Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for the mention Tony and I'm sure you weren't trying to be controversial in saying what you did above (in red) but, in the spirit that you very much advocate on this thread, I feel I should point out that the B3 etches have been produced by Nick Easton; my involvement has merely been to coordinate the whole thing, with just a little bit of input to the design process.

 

I look forward to the day when your set of B3 etches rises to the top of your inexhaustible build pile; in the meantime, here's the prototype build getting close to completion.

 

51_with loco.JPG

My apologies, Graham,

 

I couldn't remember Nick's name, but it should have been mentioned. 

 

I don't know about my 'inexhaustible build pile'.

 

 

With luck, I might have this new V2 ready for a test run on Grantham, if that's all right? 

 

Guess what Mo asked as we passed on the landing as she went to bed a few minutes ago? Who are you?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Michael Edge]

I wonder whether it's worth starting the New Year off with a few controversial observations? 

 

Firstly, however, I'd like to wish that this thread continues to be one of the most interesting, stimulating, thought-provoking, argumentative, helpful and widely-read of any on RMweb. Remember, it's you who contribute to it the most. 

 

In a sort of tangential way, I've been described as a 'heretic'. Thus, I'll take on that mantle and, as intimated, become even more controversial than usual. 

 

Mention has been made recently of some of the older, highly-influential layouts from the past. They have, with huge justification, been central to the development of the hobby down the decades. Tony Gee has ensured that Buckingham continues to be operated and is preserved for future generations. However (controversial observation number one), it is very much a product of its time. It's been my privilege to have been able to photograph it (not long after Peter Denny's death, when it was still in Truro), but I rejected several of the images because the modelling, in places, was rather 'crude'. In defence, I'd better qualify that observation, because 60+ year old cardboard and balsa wood structures, and brickpapers are going to look just what they are. Some of the locos/items of stock were rather 'blobby' in their painting as well. Yes, of course, the great man did everything himself and anything which has seen constant use for over six decades is going to show signs of wear and tear; but, I wonder, if such models were built today, to the same standard, what would be the general reaction? 

 

I say the above in the light of mulling over some etches for a B3 which Graham Nicholas has produced. I know a B3 is way later than Buckingham's time period, but what would Peter Denny have made of them? A wonderful model, no doubt, because the etches are superb (though I won't be using the suggested resin boiler when I build it). The point is, once the finished B3 model appears (not built by me), if painted well, it'll represent current state-of-the-art standards in mainstream 4mm modelling. It will be (dare I say it?) superior to all of the locos running on Buckingham. 

 

Trains running 35 B3 on Pullman.jpg

 

Speaking of a B3, this wonderful example ran on LB during the '38 weekend in August. Scratch-built by Mike Edge (using his own etches) and painted by (we think, though it's not signed) Larry Goddard, isn't this as good as it currently gets? This is not to belittle Peter Denny's work in any way, but surely standards have moved on and isn't there a danger of becoming a bit sentimental? 

 

Mention has also been made about Borchester. Speaking personally, Frank Dyer's work (obviously) was more influential to me than that of Peter Denny and I'd rate Frank as an equal to him in his model-making (though Peter worked in a more accurate gauge). 

 

Introduction 03.jpg

 

I never took pictures of Borchester when Frank was alive, but I did get a few when it was under new-ownership. I must say, the majority of the locos running on it were superior to any Frank built. Yes, he had to build most of his from scratch, but standards move on, and this PDK A2/1 built by Ian Forsyth represented quite an improvement in my view. For a start, it wasn't encumbered with Frank Dyer's couplings - surely some of the ugliest ever devised, with a huge semi-circle between the buffers to prevent locking. Yes, they worked, as tension-locks work. But, dare I say it, I prefer the latter? 

 

Again, nothing I've said should be seen as denigrating to a great man's work but I'm not sure Borchester would stand up to well against some current standards seen in OO Gauge modelling. In a way, the whole concept was a bit absurd; through trains to Kings Cross from a modest Notts town, off the ECML, with a terminus only capable of taking short expresses? As I've said many times, in my opinion, for any layout to have real merit (in whatever scale/gauge) it must be based on an actual prototype. Many, I'm sure, will disagree.

 

I did have the opportunity of photographing part of Ken Northwood's North Devon, after he'd died and the layout had been dismantled. I declined, because Torryford Station buildings were in a rather parlous state and I didn't think it would be fair. I remember being very impressed with it when I first saw it in the magazines many, many years ago, but would I be so impressed now? Who'd use a Farish 4mm 'King' nowadays as a starting point, with its too-angular firebox and nameplate attached with brass pins? Or, run LMS Exleys just repainted in chocolate and cream, today? 

