Huw Griffiths
-
Posts
1,485 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Blog Comments posted by Huw Griffiths
-
-
12 hours ago, Ravenser said:
One comment - the "fiddle yard" appears to have capacity for a dinner plate and a mug.
I know.
Space for a Stein - and a tin of biscuits - would be far more useful.
It would be even more useful if they were full.
12 hours ago, Phil Parker said:A tea shelf is an essential for me. There's no way I'd ever get through a show without drinks!
Melbridge Dock has a cubby hole for KitKats too, and it always proved to be very useful.
12 hours ago, SouthernRegionSteam said:As tea accounts for 99% of the liquid I drink, it's certainly an essential.
For some rerason, I'm reminded of that old Aldi advert - in which an elderly woman tells us: "I don't like tea - I like gin!" That's right - "G&T", minus the "T".
Some of us have different preferences when it comes to "nourishing beverages" - like Hoegaarden, or Port.
Of course, I don't have a car - so I don't need to worry quite so much about staying sober until I get home.
10 hours ago, Nick C said:There must be away to incorporate tea into the layout somewhere too, surely?
As long as this doesn't mean a wagon - or even a van - with "Twinings Earl Grey" on the side, I'm not too worried.
Before anyone asks, I happen to quite enjoy Earl Grey (or, when I'm desperate to chill out, Rooibos).
-
2
-
-
I'd suggest jewellers' suppliers - these guys would almost certainly keep them in stock:
-
1
-
-
It's interesting to see mention of jewellers' suppliers (very interesting in my case, as I've bought a number of tools from Cooksons in recent years).
However, I could add that it isn't only the tools etc available which can make their Birmingham shop interesting to visit - they've also been known to host a number of free workshop / demo sessions (details on their website) showing different techniques.
OK - I can't make any promises here - and anyway I'm never likely to be interested in jewellery - but some of the techniques and equipment used in jewellery making might also be of interest to some modelmakers.
Huw.
-
When I've needed to enlarge drawings (from a published diagram book, in my case), I've just scanned the relevant drawings into my PC - and rotated, enlarged, or otherwise adjusted the files using an old version of PhotoShop.
Although I can't be certain, I suspect that a number of other image manipulation packages (eg The Gimp) would probably offer similar features to these.
Depending on the size of your drawings, you might also be able to rescale them using a photocopier (perhaps set to print at A3 size - try checking your local library, or even one of those shops that print pamphlets and business cards while you wait).
-
This is looking good - I hope I get chance to see it for real at some show in the not too distant future.
-
This stuff strikes me as very interesting - especially the Networker rebuilds.
Having experimented with similar bodyshells in the past, I wouldn't expect them to be particularly easy to join neatly. It doesn't help that the bodysides are very thin (especially near the windows) and shaped in a way which doesn't make it easy to conceal section joins. Even wrapping insulating tape around the outside of bodyshell section joins (and adding PlasticWeld from inside) might not necessarily yield perfect results.
I like what you're trying to do - and I'm hopeful you'll be able to achieve a decent result. I don't think it's going to be quick - I don't think it's going to be easy - but I think you'll get there.
However you go about this, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with something that works (and which you'd be happy with).
I'm looking forward to seeing progress on this stuff - whether this is soon or at a later date.
All the best with your project.
Regards,
Huw. -
I'll be watching this project with interest - not surprising, in view of my electronics / engineering / higher education background.
I should, perhaps, mention that I don't have a layout - and I've never used PICs - but I still find it interesting to see what can be done using electronics.
Turning to your project, I agree that the last design concept (with a flip lid) could look very neat.
In some ways, this concept reminds me of the MCB (miniature circuit breaker) boxes which have replaced fuse boxes in a lot of houses. These usually feature banks of individual (and replaceable) breakers, arranged in a logical sequence with a line of labels above or below them - they can be very neat - but, if changes are made, care needs to be taken to keep things tidy.
