Wright writes.....

[jamie92208]

8 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Jamie,

 

I came across this EZline product in use yesterday, on a layout I photographed.

 

I must admit to being very ambivalent about it.

 

Here, it's out of focus, but looks quite effective. 

 

 

This image is yet to be fully-processed, but, again, to the right, I think the wires work quite well. However, there is no 'droop'.

 

 

It seems to have a habit of pulling the posts out of plumb. And, it'll be no fun filling-in all the spaces in between! 

 

 

The tension can cause the poles to take up an unrealistic angle, as here. The fixings do look a bit 'whiskery'. 

 

This is on an OO layout, so it could look better in 7mm Scale.

 

 

As for me, I live without wires, especially on a largish system, viewed from a few feet away. The eye just 'believes' that they're there (as it believes the fence wires are there as well?). 

 

I recall during my art school days being told that' What you leave out of a drawing/painting is often as important as what you put in. Let the observer do the work - economy is essential'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

From my experience, the droop is relatively easy to induce when it is being installed. It just needs a bit of practice. None of my poles on Long Preston were pulled out of alignment. You did take so e very good photos of LP. I'll try and fi d copies of them.

 

Jamie

[Fat Controller]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't know, Stewart,

 

But they're no bigger than milk churns, which were manhandled. Perhaps they weren't full?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

It's only fairly recently that advisable maximum weights for lifting have become a concern; cynics might say it's because the NHS has been picking up the tab for hip and knee replacements, and is  now realising how much it's costing them. In 1980, I was emptying bogie Ferrywagons loaded with 60kg bags of gypsum. Each wagon loaded 65t, and we unloaded at least one per day between two of us. No wonder my knees ache...

[Denbridge]

12 minutes ago, RLBH said:

Depends very much on the impurities! For professional reasons I had cause a few years ago to look into ways of making water heavier - there are chemicals out there which will make a pint of 'water' weigh about four and a half pounds, although at great expense. And potentially making it toxic.

 

Shifting a milk churn of mere ordinary water by hand would make a modern health-and-safety person wince, but needn't be prohibitively difficult if two chaps who've had their Weetabix are on hand. Or one who's had double helpings. If need be, a sack truck could probably be found to take the worst of the weight.

Shifting milk churns or similar containers isnt difficult. You use the liquid within to aid momentum. I worked for a time in the Pub business and often moved 22 gallon barrels, including placing them on top of each other.

[Fat Controller]

5 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

Shifting milk churns or similar containers isnt difficult. You use the liquid within to aid momentum. I worked for a time in the Pub business and often moved 22 gallon barrels, including placing them on top of each other.

We used to call this 'walking' the container- fine until something happened and you lost the 'sweet spot'. Handling acetylene bottles on icy concrete was particularily interesting...

[grahame]

19 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

Shifting milk churns or similar containers isnt difficult. You use the liquid within to aid momentum. I worked for a time in the Pub business and often moved 22 gallon barrels, including placing them on top of each other.

 

A barrel of beer is a 36 gallon cask (oddly an oil barrel is a different capacity). Apart from kegs which are modern and tend to be metric, casks come in sizes 4.5 gal (pin), 9 gal (firkin), 18 gal (kilderkin), 36 gal (barrel) and so on. It's easy enough to manhandle a full 18gal kil(derkin) by oneself using the liquid (effectively rolling it, either along it belly or around the end circumference) but in my experience to lift it up on to stillage and chock it required a couple of people especially to a double deck higher level. Friends of mine, who run pubs, have installed electric hoists so they can lift kils and larger on to stillage on their own.

 

G

 

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by grahame

[thegreenhowards]

On 23/07/2019 at 07:46, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Andy,

 

As has been said several times, 'each to their own', and we (especially me) should all respect that. 

 

The DCC debate keeps on coming up on here (because of me, I suppose?) but I do take exception to the 'arrogance' of some 'modern thinkers' in their assuming that their 'revolutionary' new methodologies will immediately render obsolete everything which has gone before. 

 

A few examples; not all DCC-related......................