 

Again, I have no wish to appear entirely iconoclastic, but shouldn't we just accept these 'seminal' layouts for what they were? Highly-influential, very important in the hobby's development and wonderful examples of 'personal' modelling, but, in many ways, not up to the 'best' of today's standards? 

 

It's also been my privilege to photograph many current layouts, and I think it's fair to say that the standards have never been higher. I'm not talking of layouts awash with RTR stuff (just think what the pioneers would have thought of what's on offer in that department now?), but there are some outstanding 'personal' layouts being built, every bit in their own way (potentially) as influential as those earlier ones mentioned. 

 

Of course, materials today are superior in every way to what was available decades ago. Those greats of years ago made a fantastic job, often using the most humble of resources, and that should never be forgotten. But great craftsmanship still exists out there, and shouldn't we be celebrating it more, even though the current materials make modelling 'easier'? 

 

One of the most influential modellers of all time was David Jenkinson. It was my privilege to work with and for him, and to photograph his 'last great project', Kendal, not long after he died. His EM Marthwaite was considered a seminal layout of its time, but the track wasn't even ballasted! 

 

No doubt, I'll have to go into hiding having written the above. However, I believe in what I've written and, at least my thoughts should be thought-provoking. Above all else, whatever our beliefs, we should be encouraging folk to have a go at modelling for themselves, helping them if we can and encouraging them to improve. Just as those greats of yesteryear just mentioned did.

 

Regards to all,

 

Tony.

 

Nothing etched in that B3 Tony, everything sawn out of sheet material, mostly shim steel.

[Atso]

Touching back on my post from yesterday, I've been building my first kits of 2019 will at my better half's. Just a basic toolkit, no soldering iron, so a continuation on building plastic wagon kits has been the order of the day (or rather a couple of hours of it).

 

 

The other half of the NGS LMS box van double kit (dia. 1897 I think) and a Parkside LNER loco coal wagon body. No chassis for either of these as I think the 2mm Association LMS chassis is far far superior to the old Peco 10' wheelbase chassis and I've never managed to get a Parkside chassis to run to my satisfaction.

 

 

A couple of NGS Midland vans (dia. 363?) which are temporarily mounted on the supplied Peco 10' wheelbase chassis while I have a look for a more suitable etched chassis.

 

Regarding painting one's own models, I am far too poor to be able to afford the services of the likes of Ian Rathbone or Geoff Haynes so painting things myself is the only option. However, I do own an airbrush which for me is a necessity as I've always struggled to get a good brush finish over a larger area. For mainly cost reasons, I've moved away from lining transfers and have been (trying) to use a bow pen and/or make my own transfers (decals?). However, I do still rely on Fox Transfer for the lettering and numbering. While not to the kind of level that I would expect a professional to achieve and I still need much more practice, I'm happy that my efforts do not look too out of place against my apple green Dapol A3s, A4s and B17s. Apologies if I've posted this picture here before.

 

 

Regarding modelling a prototype, my model of Hadley Wood will eventually occupy an area of 12' by 3'. That's for a scale replica of a very small station area (conveniently flanked by two tunnels) in N gauge. With just the bare boards set up, one begins to appreciate just how big even a 'modest' 12' by 3' layout is.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Atso

[queensquare]

Lovely work, Jerry.

 

Is the bottom-left box Weston, by the way?

 

Thanks Tim. Apologies for repeating the picture but this thread rattles along at such a pace that it seemed simpler for the sake of clarity! The history of the signal boxes at Bath was quite involved, I give a brief outline in a post on my thread here   http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/52798-bath-queen-square/?p=3412818

 

 

The boxes are, from the back, left to right;

Bath Single line Junction

Bath Junction (new)

Front row

Bath Junction (old)

Bath Station

 

The little ground frame hut is the one that was by the Bonded Stores

 

I do have enough of the window etches left to build another box and the one at Weston would be a good candidate. It does feel that I build Midland boxes like Tony builds ER pacifics!

 

Jerry

[thegreenhowards]

Reading all this detailed discussion on wiring and control I now have all fingers and toes crossed that the Protocab boys remain in business for the foreseeable future and their system continues to prosper. Not having to wire anything and just driving the trains makes life a tad less complicated .... though the mechanical lever frame and the fact that locos can move anywhere at any time I am sure will lead to just as much error and discombobulation.

 

Happy new year everyone.