If I were going down this route, I'd probably replace the tab on the flap with a handle - or extended portion of the flap (perhaps folded into a handle) - on the opposite side of the flap to the hinges. This might give users slightly more purchase on the flap when they need to access what's underneath.
I'd probably also look at adding magnet strips (self adhesive magnet tape - or possibly "fridge magnet" paper along this outside edge - to hold the flap in place. A further refinement might involve some felt - where the flap rests on the housing - to improve the seal and make closing the thing a bit quieter.
I don't know if you've seen any audio mixer consoles - with all the channels arranged alongside each other - controls for each channel laid out in exactly the same sequence - and connections via "patchbays" at the back (or somewhere else convenient). A concept like this would work well here.
You'd have no trouble finding loads of good images of mixer desks on the internet, using your favourite search engine - somehow, I suspect you might already have done such a search.
Personally, I like neat design - everything laid out logically - what you've said so far suggests you also like things well laid out.There is, however, a risk in all of this - the risk of "over designing" your project.
Certainly, a closed box can look very neat - but it might also turn out to be slightly inflexible. When you - or anyone else - sets this device up for the first time, can you be certain that the lighting design (or even the circuit) has been finalised? Are all the connections added at this one "hit" - or will someone have to return and make changes, perhaps a number of times?
If there are loads of changes further along the line, the whole thing might soon start to look very messy if you're not very careful.
There's another approach to designing electronic projects like this. This uses 2 pieces of acrylic - held a few centimetres apart using bolts and plastic spacer pillars - with the circuit board fixed to the rear piece of acrylic using short spacers. If the assembly needs to be fitted to the layout board (probably a good idea), this can be achieved by bolting the rear sheet of acrylic to the board using more bolts and spacers.
The advantage of using this form of enclosure is that you don't need to make holes for wires - which means that you don't end up with loads of unused holes when you make changes.
A number of versions of these have been offered commercially over the years - I can remember Elektor (an electronics magazine) offering their take on this idea a few years back:
http://www.elektor.com/media/catalog/product/1/0/100500-71c-web.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Y4oAsBDFuo4/UmvbngNIOfI/AAAAAAAACUI/QBB81Roe2MU/s1600/005+%28Small%29.jpg
Another current example is the "Space Station Modular Enclosure", offered by weeblackbox.com:
https://makewhatever.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/3f1850a853f9e4cbe36c69c864db2991_large.jpg
I'm sure it goes without saying that you'll make sure that everything is logically laid out on your circuit board. I'm also sure you'll keep the wiring, connections and adjustable components neat and clearly labelled.
Here, I've got further thoughts - which might run against the grain:
- What type of connectors will you use to connect the LEDs to the board? You might wish to use screwed terminal blocks - similar to the "choc block" / "Lego brick" strips used for all manner of purposes, but probably soldered to the circuit board. Another possibility might be SIL or DIL connectors - something like modified turned pin IC sockets - with ribbon cable. Whatever connectors and cable you choose, colour coding is a good idea - as is good documentation (which would probably include a clear circuit or wiring diagram, prepared using a drawing package on a computer - I've used Adobe Illustrator for stuff like this, but MS Paint or the drawing "module" of an office package would also be up to the task).
- Once you've set things up, how often are you likely to need to alter the settings of potentiometers in your control circuit? I'm not convinced that you need to go to the expense (and space requirements) of panel mounted pots - presets (sometimes called "trimpots" or "trimmers") would probably be more than adequate for this purpose - but they don't need to be multiturn or anything else exotic.
Whatever you do with your project, I wish you success with it.
All the best,
Huw.
- What type of connectors will you use to connect the LEDs to the board? You might wish to use screwed terminal blocks - similar to the "choc block" / "Lego brick" strips used for all manner of purposes, but probably soldered to the circuit board. Another possibility might be SIL or DIL connectors - something like modified turned pin IC sockets - with ribbon cable. Whatever connectors and cable you choose, colour coding is a good idea - as is good documentation (which would probably include a clear circuit or wiring diagram, prepared using a drawing package on a computer - I've used Adobe Illustrator for stuff like this, but MS Paint or the drawing "module" of an office package would also be up to the task).