 

Not long ago, one of my local clubs staged an open weekend. In the past, these sorts of things had been organised by old duffers and were well-attended. The sorts of blokes who'd put up local posters, tell the local newspapers, write to the model press, etc........ Oh no; 'that's too old-fashioned' must have thought the replacement young organiser. When questioned as to why so few turned up to the event, his answer was 'Well, I put everything on line!' And the target market (in the main)? Retired old gits like me! Many, literally, don't have a computer. I'm not saying that those (like me) born in the first half of the last century aren't computer-literate (many, unlike me, embrace the new technologies), but one or two old blokes attended the event who just happened to be passing by. 'I didn't know this was on' was their response. 

 

One massive layout I photographed had everything-DCC. It worked, then a short circuit occurred. Because it was not only all-DCC-controlled, it was computer-controlled as well, and everything shut down. It had to be rebooted, and after a few minutes, everything worked again. I must admit, I could see an advantage here. If I detect a short circuit on LB, it doesn't do the slightest bit of good to switch everything off and then put it on again - the short is still there! 

 

I've mentioned this before, but one huge O Gauge layout I attempted to take pictures of at a show was DCC-controlled, and there was a short somewhere on the system. The operators behind it constituted a who's who in the hobby, yet none could fix it (the guy who'd installed it all wasn't there!). The layout was inoperable for the duration. I've never seen an analogue system crippled so comprehensively. 

 

A couple of chaps I know operate their whole layouts from one tablet - locos, points, routes, signals, you name it. No real railway does this, yet some of the propaganda suggests that's all that's needed. I'm sure their layouts can be made to work, but what a recipe for chaos in my view - and my experience. 

 

My simplistic point of view is that I need to be able to personally fix things when things go wrong. I know this is an ideal, and I must thank the likes of my good friend Tony Gee who cured a short circuit on a set of point switches by simply employing another set. I'd just stared blankly at it. The big thing, though, was that it just affected one siding, not crippling the whole layout. If a loco doesn't work, I'm more in my comfort zone. On analogue, it's usually a doddle to discover what's wrong (if not always a doddle to fix). With DCC there are so many other factors. On one occasion, after struggling for ages to find a 'fault' on a loco, the owner then discovered it had 'lost its address'. He was entirely incapable of fixing anything himself, yet has bought into a system of which he knows less than I do! And, less than I know is nothing! 

 

As for installing chips into locos I've built or others have built, I've now given up. My Luddism now means I will no longer build anything for anyone who uses DCC. By that I mean I refuse to install the chip? Why? A previously beautifully-running GWR Pannier I'd built needed a chip fitting because its owner wanted DCC. I retrospectively installed the chip, and lo and behold, a jerky runner. So, if I do build anything for mates now, it's up to them to fit whatever electronic gizmo they want. Not me! 

 

I have several locos powered by D11 or D13 motors. These are very fast-runners, and need a gearbox to get the best out of them. This I've done, and they run really sweetly. A friend has also installed some in locos he's built, now up for sale (ex-Stoke Summit and ex-Charwelton). For DCC, these motors are useless, because their armatures cannot be isolated. One friend who'd bought one some time ago uses DCC, and then was stuffed because he couldn't re-motor it himself. Along came muggins (have you ever dismantled chassis fitted with outside valve gear to fit a new motor/gearbox?). Never again! 

 

All the above said, 'each to their own' once more, but it does puzzle me how some use control systems of which they know nothing about and are complete hostages to fortune  when things go wrong.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

I totally agree greed with you about the arrogance of certain people surrounding new inventions. And I think the marketing around DCC is very poor, particularly explaining the benefits and what other kit is required. ‘Just plug it in and away you go’ seems to be a common phrase without explaining what you need to plug it into! 

 

For me, DCC has three key benefits:

1. Sound, which I accept is not everyone’s ‘cup of tea’.

2. Stayalive, which gives such superb low speed running even over insulfrog points. I know your locos and your layout don’t need this, but for short wheelbase locos on shunting layouts it’s a fantastic aid.

3. Some (but less than claimed) simplification of wiring.

 

This doesn’t bear much correlation to the marketing hype around it!

