Michael Edge's workbench

[Nicktoix]

Very clever

Nick

[Michael Edge]

Some tests on the layout earlier today were completely successful - in fact in some circumstances it works better than the ordinary DG.

The EF1 has come down the hill attached on the front of the class A tanks (for extra braking) and has to be detached at Wentworth Junction. Stopped here with the J11's front coupling over the magnet, there's a section break here as well (in the near rail) to permit separating the locos.

Button pressed and the coupling loop is over the EF1's latch - the J11 looks in need of a dust! EF1s never worked here although they were originally intended to, this one will be painted in BR livery soon.

With the class A tanks away, the EF1 returns to banking duties, this time on the Wentworth colliery trip, coupled on to the brake van. The bankers all need a coupling hook on front since they have to pull the fulls off the branch before the train loco hooks back on at the front of the train.

The magnet in the fiddle yard where the bankers detach is on a curve which can cause problems uncoupling, this combined hook seems to work better since it's narrower than the flat DG one - I may replace all the front couplers with these now.

[Barry O]

So we need to be fitting most locos with this?

Baz

[St Enodoc]

Looks very good Mike. Looking at the photos, the trickiest bit will be stopping the respective latches from slipping down the side of the new hook.

 

Let us know when we can place orders (I'll combine mine with a pair of AL1 pantographs)...

[Michael Edge]

This latch seems no more likely to slip down the peg than the ordinary ones do and in any case the coupling works without it, just not with the delay. I'm going to put these on the front of every loco now, a lot of them have nothing in the buffer beam, just an empty slot. Usually it's not possible to fit a drawhook in the buffer beam with DG couplings as the loop tends to get over them but this one is far enough back from the peg to be out of reach. The peg itself (I don't call it a hook because it isn't one) has the backward angle incorporated, the flat DG one is easily left upright (so the loop won't ride up on it), bent too much (so the loop can't reach over it) or hook shaped (producing both faults simultaneously) - the angle was a guess but it seems to work reliably so far. It remains to be seen how robust they are when packed in stock boxes etc.

The same etch had the second test of the Stone-Faiveley pantograph so that might be moving along soon.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

This latch seems no more likely to slip down the peg than the ordinary ones do and in any case the coupling works without it, just not with the delay. I'm going to put these on the front of every loco now, a lot of them have nothing in the buffer beam, just an empty slot. Usually it's not possible to fit a drawhook in the buffer beam with DG couplings as the loop tends to get over them but this one is far enough back from the peg to be out of reach. The peg itself (I don't call it a hook because it isn't one) has the backward angle incorporated, the flat DG one is easily left upright (so the loop won't ride up on it), bent too much (so the loop can't reach over it) or hook shaped (producing both faults simultaneously) - the angle was a guess but it seems to work reliably so far. It remains to be seen how robust they are when packed in stock boxes etc.

The same etch had the second test of the Stone-Faiveley pantograph so that might be moving along soon.

Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear Mike. I wondered whether the latch on the real DG could slip down the side of the peg on your design. If it did, it might lead to trouble on curves. My latches do flop about a bit but the width of the DG hook stops them slipping down.

[Michael Edge]

I've not seen that happen yet but my DGs don't suffer from this problem very often. I'll let you know if it happens.

[PenrithBeacon]

My DGs had problems with lwb wagons. They kept pushing them off the rails.

I dumped DGs

Cheers

[Michael Edge]

Anything with a long throwover may need pivoted couplers but long wheelbase wagons such as tubes and plates are a bit difficult on sharp curves - don't blame the couplings there are limits to what a fixed one can do.

[PenrithBeacon]

I think the loop on DGs is too short, the curve was a B6 crossover and the vehicle a BR standard brake van.

I'm still looking for a reliable coupling that doesn't require me to go all OCD to get it to work.

Last year I noticed that the blokes who exhibit Flintcombe use S&W but only on one end, the other being a simple loop. Might give that a go.

Cheers, and thanks for the thread.

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Anything with a long throwover may need pivoted couplers but long wheelbase wagons such as tubes and plates are a bit difficult on sharp curves - don't blame the couplings there are limits to what a fixed one can do.

LWB vehicles such as the above and 4-wheeled parcels vans need sprung pivoted couplers. i use a length of PB wire attached to the back of the coupler and passing through a stirrup near the other end of the vehicle.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I think the loop on DGs is too short, the curve was a B6 crossover and the vehicle a BR standard brake van.

I'm still looking for a reliable coupling that doesn't require me to go all OCD to get it to work.

Last year I noticed that the blokes who exhibit Flintcombe use S&W but only on one end, the other being a simple loop. Might give that a go.

Cheers, and thanks for the thread.

That sounds odd David. Were the faces of the couplers in front of the buffers? If not then that could cause the problem you describe.

 

Single-ended couplers are good if the vehicles never get reversed.

[Barry O]

You can have a wider loop but it sounds like the couplings were in the wrong place. All of my BR standard/ex CLC/ex LNER Toad brake vans can be shunted around curves tighter than a b6 crossing.

 

I have a chivers ex LMS 6 wheel fish van ..the  couplings are not sprung but it too goes round curves ok.

 

S&W are chunky .using a vehicle with a coupling at one end works, but, as StEnodoc say, you can't have the trains reversing anywhere. 