-
On a slightly less cynical note than my previous suggestions:
Rule 13: If you're modifying RTR models or kits, you can almost guarantee that some parts (or bit of them) will get damaged - enough to make them unusable in the build. Eg If you need to "cut & shut" coaches or DMUs - and cut along the edges of windows or doors - you'll lose some material from the waste side of the cut - if you are actually able to reuse this piece elsewhere, you'll first need to add extra bits of material to rebuild the edge - it might be better just to cut this section back to something you can use elsewhere!
Rule 14: A number of the pieces you discard as a result of such damage might turn out to have other uses (possibly even unexpected uses). Taking the cut & shut coaches in the previous paragraph as an example, you might find that discarded bodyshell, side, or end, sections turn out to be useful as jigs for working out the dimensions of (and positions of cutouts in) new interiors to fit into the coaches you're working on.
Huw.
-
1
-
-
Yup.
-
Rule 9: If you really - really - want a model of some unusual prototype, then you'll have to build it yourself.
Rule 10: If you are forced down the road of building your own loco / rolling stock / multiple unit, you'll find that decent drawings - and most of the parts you need - are next to impossible to find (and prohibitively expensive if you do manage to find them) - and none of the parts fit together properly.
Rule 11: If / when you finally finish your build, you'll find a well known RTR manufacturer offering a more accurate version of the same model at about a tenth of what it cost you to build your version. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that said RTR model will actually have been supplied to any shops ... .
Rule 12: Who said there only had to be 10 of these rules?
Huw.
-
1
-
-
"Never mind how much effort goes in to a layouts scenery, if there isn't a train operating then visitors won't hang around. Some will only pause to make their exasperation clear to everyone within a 40 foot radius before moving on."
Only 40 feet?
No chance.
We're not that tolerant - more like 40 metres, if you ask me!!
Oh - and, by the way, we also want 2 trains passing each other - NOW - in plain view - and in opposite directions - or it's not a proper layout!!!
"As any layout owner will tell you, operating at a show is very different to operating at home. The model has to work for 8 hours a day without pause. If a loco fails, you really need something to replace it with straight away or the crowd gets restless. Poking around and fixing things isn't an option
-
I saw "Owen's Bridge" at "Warley" on Saturday - it looked good - and it also seemed to run fine when I was there.
Your idea of having a second Simplex makes sense - as it provides an insurance policy.
-
I'm not convinced about a rotating magnet - as I'm not sure it would be needed.
My suspicion is that the couplings probably contain a bar magnet - but it's probably mounted sideways, the same way round on every coupling.
I don't know which way round the magnet is (though it would probably be possible to check, using a magnetic compass).
However, just to illustrate what I mean, let's say each coupling has its magnet's North pole on the left - and South on the right, as you look at the end (like in your photo of a loco) - something like this:
******************************** ******************************** **********************************
N * * S N * * S N * * S
**** LOCO **** **** WAGON **** **** WAGON ****
S * * N S * * N S * * N
******************************** ********************************* ***********************************
The first wagon you pick up has its couplers with their magnets arranged the same way round - so, when you couple the loco and wagon together, a North on the loco faces a South on the wagon - and a South on the loco faces a North on the wagon.
The couplings at the other ends of the loco - and the wagon (and any other wagons in the set, for that matter) are all the same - and they all work together in the same way.
Obviously, the poles on the coupling magnets might be the other way round - as long as they're all the same as each other, it doesn't matter.
As for the rattling noise, it could just be that the magnets are slightly smaller than the space they fit into - so they rattle about slightly.
Whatever's going on inside - and whatever's fitted inside them - you can be certain that there's nothing complicated. Let's face it - they're toys - they need to be cheap to make - and they need to be robust. The most effective way of achieving this is to keep everything as simple as possible.
Huw.