Tim,

 

I think the protocab concept is great. It surely makes sense to remove the reliability on picking up from rails and all the wiring that entails. And the ability to ‘control the loco rather than the track’ as claimed by DCC is something I value. DCC is far from perfect...far too fussy with regard to short circuits etc. (I know we shouldn’t have them but we are human!), and more complex than is really necessary. I suspect that 90% of users do little more than program the loco number into the chip, and the rest of the functionality goes to waste.

 

So protocab sounds like a good leap forward and I briefly considered it. However there are two big issues for me:

1. The cost is far too high to consider for a reasonable sized loco fleet. I have over 100 locos, and I’m still working through chipping them all for DCC at £10-£20 a pop. I think Protocab is more like £100 per loco (correct me if I’m wrong) and that to me is a huge stumbling block. I can see that for you in P4, this is less of a problem because the size of your fleet is likely to be much smaller, and the time and cost invested in each loco makes the extra £100 less of an issue. But, I don’t think P4 is popular enough to keep Protocab going on its own, so it needs to be affordable for mainstream OO use if it is going to have a future.

2. The space it requires. Probably not a problem for diesels and LNER Pacifics, but for small tank engines, I think it would be a struggle to fit. Ironically these would be the locos which would benefit most from removing the need to pickup from the track.

 

Having used the system, do you think it is capable of becoming more affordable if it becomes more popular? And how easy have you found it to fit to smaller engines?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Chamby]

I can see a niche for a protocab fitted loco on an analogue layout, for things like banking and station pilot duties where independent operation close to other locomotives is required. Also, being able to drive a loco with impunity on both analogue and dcc wired layouts will be advantageous for those who like running their stuff on other people’s layouts. Being able to independently roam across sections and power districts will appeal to some, but additional care is required regarding route setting, as the potential for running on to points set the wrong way or signals set against you is increase, as the safety net of electrical isolation associated with normal analogue control is lost.

 

As well as cost (which sounds similar to dcc sound, to be fair), the onboard battery-space requirements and the additional hassle of recharging present new issues. The use of a ‘companion wagon’ might help, that is a permanently coupled wagon or coach to provide additional battery space, though not appropriate for every operational requirement. For some folk, these issues will be an absolute barrier to adoption of the system, but others will see the additional hassles as an acceptable cost that is offset by the benefits gained.

 

Using Protocab as the primary means of operation on a large layout in OO scale would be a huge step to take at the moment. It still has a ‘small scale start up’ feel to the business side of things, adding extra risk to any large investment in this particular system at the moment.

 

I would be tempted to try it if participating in ‘the great model railway challenge’. Not having to wire up a layout in such a time constrained situation would give you a sneaky advantage.

 

As a dcc user who has already heavily invested in existing digital tech, I don’t see sufficient advantage to become an early adopter of Protocab. But I like it’s novelty value and potential niche applications.

[Tony Wright]

Nothing etched in that B3 Tony, everything sawn out of sheet material, mostly shim steel.

Which makes it even more impressive, Mike (despite the 'incorrect' tender).

 

Was it Larry Goddard who painted it? Whoever did, the job is beautiful. 

 

I don't see Larry posting on here any more, so we won't know. 

 

Not only did it look a gorgeous model, but it ran superbly as well. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

 

 

I do have enough of the window etches left to build another box and the one at Weston would be a good candidate. It does feel that I build Midland boxes like Tony builds ER pacifics!

 

Jerry

Rather you than me, Jerry,

 

Those 'boxes are exquisite work.

 

You're right about this thread flying along. On occasions, I won't look until late afternoon, when there's another page, or two!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Lecorbusier]

Tim,

 

I think the protocab concept is great. It surely makes sense to remove the reliability on picking up from rails and all the wiring that entails. And the ability to ‘control the loco rather than the track’ as claimed by DCC is something I value. DCC is far from perfect...far too fussy with regard to short circuits etc. (I know we shouldn’t have them but we are human!), and more complex than is really necessary. I suspect that 90% of users do little more than program the loco number into the chip, and the rest of the functionality goes to waste.

 

So protocab sounds like a good leap forward and I briefly considered it. However there are two big issues for me:

1. The cost is far too high to consider for a reasonable sized loco fleet. I have over 100 locos, and I’m still working through chipping them all for DCC at £10-£20 a pop. I think Protocab is more like £100 per loco (correct me if I’m wrong) and that to me is a huge stumbling block. I can see that for you in P4, this is less of a problem because the size of your fleet is likely to be much smaller, and the time and cost invested in each loco makes the extra £100 less of an issue. But, I don’t think P4 is popular enough to keep Protocab going on its own, so it needs to be affordable for mainstream OO use if it is going to have a future.

