Wright writes.....

[Chuffer Davies]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

At the risk of sounding simplistic (which I'm good at!), why would anyone wire points/signals/etc., into the same common return system as the power to the track? I've always understood it's best-practice to separate the functions. 

 

Tony. 

Hi Tony,

Electrically there is no reason why you shouldn't  use a single common return but I agree that I wouldn't do it again.  I cannot explain why operating a solenoid on a layout would impact the movement of the locomotive,  We've had no such problems on Hungerford.  There must be something else going on here, possibly a common transformer used for both the track feed and the point operation?  If not this then there must be some other cause of leakage going on for this effect to occur. 

 

The benefit on Hungerford was the reduction in the number of cross board connections required.  We had a finite number of heavy duty plugs and sockets to use on Hungerford and we ended up employing a number of tricks to ensure we could complete the layout within the limitation of the available connectors, including the single common return wire. 

 

Electrickery indeed!

 

Frank

 

 

[jamie92208]

Can I ask whst this phrase"the use of graphite" means please. It's on thing that has passed me by.

 

 

Jamie

Edited August 25, 2020 by jamie92208

[Barry O]

3 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

Can I ask whst this phrase"thecusevof graphite" means please. It's on thi g that has passed me by.

 

 

Jamie

Jamie

 

Mike put graphite from a ladies eyebrow pencil onto the track on Carlisle once it is clean. Then you just leave it there. If locos develop a "stutter" you add some more graphite.  It seems to have no effect on haulage power but does help with pick ups.  Now used on Herculaneum Dock a, Chapel en le frith and my own track...It doesn't completely eliminate the need to make sure your pick ups work but it just means things run very steadily..shunting on Herculaneum Dock has been made so much more reliable.

 

Baz

[St Enodoc]

54 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Jamie

 

Mike put graphite from a ladies eyebrow pencil onto the track on Carlisle once it is clean. Then you just leave it there. If locos develop a "stutter" you add some more graphite.  It seems to have no effect on haulage power but does help with pick ups.  Now used on Herculaneum Dock a, Chapel en le frith and my own track...It doesn't completely eliminate the need to make sure your pick ups work but it just means things run very steadily..shunting on Herculaneum Dock has been made so much more reliable.

 

Baz

I use it too, at Mike's suggestion. A soft artists' graphite stick from an art shop is ideal. I don't rub it on the whole layout, just a foot or so on each track at the entrance to and exit from the storage loops.

[Jesse Sim]

I am in need of some assistance, I posted this on my thread, my k2 conversion In its first primer and I just realised I left out the tube thing that goes along the boiler....

 

Question 1: what is it?

question 2: how do I make one?

 

 

[JamieR4489]

It's the vacuum ejector pipe, Jesse. I used one from a Bachmann K3 for mine, but I'd imagine something like 0.7 brass wire would do the trick, cut into small lengths and glued between the handrail pillars.

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Jesse Sim said:

I am in need of some assistance, I posted this on my thread, my k2 conversion In its first primer and I just realised I left out the tube thing that goes along the boiler....

 

Question 1: what is it?

question 2: how do I make one?

 

 

I use 0.9mm brass wire and split pins to hold it in place.

[thegreenhowards]

A couple of weeks ago I was asking questions about cut down tenders on A4s for my ‘SEAGULL’. Well she’s now just about finished, so here is a final picture before weathering.

 

This was my first attempt with an airbrush and I’m quite pleased with the result. The lining is probably rather too pronounced, but I’m not sure what I can do about that.

 

I wanted a white metal body to pull my most problematic train - The 1956 Aberdonian. This is 14 coaches, mainly kit built and is rather heavy. None of my other Pacifics will pull it without a fair bit of slipping, particularly on the uphill section (it’s not supposed to be uphill, but I’m incompetent with a spirit level - so I have a slight incline which taxes many locos on the longer trains). The Aberdonian was previously in the hands of a DJH A1, but it really struggled in places, so something more powerful was required. I’m please to say that SEAGULL does the job superbly - just a hint of a slip on starting and then purrs round without even slowing on the uphill section thanks to the back EMF.

 

This video shows her in action. As you can see she has mastered the job.

 

 

Andy

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

...I wish I understood electrickery, but are you saying that common return is better for DCC-operation?...

As above, DCC with its 'two wires' to supply the entire layout, no matter how many tracks there are, is entirely 'commoned'.

 

No good wishing, undertake a physics degree. Then you may with confidence do all sorts of things with electrons that the knowlessmen suck their teeth and pronounce impossible because it didn't work for them. Our entire national grid for electrical power distribution has three AC phases which share a common return. If that is possible, then a mixture of AC and DC at low voltage on a layout is simple and achievable: but only by rigorous adherence to 'the rules'.

 

 

 

[Jesse Sim]

23 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I use 0.9mm brass wire and split pins to hold it in place.

I’ll have to look at some photos and see where it goes, many thanks. 
 