 

I totally agree with you about the frustrations of fitting chips into kit built locos. In theory it should work fine - just a couple of extra soldered joints. But, while this works on some locos, others are much more problematic. It’s easy enough to switch over a non compatible motor, although I agree that outside valve gear complicates the task. But the perfect DC runner, becoming a stuttering wreck on DCC is all too common in my experience. 

 

This A3 is a Wills body on a Hornby chassis, which I built to give maximum pulling power while retaining the smooth running of the Hornby chassis (while improving, my kit built chassis are still not as smooth as modern RTR). It works brilliantly on DC and I’ve had it pulling 25 RTR coaches with no trouble. But on DCC it stutters and refuses to move more than a few inches. I presume that there’s a minor intermittent short somewhere, but I’m bu....ed if I can find it!

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DougN]

Regarding the telegraph poles being pulled out of plumb. Yes it is prototypical! your making me think of second year university (ok its only 25years ago)  and structural analysis of cabled stayed structures! any how it did give me a understanding of the cable catenary and the way the tension can pull posts and poles over. This is one of the reason for guy wires to the poles. SO yes the dead weight and tension has a lot to do with the size of the pole and the canterlever from below the ground! I should also say I have never had need to ever think about this since in all of my career!

 

Any the other thing about the above DCC I have come to the conclusion that it is best for train control and the removal of section switches, isolation switches along with the function capability of lights, smoke, and sounds. The use for route setting and point control I have found is not worth the costs or effort as I think it is actually more complicated than is really needed as Tony suggests above! 

[jollysmart]

18 minutes ago, DougN said:

Regarding the telegraph poles being pulled out of plumb. Yes it is prototypical! your making me think of second year university (ok its only 25years ago)  and structural analysis of cabled stayed structures! any how it did give me a understanding of the cable catenary and the way the tension can pull posts and poles over. This is one of the reason for guy wires to the poles. SO yes the dead weight and tension has a lot to do with the size of the pole and the canterlever from below the ground! I should also say I have never had need to ever think about this since in all of my career!

 

 

 

The poles should be fitted with stays to prevent them bending or bellying, or even falling over, under the stress of the (open, bare copper ) wires. It is quite an involved subject but put simply every time the pole route deviates from straight, or ends, it would require staying. Sometimes more than one stay on the same pole, and at set intervals along a straight route, possibly at road/canal crossings although canals are subject to conditions placed on crossings by their owners and are not always the same. There are also a variety of methods of staying poles where access is limited.

 

It is interesting that in some of the photos the poles are virtually resting on the train, that would never be allowed to occur hence the need to stay the pole.

Edited July 24, 2019 by jollysmart

[Compound2632]

Also rarely modelled, the many guy wires used to stabilise signal posts.

[stewartingram]

14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't know, Stewart,

 

But they're no bigger than milk churns, which were manhandled. Perhaps they weren't full?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I would have thought that milk churns would be manhandled from the wagon floor to an adjacent platform, but in this case the (water) churns are still on the wagon floor (brake van), but would be offloaded to ground level - which is quite a distance.

 

Stewart

[Tony Wright]

27 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

I would have thought that milk churns would be manhandled from the wagon floor to an adjacent platform, but in this case the (water) churns are still on the wagon floor (brake van), but would be offloaded to ground level - which is quite a distance.

 

Stewart

Stewart,

 

Very often, the water churns were carried on the footplate of the locomotive, sometimes higher than the floor of a guard's van. They do seem to come in several sizes.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Does anyone know where this is, please?

 

 

It's an awful scan, I know, but it's the best I can do. The picture comes with the caption 'Widnes', and that's that. 

 

If it is Widnes, is DELTIC coming off the Mersey Viaduct on a Liverpool-bound express, having crossed over from Runcorn on the other side? 

 

There's a line below - ex-CLC? 

 

Thanks in anticipation...................

Edited July 24, 2019 by Tony Wright
because I'm puzzled.......

[Barry Ten]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

 

 

It seems to have a habit of pulling the posts out of plumb. And, it'll be no fun filling-in all the spaces in between! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At least it draws the eye away from the lack of steps, vacuum pipe or screw coupling on that Merchant Navy, he said cheekily.

 

Al

[Denbridge]

24 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Stewart,

 

Very often, the water churns were carried on the footplate of the locomotive, sometimes higher than the floor of a guard's van. They do seem to come in several sizes.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Is it my imagination but im sure you used to have a loco (B1?), Running on Stoke Bank with churns on the running boards.