2. The space it requires. Probably not a problem for diesels and LNER Pacifics, but for small tank engines, I think it would be a struggle to fit. Ironically these would be the locos which would benefit most from removing the need to pickup from the track.

 

Having used the system, do you think it is capable of becoming more affordable if it becomes more popular? And how easy have you found it to fit to smaller engines?

 

Regards

 

Andy

Hi Andy,

 

The cost side of things I think is definitely an issue for many ... and how this will develop I think is still anyones guess. To buy a set for a typical loco I find is in the region of £90 which includes the the loco control unit, the battery, the loco switch and the charging point (I always manage to get a 10% discount offer). In the package it is the control unit I suspect that needs to come down in price ... it is set at perhaps twice the price it needs to be to really compete with DCC (assuming a high end chip at ±£30) - a chicken and egg scenario I fear as you would need deep pockets or a larger bulk of sales to allow this to happen. It would be interesting to know what cost centre would represent a tipping point for large scale adoption - £40 per loco perhaps? I understand that Protocab is quite well thought of in the larger scales where proportionately it represents a smaller % of the overall costs and it also has a good following amongst garden rail buffs.

 

As you observe, I am building slowly and I can therefore spread the cost so that it is not too painful .... particularly as it means I have none of the expense of wiring the layout (if you are looking to run both DCC and protocab or have an existing layout this saving is of course lost). I suspect that if someone where to come with a largish order for a stud of locos then discounts would increase - but in the end, you just have to want to go down this particular route (as Tony has commented with his loco commissions it is amazing what people will justify if they want something!). Protocab appear to be keeping head above water at the moment .... it would be nice to see them succeed, though to do so they may need to partner with RTR in the end - who knows? I have a sad suspicion that they are going to do all the leg work for someone else to reap the benefits, but they do appear quite switched on so fingers crossed.

 

I think in 4mm scale it is already possible to fit the kit into all but the smallest tank loco. My next build will be a Johnson 1F 0-6-0 tank and I have an arrangement which I believe works and will also help with the weighting of the loco (a craftsman kit) .... ( I also understand that a smaller cylindrical battery is in the pipeline) - so for my purposes the system already works.

[Tony Wright]

Touching back on my post from yesterday, I've been building my first kits of 2019 will at my better half's. Just a basic toolkit, no soldering iron, so a continuation on building plastic wagon kits has been the order of the day (or rather a couple of hours of it).

 

image.jpg

 

The other half of the NGS LMS box van double kit (dia. 1897 I think) and a Parkside LNER loco coal wagon body. No chassis for either of these as I think the 2mm Association LMS chassis is far far superior to the old Peco 10' wheelbase chassis and I've never managed to get a Parkside chassis to run to my satisfaction.

 

image.jpg

 

A couple of NGS Midland vans (dia. 363?) which are temporarily mounted on the supplied Peco 10' wheelbase chassis while I have a look for a more suitable etched chassis.

 

Regarding painting one's own models, I am far too poor to be able to afford the services of the likes of Ian Rathbone or Geoff Haynes so painting things myself is the only option. However, I do own an airbrush which for me is a necessity as I've always struggled to get a good brush finish over a larger area. For mainly cost reasons, I've moved away from lining transfers and have been (trying) to use a bow pen and/or make my own transfers (decals?). However, I do still rely on Fox Transfer for the lettering and numbering. While not to the kind of level that I would expect a professional to achieve and I still need much more practice, I'm happy that my efforts do not look too out of place against my apple green Dapol A3s, A4s and B17s. Apologies if I've posted this picture here before.

 

image.jpg

 

Regarding modelling a prototype, my model of Hadley Wood will eventually occupy an area of 12' by 3'. That's for a scale replica of a very small station area (conveniently flanked by two tunnels) in N gauge. With just the bare boards set up, one begins to appreciate just how big even a 'modest' 12' by 3' layout is.

Good morning Steve,

 

Paraphrasing a well-know saying, 'poverty is the mother of necessity', or at least it is in your case.

 

Well, my young friend, that lack of richness has done you a power of good, because the painting on that N Gauge C1 is exceptional. 

 

I wonder how many others, strapped for cash, might contemplate doing painting like that for themselves. I know I couldn't, but then I'm very fortunate with my bartering. 