On that note, I’ve just looked and it appears to be behind the handrail, I’m a bit muddled as to how im going to attach it. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Jesse Sim

[Jesse Sim]

1 hour ago, JamieR4489 said:

It's the vacuum ejector pipe, Jesse. I used one from a Bachmann K3 for mine, but I'd imagine something like 0.7 brass wire would do the trick, cut into small lengths and glued between the handrail pillars.

Goes to show you should reed everything  before replying, thanks Jamie, I’ll add them on tomorrow morning. 

[Michael Edge]

3 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

Can I ask whst this phrase"the use of graphite" means please. It's on thing that has passed me by.

 

 

Jamie

The "graphite revolution" was just that, it has completely transformed layout operation - and it's not new either, I've seen references to it in magazines from the 1930s at least.

It started for me at Scaleforum some years ago, Bernie Baker was doing an S4 demo and had one of our Ruston 88DS locos running up and down on track made from two lengths of aluminium angle. The loco was running so slowly that I had to look away and look back to confirm that it was actually moving. When I asked how this was possible the answer was "graphite".

We applied graphite (with a graphite pencil from Hobbycraft) to the Herculaneum Dock track for the Southampton show in 2016 and I've hardly cleaned any loco wheels since - I've not cleaned the track much either. Since then no locos with tender pickups have ever stalled and the tank locos very rarely - if they do they are run up and down on a stretch of freshly graphited track and they run perfectly again. On the DCC side (the dock railway) the results were even more spectacular - we have two locos on the system which were always unreliable. One is a Hornby L&Y 0-4-0ST which usually made one run out from the fiddle yard and back before needing it's wheels cleaned - since the start of the graphite era it has run continuously and still not been cleaned. The other is the Barclay 0-6-0F which caused consternation to Andy Ross working the dock when he realised he'd been shunting with it all weekend.

There was of course much speculation about a reduction in adhesion but I hink Wentworth Junction has cleared that up - there's no visible effect. I know all the down trains are banked but going the other way all the up trains have to be lifted up the same gradient out of the fiddle yard.

I've been promoting this for six years now, once I actually get someone to try it they are usually converted but as always there are lots of theoretical objections - I've said on here in other threads that I don't care how or why it works, I just know that it does.

Try it and you'll see what I mean.

[Headstock]

4 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

 

Hi Michael,

Yep I understand that on WJ what I'm proposing for banking would be messy.  Not so on Clayton though.  We will likely only have one banked train and for this we will have two dedicated locomotives and so we will only have the one DCC consist to set up. 

 

Of course we make all these clever plans and then reality comes along and makes fools of us.  When I/we actually got round to testing the practicalities of banking trains on Clayton we set up an experiment with a goods train borrowed from Clayton and my two prototype build  J7's one with the 16/20 cube motor you had previously recommended to me and the other with a 16/24 coreless motor.  Despite these contrasting motors the two locomotives (running on analogue) are so well matched that the train ran up the gradient and round the layout without any problem.  Indeed the match was so good that close study of the three link couplings in the 34 wagon train indicated that the first 17 wagons were being pulled and the remaining 17 were being pushed.   

 

This is a link to the video I posted on the Clayton blog which recorded our experiment:

 

As to your final statement I agree totally.  DCC is just another tool in the arsenal when all is said and done.

 

Frank

 

 

 

Afternoon Chuffer D,

 

I never realised there was such a hub of GWR and even SR freight activity down smelly old Bradford way. Did the GWR have a depot at Clayton?

Edited August 25, 2020 by Headstock

[Chuffer Davies]

44 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Chuffer D,

 

I never realised there was such a hub of GWR and even SR freight activity down smelly old Bradford way. Did the GWR have a depot at Clayton?

Yes thanks Andrew.  You know I meant borrowed from Hungerford really....  I'll go back and change it.

 

How are you getting on with the Pullmans?

Frank

 

 

[Headstock]

4 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Yes thanks Andrew.  You know I meant borrowed from Hungerford really....  I'll go back and change it.

 

How are you getting on with the Pullmans?

Frank

 

 

 

Afternoon Frank,

 

I've done all that I can for the time being, the ball is in Johns court.

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

The "graphite revolution" was just that, it has completely transformed layout operation - and it's not new either, I've seen references to it in magazines from the 1930s at least.

It started for me at Scaleforum some years ago, Bernie Baker was doing an S4 demo and had one of our Ruston 88DS locos running up and down on track made from two lengths of aluminium angle. The loco was running so slowly that I had to look away and look back to confirm that it was actually moving. When I asked how this was possible the answer was "graphite".

We applied graphite (with a graphite pencil from Hobbycraft) to the Herculaneum Dock track for the Southampton show in 2016 and I've hardly cleaned any loco wheels since - I've not cleaned the track much either. Since then no locos with tender pickups have ever stalled and the tank locos very rarely - if they do they are run up and down on a stretch of freshly graphited track and they run perfectly again. On the DCC side (the dock railway) the results were even more spectacular - we have two locos on the system which were always unreliable. One is a Hornby L&Y 0-4-0ST which usually made one run out from the fiddle yard and back before needing it's wheels cleaned - since the start of the graphite era it has run continuously and still not been cleaned. The other is the Barclay 0-6-0F which caused consternation to Andy Ross working the dock when he realised he'd been shunting with it all weekend.