-
Do you have any old O-16.5 or On30 locos or stock kicking around - perhaps "Harlech Castle", or something similar?
-
I also like the "driver's eye" view offered to passengers - something which BR unfortunately forgot when they built the Pacers, Sprinters and Turbo units.
It doesn't matter whether I'm travelling on a train or a bus - I always like to be able to see where I'm going.
-
The railbus sounds like quite a good reason to me.
Let's face it - it's not a Pacer, is it?
-
Howard,
Many thanks for your kind remarks.
With regard to my kit, I actually intended to bring it with me - to the model tram show and to RMweb Live - to assist with questions / explanations. For various reasons, this didn't work out on either day.
I'm afraid the photos of my kit might be a short while coming - if only because I need to charge up the batteries on the camera.
While I think of it, there's also the little matter of working out how to post photos from it - so I'll try to work that one through, even if it involves further delay. If nothing else, this should provide me with an excuse to post photos in the "test" section of this website - I just can't say when this will happen.
I know - "excuses ... excuses ..." - it's just that these ones happen to be true.
In the meantime, I'll try to describe what I think the score is:
Photos will follow, in due course - but I know that Ian Fisher posted a picture of one of these kits, at a slightly later stage of the build sequence: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/71887-mark-hughes-wm-metrolink-tram-kits/
In Ian's photo, you might notice some raised strips, at the top and bottom of the centre door - one end of these strips doubles as the lugs holding the bodyshell sections together prior to soldering (or, more likely in my case, Aralditing). You might also notice a bodyside half section - visible behind the assembled section and in front of the tin of paint.
One thing that complicates these kits is the fact that these sections need to be trimmed before assembly - for length - and so the lugs can be fitted to the corresponding slots on another section.
This wouldn't be too much of a problem - were it not for the fact that both sides of the join need to be trimmed very aggressively - and I found out that it's easy to go too far with the file. This resulted in some rather fragile areas, by the joins.
At this point, I was unsure how to rescue the situation - so I decided to put the kit to one side - then think about it - and ask questions at shows, where a number of viable sounding suggestions have been made on how to proceed.
When I finally get the courage to continue with the build, I'm sure the first step will involve some rather careful cleaning of the pieces.
I suspect that I'm most likely to follow this by adding a strip of brass shim behind where the pieces need to be joined - then fix the pieces onto this.
I might also use some scraps of PCB material - with the copper cladding removed - as packing, while I fix the sides together. I'm not sure about this one, though - I suspect it would be more useful with soldering than with glue assembly.
If I opt for Araldite, this might allow me to use Sellotape, or insulating tape, for holding things together during assembly - something I've got plenty of experience of through a previous job (which involved installing strain gauges - loads of the things.)
As for the choice of solder or glue, I'm not really sure. A lot of people swear by soldering - and point out that it can give strong joints. However, I've never had much luck with soldering whitemetal - and I've also heard some horror stories about some of the large bodyside sections on these kits sucking heat out of joints - so Araldite is starting to look very tempting. Time will tell.
However, my kit wasn't really at the centre of my thoughts when I mentioned the "kit rescue" concept.
Although I'm obviously grateful for any ideas etc with my kit, I was actually thinking more about model railway kits in general - many of which are built in similar ways. After all, I'm sure that other people - building models of completely different prototypes - must have encountered weak panel joints. They've probably also had some bother soldering whitemetal.
A lot of people have posted comments on sites like this - or asked questions at shows - asking how to deal with various problems they've encountered with their kits. These kits seem to be of a wide range of prototypes - but many of the problems seem to recur with many of them - and I was wondering if there might be some way of showing us how to deal with some of the more frequent problems.
Anyway, until I can get the camera up and running - and, more importantly, I can work out how to use it, I'm afraid my photos will need to wait.
Edit: Since posting the above comments, I've had chance to take some photos of my kit - and post them in the "test" section of this site.
I've also taken the chance to "tidy up" some of my comments - in an effort to clarify what I was trying to say - whilst trying not to alter the basic message.