 

Thanks again for posting. What an inspirational start to the New Year. However (isn't there always an 'however'?), it needs a decent picture - my pleasure!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[thegreenhowards]

Hi Andy,

 

The cost side of things I think is definitely an issue for many ... and how this will develop I think is still anyones guess. To buy a set for a typical loco I find is in the region of £90 which includes the the loco control unit, the battery, the loco switch and the charging point (I always manage to get a 10% discount offer). In the package it is the control unit I suspect that needs to come down in price ... it is set at perhaps twice the price it needs to be to really compete with DCC (assuming a high end chip at ±£30) - a chicken and egg scenario I fear as you would need deep pockets or a larger bulk of sales to allow this to happen. It would be interesting to know what cost centre would represent a tipping point for large scale adoption - £40 per loco perhaps? I understand that Protocab is quite well thought of in the larger scales where proportionately it represents a smaller % of the overall costs and it also has a good following amongst garden rail buffs.

 

As you observe, I am building slowly and I can therefore spread the cost so that it is not too painful .... particularly as it means I have none of the expense of wiring the layout (if you are looking to run both DCC and protocab or have an existing layout this saving is of course lost). I suspect that if someone where to come with a largish order for a stud of locos then discounts would increase - but in the end, you just have to want to go down this particular route (as Tony has commented with his loco commissions it is amazing what people will justify if they want something!). Protocab appear to be keeping head above water at the moment .... it would be nice to see them succeed, though to do so they may need to partner with RTR in the end - who knows? I have a sad suspicion that they are going to do all the leg work for someone else to reap the benefits, but they do appear quite switched on so fingers crossed.

 

I think in 4mm scale it is already possible to fit the kit into all but the smallest tank loco. My next build will be a Johnson 1F 0-6-0 tank and I have an arrangement which I believe works and will also help with the weighting of the loco (a craftsman kit) .... ( I also understand that a smaller cylindrical battery is in the pipeline) - so for my purposes the system already works.

 

Good points Tim, I can see that it would be a fantastic solution for garden railways in the larger scales. I would be interested to see how you fit it in your 1F when complete - could you post it on here?

 

Andy

[queensquare]

I suspect that RC control is the future, though how far into the future is anybodies guess.

 

Regarding squeezing it into small prototypes I had a gent come to see me whilst demonstrating at a show last year and he popped a pannier on the table. He had built a new 2mm chassis but, at the time, the Farish body was untouched. He then proceeded to drive it across the table - no track - with a little hand set.

 

I took a couple of snaps and asked for an article which I hope will be forthcoming as I know very little more about the project. He did attempt to enlighten me with a few details but sadly my knowledge of technical 'stuff' is at a very low threshold!

 

 

Jerry

[jwealleans]

That B3 was painted by Larry, Tony, which is why the tender will almost certainly remain as it is - there's very little chance of my managing a paint job that good and I'd hate to destroy the originality and character of the whole.

[Doncaster Green]

One of my resolutions for this new year is to participate more in the various threads on this forum that interest me, rather than just lurking and shouting at the screen when I don't agree with something - rather like one does when watching politicians on TV!   My problem is that by the time I have composed my response the discussion has moved on and my thoughts are no longer relevant.   One of the enduring discussions on this thread is the extent to which various layouts, past and present, have inspired people and, due to its recurring nature, I have no problem in putting forward my views, even if, currently, out of context.

 

To me, it's not just a case of inspiration, it's aspiration as well.

 

Let me set the scene.   I am a modeller of advancing years who. of necessity, is a lone wolf in that, although there are clubs locally (albeit several miles away), my domestic situation is not conducive to regular commitments in the evenings or at weekends.   This means any modelling I do has to be commensurate with my own resources in terms of time, skills, space and finance.   The last is not a major issue as I have a decent combination of state and occupational pensions sufficient to provide the level of funding I require.   Of the others, time is available (if I get off my proverbial and do something!), skills are limited but, to a certain extent, improving but space is at an absolute premium.   Thus, to me, small is beautiful and, because the space constraint has been with me all my modelling life, always has been.

 

Thus, if I just consider my chosen scale of 2mmFS, layouts such as Copenhagen Fields, Fencehouses and St Ruth are a source of continual inspiration, but I cannot aspire to any of them; I haven't the resources of time, skills, space or funds.   On the other hand, Jerry Clifford's Tucking Mill and Highbury Colliery and John Birkett-Smith's Ashburton (I know, 9mm track, but I won't hold that against him) are a source of aspiration as well inspiration; they are small, beautifully formed and achievable.

 

At exhibitions I stare, with awe, at the likes of Gresley Beat and Liverpool Lime Street but know I could never aspire to them as their footprint is as big, if not bigger, than the ground floor of my house!   And that's before I consider the other constraints!   It's similar to the experience we had when having the kitchen refurbished; every brochure we looked at had pictures of gorgeous kitchens that were bigger than my kitchen, lounge, dining area and hall combined.