Baz

[St Enodoc]

Just now, Barry O said:

I have a chivers ex LMS 6 wheel fish van ..the  couplings are not sprung but it too goes round curves ok.

I found that the limiting radius was about 30" for things like Parkside LNER CCTs, SR PMVs and so on.

[Michael Edge]

8 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I think the loop on DGs is too short, the curve was a B6 crossover and the vehicle a BR standard brake van.

I'm still looking for a reliable coupling that doesn't require me to go all OCD to get it to work.

Last year I noticed that the blokes who exhibit Flintcombe use S&W but only on one end, the other being a simple loop. Might give that a go.

Cheers, and thanks for the thread.

Sounds more like a problem with your crossover, B6 is generous in comparison with where I get problems - on the (Herculaneum) dock system with crossovers at about 2ft radius and 18" minimum radius in other places. The DG buffer does need to be outside the wagon buffer faces and exactly on the centre line if it's fixed. Having come across couplings with  loops of varying accuracy, too short a loop doesn't always get over the peg, too long and the magnet struggles to lift the latch - simple mechanics, too long a lever.

My loops are jig bent round taper pliers with the two widths clearly marked on them - inside dimensions 5mm wide, 7.5mm long.

Not really visible from this angle but the sides of the jaws angle backwards on these pliers which allows the wire to be bent a bit further to spring back to a right angle. They make a nice sharp bend at the pivot end - if the bend here is rounded (such as by wrapping the wire round a block) the loops can easily pull round the pivot holes.

We did a lot of experimenting with these couplings when we first adopted them in Leeds and also tried to make sure that everyone's were the same. They are easier if used single ended but that's not much use for the sort of layouts we produce.

It's not so much the length of the wagon as the end throwover (distance from the axle to the buffer face relative to the wheelbase), LNER long CCTs and LMS long Tubes are about the worst.

[TRAILRAGE]

On 20/06/2020 at 10:57, pete_mcfarlane said:

It's a bit clean compared to how it looked in BR condition, but the livery is definitely right for this particular engine. 

 

 

 

It was this Photo from the OPC Postcard collection that made me fall in love with these little loco's.

Done my DJH Model in this condition. Still not finished!

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by TRAILRAGE

[Michael Edge]

Latest test track photo shows things moving on a bit, some locos gone and one or two new arrivals.

The EF1 has come back in from the layout to be painted, Leeds United might get finished this week. The little Harton loco on the right is for comparison with its 7mm counterpart under construction now (test etch). Caradon has been bought by one of my customers and needs some attention - might be recognised on RMweb. No further progress on the Kirtley well tank yet.

[Killybegs]

On 13/07/2020 at 12:07, Michael Edge said:

Photo of the last two completed jobs.

47003 built from one of our kits in P4, this is the one which worked in Swansea, unusually it had a right facing crest, the electrification flashes must have been left over from its earlier home.

 

 

 

 

 

It seems that the WR of BR continued using right facing crests for some time after instructions to do otherwise. 

[Michael Edge]

I'm not sure that it had been repainted on WR though, I presumed the electrification flashes had come from elsewhere - no wires over the GW in those days.

[PenrithBeacon]

It might well have been sent to Derby for its last overhaul, I don't recall seeing any pictures of them at Swindon.

[Michael Edge]

Nearly all of these (even the C&HP ones) seem to have had electrification flashes applied at Derby although I don't think any ever worked under wires even in Liverpool.

[Killybegs]

Might have been into Caerphilly Works if it was working in South Wales. Swindon was probably busy building diesels!

[AJCT]

3 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Nearly all of these (even the C&HP ones) seem to have had electrification flashes applied at Derby although I don't think any ever worked under wires even in Liverpool.

 

I have a suspicion that with the advent of the first LM Region 25kv electrification scheme (was that Liverpool - Manchester?), there came an edict that all LMR-alllocated locomotives were to have flashes applied.  That included the 4 Carlisle (Canal) A3 Pacifics, which seemed to acquire them C.1961/62 - a long time before the WCML electrification reached Carlisle.  But perhaps some-one more knowledgeable than me can confirm ?

 

Alasdair

Edited August 4, 2020 by AJCT
Spelling !

[cctransuk]

23 minutes ago, AJCT said:

 

I have a suspicion that with the advent of the first LM Region 25kv electrification scheme (was that Liverpool - Manchester?), there came an edict that all LMR-alllocated locomoives were to have flashes applied.

 

 

That sounds about right - the OHLW flashes appeared on everything, including brakevans, like a measles epidemic.

 

There was a special one for inside brake vans - "OVERHEAD LIVE WIRES - DO NOT RAISE STOVEPIPE"! I know that, because I had one in my student hall-of-residence room that had (presumably) been evicted from an LMR brakevan.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

That sounds about right - the OHLW flashes appeared on everything, including brakevans, like a measles epidemic.

 

There was a special one for inside brake vans - "OVERHEAD LIVE WIRES - DO NOT RAISE STOVEPIPE"! I know that, because I had one in my student hall-of-residence room that had (presumably) been evicted from an LMR brakevan.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

In my student room I had, above the bed, one of those paper compartment window labels that read "Reserved for School Girls"...