforms set against the most tightly curving parts of the track mean that they will have to be set significantly back from the track if you intend to run any long vehicles. Might look silly.

One siding and the whole engine shed area have facing connections to the running line. In the steam era this would have been avoided wherever possible. In a single track line with a passing loop the connections would trail into the appropriate side of the loop. In this respect the plan would be better if it were mirrored left-right or top-bottom (but not both!) - but that would make the shed more difficult to operate so a more radical rethink might be needed.

To be sure you have enough room in the engine shed area it might be worth placing the required elements on the plan: Shed, ash pit, somewhere to store ash, coal stage/platform, water.

Will you rely on those modeltech rail aligners to align the boards, not just the rails? They don't look very strong and since they will overhang the edge of the boards, especially where track crosses the "fold" at an angle, they will be prone to damage. The traditional solution of board aligners and flush cut track seems safer to me.

Unifrog turnouts on DCC: No need for any insulating joiners. Just remember to take the frog wire down through the baseboard when you lay them and then you can decide on/implement the frog switching later. Remember that Cobalt point motors will require some depth of framing below the board surface to protect them.

BTW: Did you notice there's a subforum specifically for this sort of question? https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/forum/66-layout-track-design/ Ah well, never mind.

March 21

2 hours ago, Chimer said:

Does this get anywhere near what you're after? I can do some more work on it and explain my thinking if you're interested. I've drawn it using Streamline 00 but the squares are 12" in N .....

The problem I see with that is that the flying junction takes one line to the inside but then immediately has to crossover to the outside again with another flying junction. So it looks a bit artificial and the diverging double track lines never really become true double track. You probably have the same misgivings.

There's also the issue that of the 6 circuits only 4 can be left running unattended at any time because of the shared quad lines on the left. Maybe that's not really a problem, though.

So here's an idea:

Move the FY to the left.
The quad track runs around a generous curve on the right
After the flying junction bring the double track diverging lines together so they are true double track for a while. Maybe run them through a small station on the south side (see Bowes Park on google maps).
Maybe the quad track runs through a tunnel, like the prototype, allowing the double track line to cross over it to the outside less obtrusively. This is optional.
Then run the quad track main line and the double track line into the FY on the left, and crucially, resolve the double-track's inside/outside state in the fiddle yard by having another hidden flyover to get one line back where it started.

March 20

8 minutes ago, Peak said:

I forgot about that. I have never made a layout before.

It would be a good idea to do some research about layout design, then. There are hundreds of books and magazine articles on the subject.

There's a special area of the forum for layout design here: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/forum/66-layout-track-design/

March 20

53 minutes ago, Peak said:

I will mark up platforms and buildings on the floor before starting to construct the layout.

Why are you not going to plan the layout on paper or on a computer first?

March 20

Are your iPad and iPhone connected to the same WiFi network?

March 20

@Peak I notice that you haven't responded to the discussion here, apart from asking another unanswerable question.

How much space have you got to make your layout? Are you going to use an existing room, or a garage or are you going to build something to suit?

March 19

On 17/03/2024 at 11:27, Andy Keane said:

Phil, if you could that would be very much appreciated

Andy

Will do.

March 18

@Peak Adapting a real world plan isn't simply a matter of looking at a map and scaling down what you see. It's a complex recipe of measurements, compromises, trade-offs and sheer practicality.

If you're careful you can compress track plans (shorten the lengths of parts selectively) and still keep the essential feel of a place.

The same is true of simplifying a station plan. Leaving things out helps with compression because turnouts are removed and what's left can be pushed together but when doing that you have to be really careful not to affect the basic operation of the station.

Station plans can be curved or even partially hidden to fit them into a room.

Finally, ask yourself whether you can really afford the time, commitment and money to complete a large complex station.

March 17

2 minutes ago, Andy Keane said:

It’s really hard to know of course. But I rather fancy a change of colour since I got a crimson lake top light as a gift. Hence I updated my preorder on the autocoach to crimson and so the 517 will follow suit. But I do wonder how closely matched these colours would have been in real life.

These will all form part of stock for a slightly “earlier” Helston, set around 1920.

All "Lake" colours are difficult for modellers because they were somewhat translucent and so the final appearance depended on whatever colour was painted underneath. To reproduce them accurately you need to know the whole painting scheme, most notably what the undercoat colour was, then how many coats of Lake were used and how many coats of varnish.

(The railway companies liked Lake colours because they had depth - they looked "fancy".)

RTR manufacturers hopefully do their research and pick a composite colour that they think is the best match but there are a lot of variables involved...

March 17

You seem to be missing an important distinction. No one is saying that current Lais decoders are pirated. Early versions were allegedly pirated but the current ones are not. Either the design has been revised sufficiently or an agreement was reached.

The qualification "allegedly" has strong circumstantial evidence, which many of us choose to take at face value. Indeed, there are people reading this thread who saw the 2015 TCS statement.

Many people who accept the commonly understood version of events choose not to do business with Lais as a matter of principle.

You owe it to readers of your "DCC on a shoestring" proclamation to inform them that the Lais decoders have a controversial history, whether you believe that history or not, because that controversy is undeniable.

March 17

15 hours ago, Andy Keane said:

Phil, what impact, if any, do you find fitting the carriage body makes?

l have a second SRM on order and when I add the people etc, I could perhaps try an enclosure.

Andy

I was not keen to remove and replace the body too many times (!) but as far as I can judge, the body makes very little difference to the sound whether an enclosure is used or not. I think that's because it's such a big volume with relatively flimsy sides (from an audio perspective).

I'll send you the STL if that's any use, or I can print one and send it.

March 16

Here's a video comparing the sounds with and without the speaker enclosure.

I'm not making any great claims about this - you can hear a difference but it's not earth-shattering.

Sound haters don't need to comment, thanks. I know the sound is a bit weedy.

March 16

13 minutes ago, Andy Keane said:

It seems Hornby can get it right when they try. I may see what they fetch on eBay to compare to the £300 for a new Dapol.

The Hornby version has a slightly dodgy firebox but, yes, it's a pretty good loco even allowing for the age of the tooling.

I might still get a Dapol version but I'll wait to see what they're like this time before committing.

March 15

1 minute ago, Neal Ball said:

There was talk over at Helston with @Andy Keane who has just placed an order for a Dapol 28xx, whilst at the same time Phil @Harlequin has cancelled his order.

I have two Hornby locos, only one is DCC enabled, the other is in my "Sell to Hattons" pile.... It was my fathers when he had a layout, but given I also have a 72xx; Dean Goods and a Collet Goods, I don't think I need 2 x 28xx.

Seen here with a mineral train arriving into Henley-on-Thames:

At 10 wagons plus a Toad it was well within the limits of the loco. Obviously I doubt the real Henley would have seen such a loco on the branch.

For all the flaws of the Hornby 28xx, it does at least have the black parts painted black and a firebox top that doesn't make it look like a hunchback...

March 15

33 minutes ago, Andy Keane said:

I fear I am becoming a stamp collector: I have just preordered a Dapol 28xx for no other reason than it was there. Combined with the 47xx kit I have ready to build, poor old Helston’s permanent way is in for a bashing. So far I have resisted a King but if Accurascale did one I am sure that would arrive too.

Hmmm, I love the old twenty-eights but I'm about to cancel my pre-order for a Dapol 28xx because I have no faith that they will get them right!

Too many mistakes on recent items.

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Events

Exhibition Layout Details

Store

Posts posted by Harlequin