 

Thus, to me, a Buckingham or Arun Quay will win any day over many other layouts simply because, not only are they superb modelling in the context of their time, they are, to me, achievable.

 

Heads down, Incoming!

 

John

[Atso]

Good morning Steve,

 

Paraphrasing a well-know saying, 'poverty is the mother of necessity', or at least it is in your case.

 

Well, my young friend, that lack of richness has done you a power of good, because the painting on that N Gauge C1 is exceptional. 

 

I wonder how many others, strapped for cash, might contemplate doing painting like that for themselves. I know I couldn't, but then I'm very fortunate with my bartering. 

 

Thanks again for posting. What an inspirational start to the New Year. However (isn't there always an 'however'?), it needs a decent picture - my pleasure!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thank you Tony,

 

The C1 does have its faults but, at present at least, I can't do any better and so will live with them. I've been very fortunate with the C1 as the original Hall donor chassis was acquired as part of a swap with Jerry (thanks again Jerry!) and paired with some Britannia wheels that I happened to have. Since then I've been able to acquire almost enough bits to build another three Atlantics of which one will be a C2. Two of the additional Halls were purchased as returned 'non-runners' from the Dapol Collectors Club open day for £35 each and quickly restored to working order. The third was purchased second hand from DCC Supplies along with some spare Britannia wheels and, while more than the two non-runners, it was considerably less than purchasing a new example. That said, all of this has happened over the better part of a year to spread the costs and, if I was asked to build one for somebody else, I doubt I could do it for less than £600 once my time was factored in.

 

The loco is presently in bits again while I make some adjustments but it will hopefully be in a, more or less, complete and (hopefully!) running condition by the Sunday of the Stevenage show. If you are willing/able to take a decent picture then I would be most grateful!

[Atso]

I suspect that RC control is the future, though how far into the future is anybodies guess.

 

Regarding squeezing it into small prototypes I had a gent come to see me whilst demonstrating at a show last year and he popped a pannier on the table. He had built a new 2mm chassis but, at the time, the Farish body was untouched. He then proceeded to drive it across the table - no track - with a little hand set.

 

I took a couple of snaps and asked for an article which I hope will be forthcoming as I know very little more about the project. He did attempt to enlighten me with a few details but sadly my knowledge of technical 'stuff' is at a very low threshold!

 

IMG_5884.JPG

IMG_5887.JPG

IMG_5899.JPG

 

Jerry

 

Jerry,

 

That is absolutely amazing in 2mm scale! I have several friends who constantly outline the 'benefits' of DCC control but I am yet to operate a DCC layout where a random short circuit hasn't taken the whole layout out of commission until the source has been discovered (usually a stray loco straddling an isolation point). That, coupled with the cost of a chip, has put me off wanting to go down that route. However, radio control would be something else entirely. No need to power the tracks (other than perhaps a charging area), no need for pickups (my pet hate, as you know) and no chance of a short circuit while still enjoying the opportunity to independently control locomotives!

 

That said, is there a need to independently control locomotives outside of a shed environment or a goods/marshaling yard? Perhaps, my much talked/dreamed about, Hadley Wood layout will remain DC after all...

[Red Devil]

Tim,

 

I think the protocab concept is great. It surely makes sense to remove the reliability on picking up from rails and all the wiring that entails. And the ability to ‘control the loco rather than the track’ as claimed by DCC is something I value. DCC is far from perfect...far too fussy with regard to short circuits etc. (I know we shouldn’t have them but we are human!), and more complex than is really necessary. I suspect that 90% of users do little more than program the loco number into the chip, and the rest of the functionality goes to waste.

 

So protocab sounds like a good leap forward and I briefly considered it. However there are two big issues for me:

1. The cost is far too high to consider for a reasonable sized loco fleet. I have over 100 locos, and I’m still working through chipping them all for DCC at £10-£20 a pop. I think Protocab is more like £100 per loco (correct me if I’m wrong) and that to me is a huge stumbling block. I can see that for you in P4, this is less of a problem because the size of your fleet is likely to be much smaller, and the time and cost invested in each loco makes the extra £100 less of an issue. But, I don’t think P4 is popular enough to keep Protocab going on its own, so it needs to be affordable for mainstream OO use if it is going to have a future.

2. The space it requires. Probably not a problem for diesels and LNER Pacifics, but for small tank engines, I think it would be a struggle to fit. Ironically these would be the locos which would benefit most from removing the need to pickup from the track.

 

Having used the system, do you think it is capable of becoming more affordable if it becomes more popular? And how easy have you found it to fit to smaller engines?