I think it's just as well that, to date, I've made no attempt to solder together the sides of my articulated tram kit - I'm just not convinced that I would have done a very good job of it. (I won't bore you with my reasons for saying this.)
There's also the issue of how aggressively the sides on my kit need to be trimmed above the windows - to allow the lugs above them to fit. My photos show that there isn't much "stock" left above the windows - which creates the risks of window frames getting melted, or detail getting smothered by molten low melt solder when doing the joints.
For these reasons, I very much doubt if I'll be fixing these parts together using low melt solder - I suspect that metal loaded epoxy adhesive (with metal epoxy filler, if needed) would be less likely to damage the window frames when I finally summon the courage to get on with building this kit.
In all honesty, "finally" is probably the operative term - in a sense, it already is, as I actually got this kit in 1998! Since then, it's been pulled out - looked at - and then shelved - on a number of occasions. I'm sure this kit will, eventually, get built - I just don't know when, that's all! I'm sure that many of your readers have also got kits with similar histories.
Although this kit's currently on the back burner, it probably won't surprise you to learn that I've got other projects on the go - experiments / proof of concepts - none of them exactly exciting.
Some of these projects fall within the usual scope of this website - some of them definitely don't. However, if any of them lead anywhere, I should now be in a position to post pictures in an appropriate section of this site (and / or FreeRails - where I'm also a member) - time will tell.
In the meantime, I look forward to seeing progress on your project - and other projects in BRM.
Many thanks.
Regards,
Huw.
-
I'm really looking forward to the magazine articles.
This model looked amazing at RMweb Live - and there's obviously been a lot of progress since.
I don't know how many RMweb members would agree with my viewpoint but, if I'm reading a magazine, I find it far more interesting to see "work in progress" articles than photos of the finished model.
Some people might point out that a lot more work has gone into the finished article than the part-way-there photos - and they'd be right, if everything's done to the same high standard.
However, if nobody gets to see the intermediate stages, some people might be tempted to cut loads of corners, so the finished result might not be quite as good.
Well, having seen this model when you were working on it, I know you weren't cutting corners.
Anyway, even if a modeller were cutting corners to get a result, documenting the build process and showing what's been done (and how it's been done) might allow us to learn - what's really been done - why - how - and do the results justify the means?
After all, this stuff is all part of the learning process, which is vital for any of us to be able to build better models.
In a similar vein, while I was at the show, I wondered whether there might be scope for a regular "Kit Rescue" feature in BRM.
On the surface, this might look like laziness - after all, I'm sure that many of us have part-built kits, which we've put to one side and forgotten about, because we encountered problems which we couldn't solve easily.
Well, my suggestion wasn't about getting somebody else to build one (or more) of my obscure kits for me, with a magazine picking up the tab.
The way I see it, it doesn't make a lot of odds what prototype a kit is supposed to be based on.
At a couple of recent shows, I've mentioned about some Mark Hughes whitemetal kit of a Metrolink T68 articulated tram - on which I managed to damage a join between 2 side panels, when I tried to fit them together for glueing.
I'm sure that loads of people might be thinking that they don't have one of these kits - they probably don't - but they might have encountered similar issues, or done something very similar, with some WM loco kit they've attempted.
They might also have encountered issues when building kits of other subject - and in other materials - etched brass - resin - styrene - wood.
I know that, in time, I should be able to fix my kit - I don't know exactly how - but I'm sure it will happen, eventually.
If nothing else, I'm sure that a number of the helpful suggestions I've got from various people at shows will give me enough clues to point me in roughly the right direction.
In other words, I'm not really talking about my kit - or any of the other stuff I've somehow managed to mangle, whilst trying to assemble or refurbish them. However, I'm sure that there must be loads of other people out there, who've made similar mistakes - I'd quite like the chance to learn from them.
By now, I'm sure some people might have worked out that I used to work in a university - as a labrat - and my job involved setting up, running and supervising practical classes.