[Tony Wright]

19 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

Is it my imagination but im sure you used to have a loco (B1?), Running on Stoke Bank with churns on the running boards.

We did, Stewart,

 

Based on a Keith Pirt picture.

 

 

Here's the very train (you need the eye of faith to know that the churns are on the loco's front platform).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Michael Edge]

30 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Does anyone know where this is, please?

 

 

It's an awful scan, I know, but it's the best I can do. The picture comes with the caption 'Widnes', and that's that. 

 

If it is Widnes, is DELTIC coming off the Mersey Viaduct on a Liverpool-bound express, having crossed over from Runcorn on the other side? 

 

Thanks in anticipation...................

Yes, it's Widnes as you suggested.

[Tony Wright]

30 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

At least it draws the eye away from the lack of steps, vacuum pipe or screw coupling on that Merchant Navy, he said cheekily.

 

Al

I pointed these things out to the layout builder, Al,

 

It's a private photographic commission, and he wanted a picture of that loco.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

I've just conducted the most-thorough of tests on DJH's new, larger motor/gearbox combination.................

 

I've installed it into one of the same firm's A1s I'm making.

 

 

 

Performance throughout the whole speed range is silky-smooth and quiet.

 

 

Ten heavy Pullman cars were handled with absolute ease.

 

 

At high-speed as well.  

 

 

[Barry Ten]

Two birds with one stone here: a crude but effective stay on the telegraph pole (piano wire, bent and inserted into a hole in the pole) and progress on the SE&CR D1 class chassis which I started last week:

 

 

This the chassis with the thick brass frames which my 40W soldering iron wouldn't touch. I had to use a 70W gas iron to get everything soldered up.

 

I ran into one minor snag, which was that the frames were so wide that I had to solder and file back the frame spacer screws before I could fit the wheels

on - again with the gas iron. Luckily it all runs sweetly, at least on the test leads.

 

Tony: when we chatted at the GCR event I mentioned that I might have damaged a Mashima motor. This is the one, but I put it through some careful testing

last night, and it seems fine, so I think my fears were misplaced.

 

Al

[gr.king]

During my recent flying visits to this topic (being too busy to dwell) I've noticed two or three brief mentions of the new motor/gearbox combination (or combinations?) from DJH but I'm not sure I've found the first mention of it or indeed any other mention that indicates specifically what sort or what make of motor (or motors) has been adopted, nor any information about cost. Unless DJH has top secret sources and wants to be the exclusive supplier of these motors, it would be interesting to know more, and to have some impression of whether there's the likelihood of long-term continuing availability to potentially justify treating these new motors as a "standard" loco builder's item.

[Tony Wright]

31 minutes ago, gr.king said:

During my recent flying visits to this topic (being too busy to dwell) I've noticed two or three brief mentions of the new motor/gearbox combination (or combinations?) from DJH but I'm not sure I've found the first mention of it or indeed any other mention that indicates specifically what sort or what make of motor (or motors) has been adopted, nor any information about cost. Unless DJH has top secret sources and wants to be the exclusive supplier of these motors, it would be interesting to know more, and to have some impression of whether there's the likelihood of long-term continuing availability to potentially justify treating these new motors as a "standard" loco builder's item.

I don't know the make of the motors, Graeme,

 

There is no trademark on any of them. 

 

My brief was to install both the smaller and larger motors and their respective gearboxes in suitably-sized locos - in these cases, a K1 and an A1. DJH have waited for my report(s) before ordering any of these new motors. Having been happy with my findings, I imagine they'll now place orders for them, to fit their established (and excellent) gearboxes. 

 

As to price, I have no idea. As to where they come from, again, I have no idea.

 

I'll make enquiries. 

 

A 'potential' problem might be that none of the fixing positions for these latest motors fits an existing gearbox (DJH's tests ones sent to me were modified to suit). It's not a problem for DJH - Trevor Bailey will just have a new face-plate etched, with appropriate holes). 

 

I'd certainly recommend them, based on my experiences in the last few days. These motors are certainly the equal of any other can I've used.