 

Regards

 

Andy

I'm going down the 'dead rail' route for something I'm messing with at the moment, not progress as yet bar a few bits bought, they came from here though and I don't think overly expensive.

http://www.micronradiocontrol.co.uk/rc_model_rail.html

[Lecorbusier]

I'm going down the 'dead rail' route for something I'm messing with at the moment, not progress as yet bar a few bits bought, they came from here though and I don't think overly expensive.

http://www.micronradiocontrol.co.uk/rc_model_rail.html

I may be wrong ... but when I looked in to Deltang it appeared to be more of a do-it-yourself set up rather than a product with back up and a fitting service. As such we are perhaps not comparing like with like as far as protocab is concerned. However, I will admit that I see this as my escape route should Protocab fold.

[Red Devil]

I may be wrong ... but when I looked in to Deltang it appeared to be more of a do-it-yourself set up rather than a product with back up and a fitting service. As such we are perhaps not comparing like with like as far as protocab is concerned. However, I will admit that I see this as my escape route should Protocab fold.

It is, but as a complete novice the help and info I received was extremely useful and at the end of the day it all boils down to fitting a battery and r/c receiver, it's not that hard, yeah it might need a bit of messing with but having seen a mate of mine fit his 0-16.5 build stuff with some, having zero experience, it seemed the obvious way to go for me.

[polybear]

 

I don't see Larry posting on here any more, so we won't know. 

 

Larry was deemed to have been a naughty boy and ended up getting expelled.....

[Michael Edge]

Which makes it even more impressive, Mike (despite the 'incorrect' tender).

 

Was it Larry Goddard who painted it? Whoever did, the job is beautiful. 

 

I don't see Larry posting on here any more, so we won't know. 

 

Not only did it look a gorgeous model, but it ran superbly as well. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Yes, it's signed by Larry as usual under the footplate. I've no idea why the tender was wrong, I'll just have to blame the drawing I was using at the time (it was more than 30 years ago).

[Lecorbusier]

It is, but as a complete novice the help and info I received was extremely useful and at the end of the day it all boils down to fitting a battery and r/c receiver, it's not that hard, yeah it might need a bit of messing with but having seen a mate of mine fit his 0-16.5 build stuff with some, having zero experience, it seemed the obvious way to go for me.

As I understand things, there are much more rigorous standards and testing required if offered as a complete product and kite marked as such ... which is where a great deal of the cost lies for a small time operator like Protocab - but necessary to access the fit and forget market ... I know they are currently looking at ways to simplify this aspect with the various regulatory bodies. I think there are also pretty stringent safety aspects revolving around the batteries, which can be quite unstable if at all mistreated.

 

Because with the Deltang it is the modeller who is ultimately responsible for the combination and install of the components  (I am hazarding a guess here) and this is where the liability resides, things can be a lot looser - what we call in the building industry 'buyer beware rather than duty of care'. - I could well be wrong here, but that would beg the question as to why Protocab feel the need to jump through so many expensive regulatory hoops.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Lecorbusier

[Red Devil]

As I understand things, there are much more rigorous standards and testing required if offered as a complete product and kite marked as such ... which is where a great deal of the cost lies for a small time operator like Protocab - but necessary to access the fit and forget market ... I know they are currently looking at ways to simplify this aspect with the various regulatory bodies. I think there are also pretty stringent safety aspects revolving around the batteries, which can be quite unstable if at all mistreated.

 

Because with the Deltang it is the modeller who is ultimately responsible for the combination and install of the components  (I am hazarding a guess here) and this is where the liability resides, things can be a lot looser - what we call in the building industry 'buyer beware rather than duty of care'. - I could well be wrong here, but that would beg the question as to why Protocab feel the need to jump through so many expensive regulatory hoops.

Possibly, but then again how many just bang their own DCC chips in, it works for them as it's cheaper. If you want to transfer the element of risk to the chip supplier you pay someone else to fit it.  Same basic principal and one I'm happy to accept, but then again pretty much anything I buy would be attacked with a saw. dremel, knife as soon as it arrived home anyway. I accept the simile is not quite perhaps 100% but one I'm happy to accept as it delivers what I want for a reasonable price. As to battery safety yes whilst I agree they can be dangerous if messed with I'd hazard a guess that most households have plenty within them, all potential hazards in theory, but it's not rocket science to sort them out safely.  