I made mistakes - everyone does - thankfully, I didn't make too many and the ones I made weren't too serious. The students I supervised also made mistakes - again, nobody was killed or seriously injured - but I learnt from everyone's mistakes and I tried to ensure that my students did likewise.
I also learnt from different ideas some of the students came up with - and I generally enjoyed the learning process. However, the biggest lesson I learnt was to always be ready to learn, even if some of the lessons - some of the learning opportunities - don't come from the most obvious directions.
This is the real reason for my suggestion - whether it's actually workable - whether anyone wishes to pick up the idea and run with it - remains to be seen.
Time will tell.
Anyway, returning to your model - it looks excellent - and I'm looking forward to seeing progress on it.
Regards,
Huw.
-
A number of NGRM members are also members of RMweb - I suspect this might even include some people involved with running NGRM.
As far as I'm aware, there's actually nothing scary behind their "join up question".
In recent years, a number of forum sites have fallen prey to spammers and the like - so a number of sites have started asking questions like this (which real people, genuinely interested in the subject, are likely to be able to answer - or at least make a reasonable guess).
Over time, some sites have also been known to change their questions - sometimes because the wrong people are getting in or getting blocked - sometimes because some questions might have more than one correct answer (or alternative spellings - eg English and Welsh versions of place names).
I can't comment about the specific question any site might be using at a given time - but one thought might be to try using all upper case, all lower case, or something like that.
However, I'd agree that a blog might not be the best place to ask questions about other sites - if nothing else, there's the fact that a lot of blogs don't always get seen by many people.
My thoughts would also involve the "Special Interests - Narrow Gauge" - or "Media - Websites" areas of this site.
Huw.
-
I'd be surprised if the font turned out to be anything other than Akzidenz Grotesk.
As already suggested, this font had already been in use for some time before the War.
Some people might think this font's name sounds a bit sinister - not according to the identifont.com website: http://www.identifont.com/show?FU. It appears that "Akzidenz" means something along the lines of "trade type" (or "jobbing / general purpose typeface") - while "Grotesk" merely means that this is a "sans serif" font.
As for "Helvetica", I believe it was derived from Akzidenz Grotesk some time in the 1950s - for the Haas type foundry - and originally called "Neue Haas Grotesk".
I gather that Arial is later still - (1980s?) - with a number of differences from both Akzidenz Grotesk and Neue Haas Grotesk / Helvetica.
Changing the subject, that museum sounds good.
It could also be interesting if someone were to start a "museums worth visiting" thread somewhere on RMweb. I'd imagine that, apart from being rather good, some of the recommendations might come as surprises to some people.
-
There goes your warranty then...
...and a load of plastic, by the looks of it.
Still, it's looking good for its diet.
Are you planning on adding flashing LEDs to the roof, to represent the warning lights?
Bramble's Boatyard - From 'flights of fancy' to actual scaled plans!
in Coastguard Creek - New Forest Coast
A blog by SouthernRegionSteam in RMweb Blogs
Posted
To be honest, I've never exactly been a "problem" drinker myself - and none of my relatives are - we all value our health too much for that.
Another issue is that, if I'm returning home from (eg) a show by public transport, I'll probably be faced with a long walk, late at night - so I need to be alert.
Anyway, it's easy to tell if I've had too much to drink - I suddenly become even "quieter" and more "withdrawn" (apparently this is possible ...).
Returning to the layout / plans, the discussion about the bridge is interesting. I see different angles on this issue:
Ultimately, with any layout like this, you're going to run up against space issues - realistically, there's no way you can do much more than suggest that boat building and repairs are going on in the area. This would probably be true for just about any industry you might try to include in a layout.
I could probably make similar comments about "sets" used in making films and TV programmes - for example, unless they're using "real" locations, they'll probably be careful not to show typical road vehicles "side on" against buildings ... .
Anyway, one final (we all hope!) thought:
Any plans to outline the process of designing / "fine tuning" layouts in a future magazine article? Probably a crazy idea - I'm not sure ... .