 

When I find out more, I'll let you know.................

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[polybear]

38 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't know the make of the motors, Graeme,

 

There is no trademark on any of them. 

 

My brief was to install both the smaller and larger motors and their respective gearboxes in suitably-sized locos - in these cases, a K1 and an A1. DJH have waited for my report(s) before ordering any of these new motors. Having been happy with my findings, I imagine they'll now place orders for them, to fit their established (and excellent) gearboxes. 

 

As to price, I have no idea. As to where they come from, again, I have no idea.

 

I'll make enquiries. 

 

A 'potential' problem might be that none of the fixing positions for these latest motors fits an existing gearbox (DJH's tests ones sent to me were modified to suit). It's not a problem for DJH - Trevor Bailey will just have a new face-plate etched, with appropriate holes). 

 

I'd certainly recommend them, based on my experiences in the last few days. These motors are certainly the equal of any other can I've used.

 

When I find out more, I'll let you know.................

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

Many thanks Tony for reporting on these; whilst DJH Gearboxes are obviously well proven, the only outstanding test I can think of would be to set a nice heavy loco & stock running...and let it run.  A test to (or hopefully not!) destruction - perhaps DJH could set up a large oval in their factory?

It would be interesting to know a little about the motor construction - bearing material etc. and how this compared with, for example Mashima.

 

On a completely different subject, I seem to recall reading somewhere that it's best to have separate soldering iron bits for brass and whitemetal, due to the different solders used.  Is this correct, and is it something that you put into practice?  Or do you simply crack on with no adverse issues?  Many thanks.

Brian

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, polybear said:

 

Many thanks Tony for reporting on these; whilst DJH Gearboxes are obviously well proven, the only outstanding test I can think of would be to set a nice heavy loco & stock running...and let it run.  A test to (or hopefully not!) destruction - perhaps DJH could set up a large oval in their factory?

It would be interesting to know a little about the motor construction - bearing material etc. and how this compared with, for example Mashima.

 

On a completely different subject, I seem to recall reading somewhere that it's best to have separate soldering iron bits for brass and whitemetal, due to the different solders used.  Is this correct, and is it something that you put into practice?  Or do you simply crack on with no adverse issues?  Many thanks.

Brian

Thanks Brian,

 

Other than bench-testing, DJH do not have a facility (as far as I know) to run their motors and gearboxes in locomotives hauling trains (does any kit manufacturer?). Thus, they send stuff like new motor/gearboxes to the likes of me. As you saw at the weekend, I built enough of that Nu-Cast K1 to give it a thorough test on the Sunday (three quarters of an hour's running on 45 wagons with no problems at all). The 'box/motor featured today (the larger one) has been tested in a DJH A1 I'm building. All I did was drop out the original 'box this morning (another from DJH) and substitute the new one. Again, over half an hour's continuous running on ten heavy Pullmans with no problems whatsoever.

 

I'm certainly not going to test both 'to destruction', for there's be no reason for it.

 

The motors look well-made, and certainly on a par with Mashima. As to costs (as Graeme King mused), I'll make enquiries.

 

I don't think I'm particularly well-qualified to conduct tests like this; other than I have a reasonable-sized trainset and can put enough of a loco together in about four hours to be able to conduct tests. 

 

Separate soldering iron bits for different solders? Not me - I just use the same one(s) for whatever solder I'm using. I use the same flux as well - 12 percent phosphoric acid.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[glo41f]

Amazing stuff yet again! Thanks for the info on beer casks etc. Once you saw them roll into the cellar you never had any inkling of what happened next!  Please can Jamie tell us more about the beautiful daughters of Giggleswick? Thanks for the films of the last running session on LB. It just gets better and better. 

 

What a mine of information there is resident in this parish. It never ceases to amaze. Between us I reckon we could sort the world out!

 

Pleased to report that I have overcome the trapezoidal firebox for my Riddles class 4. It took a few weeks of fettling n=but it is there now albeit with some bumps dents etc which mirror those seen on the real thing! 

 

Martin Long

[polybear]

5 minutes ago, glo41f said:

Please can Jamie tell us more about the beautiful daughters of Giggleswick?

 

 Photos?