[Lecorbusier]

Possibly, but then again how many just bang their own DCC chips in, it works for them as it's cheaper. If you want to transfer the element of risk to the chip supplier you pay someone else to fit it.  Same basic principal and one I'm happy to accept, but then again pretty much anything I buy would be attacked with a saw. dremel, knife as soon as it arrived home anyway. I accept the simile is not quite perhaps 100% but one I'm happy to accept as it delivers what I want for a reasonable price. As to battery safety yes whilst I agree they can be dangerous if messed with I'd hazard a guess that most households have plenty within them, all potential hazards in theory, but it's not rocket science to sort them out safely.  

True ... and Deltang is certainly cheaper.

[Tony Wright]

One of my resolutions for this new year is to participate more in the various threads on this forum that interest me, rather than just lurking and shouting at the screen when I don't agree with something - rather like one does when watching politicians on TV!   My problem is that by the time I have composed my response the discussion has moved on and my thoughts are no longer relevant.   One of the enduring discussions on this thread is the extent to which various layouts, past and present, have inspired people and, due to its recurring nature, I have no problem in putting forward my views, even if, currently, out of context.

 

To me, it's not just a case of inspiration, it's aspiration as well.

 

Let me set the scene.   I am a modeller of advancing years who. of necessity, is a lone wolf in that, although there are clubs locally (albeit several miles away), my domestic situation is not conducive to regular commitments in the evenings or at weekends.   This means any modelling I do has to be commensurate with my own resources in terms of time, skills, space and finance.   The last is not a major issue as I have a decent combination of state and occupational pensions sufficient to provide the level of funding I require.   Of the others, time is available (if I get off my proverbial and do something!), skills are limited but, to a certain extent, improving but space is at an absolute premium.   Thus, to me, small is beautiful and, because the space constraint has been with me all my modelling life, always has been.

 

Thus, if I just consider my chosen scale of 2mmFS, layouts such as Copenhagen Fields, Fencehouses and St Ruth are a source of continual inspiration, but I cannot aspire to any of them; I haven't the resources of time, skills, space or funds.   On the other hand, Jerry Clifford's Tucking Mill and Highbury Colliery and John Birkett-Smith's Ashburton (I know, 9mm track, but I won't hold that against him) are a source of aspiration as well inspiration; they are small, beautifully formed and achievable.

 

At exhibitions I stare, with awe, at the likes of Gresley Beat and Liverpool Lime Street but know I could never aspire to them as their footprint is as big, if not bigger, than the ground floor of my house!   And that's before I consider the other constraints!   It's similar to the experience we had when having the kitchen refurbished; every brochure we looked at had pictures of gorgeous kitchens that were bigger than my kitchen, lounge, dining area and hall combined.

 

Thus, to me, a Buckingham or Arun Quay will win any day over many other layouts simply because, not only are they superb modelling in the context of their time, they are, to me, achievable.

 

Heads down, Incoming!

 

John

You make a post interesting point, John,

 

That of the relationship between inspiration and aspiration. 

 

Though my own personal aspiration is for the large, main line layout (inspired by schoolboy 'spotting memories), I have been inspired by several 'smaller' systems. Not least because, if the standard of modelling is high, I'd hope to learn a lot from them, and, more importantly, put what (or hope to) what I've learned into practice. 

 

Buckingham was certainly an inspiration in my formative years (it still is) and I've learned a lot about self-reliance in my own modelling from it, though I still have a long, long way to go. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you consider that much of what's in the above pictures is between 60 and over 70 years old, then how much inspiration must the work of Peter Denny have given to others down the years? 

 

You mention Arun Quay.

 

 

I cannot find a better example of current modelling of the highest quality than this. Gordon Gravett has produced everything to the most consistently-high standard. Nothing is overstated and the weathering is perfect. Modelling of this standard can inspire me, but it's way beyond any hopes of my aspiring to it. 

 

 

Of course Gordon and Maggie have an excellent 'pedigree' in producing inspirational layouts, none more so than Pempoul. I think this is the finest example of self-reliance in modelling I know of. Almost everything on Pempoul had to be scratch-built, there being no trade support for this scale. 

 

 

The nearest I can get to a contemporary Peter Denny is Geoff Kent (a fellow Cestrian). Though, I accept, Geoff doesn't make everything the way Peter did, the evidence of his all-over modelling skills are among the highest I've ever photographed. His current Black Lion Crossing is one of the finest layouts on the circuit today. Though not an actual prototype overall, all the structures are models of actual buildings. I'm sure Geoff was inspired by Peter.

 

 

One inspirational modeller, sadly taken far too soon from us, was Dave Shakespeare. Dave was genuinely surprised by the number of modellers he'd inspired with his Tetleys Mills. It was something others could aspire to, too. His methods for making buildings were fast, easy to produce and extremely effective.

 

Please keep posting. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.