There was of course much speculation about a reduction in adhesion but I hink Wentworth Junction has cleared that up - there's no visible effect. I know all the down trains are banked but going the other way all the up trains have to be lifted up the same gradient out of the fiddle yard.

I've been promoting this for six years now, once I actually get someone to try it they are usually converted but as always there are lots of theoretical objections - I've said on here in other threads that I don't care how or why it works, I just know that it does.

Try it and you'll see what I mean.

Thanks very much for that Mike. We don't have Hobbycraft over here but something similar called Cultura. Next time I'm in Angouleme  I'll look for some.

 

Jamie

 

 

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, dibateg said:

I went with DCC after operating Geoff Taylors Barmouth Jn. It's a personal choice and neither system is right or wrong, at least I don't have to wire up section switches. It's been designed so that one line can operate as DC for visiting locos. I find it easier to select a loco on the handset and drive it than play roulette with section switches. Signals and points will be controlled from a traditional control panel. I like the added dimension of sound and it probably works better on a smaller layout than a main line one. Having a sound decoder in each loco is not cheap - nor are 7mm kits and accessories anyway, so I incorporate the cost of the decoder in to the whole cost of each build. However, there is still plenty of wiring, this is just the  three power feeds:-

 

Talking about building locos, I've built most of mine, but I'm not averse to buying anything that will fulfil my requirements - I wouldn't live long enough to build everything. I bought this K2 some time ago and it was already a Colwick allocated engine. It's going through a minor refurb to add detail and some minor damage. It's nicely made and hand lined and cost about a third of what it would have cost me in parts and time to build it.

 

I think you have a couple of K2's on Bytham Tony?

 

It's really good to see the pictures of Retford and to know that it will continue to develop. Having visited a few times, I didn't notice the lack of details, it was the overall view that that set the picture. I'm glad I don't live closer, as I'd be itching to get involved and I have enough on my plate....

 

Regards

Tony

 

That looks a lovely K2, Tony.

 

Thanks for showing us...........

 

There are three K2s on Little Bytham (though there have been more when visitors bring them). Here they are together..........

 

 

From left to right we have Nu-Cast, London Road Models and Nu-Cast, all built by me. 

 

 

This is a closer view of the LH Nu-Cast one in the last picture. Ian Wilson had started it (glued together!!!!!), so I took apart the nonsense, completely rebuilt it and made the chassis for it. Geoff Haynes painted it. 

 

It's one where the previously-fitted Westinghouse brakes have been removed, though the standpipe on the front buffer beam remains. 

 

 

Here's a studio shot of the LRM one, painted by Ian Rathbone. It was, as you say, a 'bit of a knife and fork' job, particularly with regard to the chassis, where the coupling rods didn't match the bearings in the frames. I had to make new rods, such was the discrepancy. When I told the kit's designer (the late Malcolm Crawley) about this he bluntly told me that if I'd built it properly (with a ridiculous compensation system on the leading driven axle - it had to be installed with all the valve gear made!) it wouldn't have mattered. When I saw his, built in EM, on Retford, many years ago, it ran like a lame dog, then promptly derailed! I'm glad I didn't make mine 'properly'. 

 

This example has the same number as your O Gauge one, but with a different tender. In the prototype picture I used, the tender did not have the piercings at the front. A change of tender?

 

 

A close-up of the other Nu-Cast K2 in the first picture. This is an ancient old thing, built when the kit first came out (when was that?). I scratch-built a brass chassis for it, to replace the white metal lump, but it's devoid of detail. I also painted/weathered it. It's very much a product of its time. 

 

 

This one has a tender with the apertures at the front. It was made originally by John Houlden (I think) for Gamston Bank, but when it came to me it was a 2-5-0! John hadn't a clue where the missing rear driver had gone. His words to me were along the lines of 'chuck it in the bin'. It was very shabby, and it had no motor. 

 

I found a spare driver, fitted it, installed a motor, repaired the loco's bodywork, painted it, lined/lettered it and weathered it, then sold it on to a friend, with the proceeds going to CRUK. 

 

There are still 'oddities' about it - the vacuum ejector pipe should be behind the handrail (I think) and the motion support bracket has not been made correctly, though my friend is delighted with it. He's not capable of making a K2, and I doubt it'll ever appear RTR.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Barry Ten]

Good to see some balanced views on DCC/DC and sound/non-sound.

 

I adopted DCC gradually, first on my French and American layouts. It does come into its own in the context of the sort of multiple loco lash-ups which are typical of American railroading, with each loco being able to be speed-tuned to match the others (not that that's always a doddle).

 

For my British interests I started on the route of wholesale DCC conversion but then realised that a few of my locos (mainly kitbuilt ones) would be challenging, to say the least. Eventually I decided to retain DC for all pre-nationalisation models (which included the problem cases, and one or two others which could be easily backdated) and only convert the BR-era stuff. Of that, a subset have sound. There's no need. in my view, for every loco to be sound-equipped. And, as others have noted, sound works best in the context of slower speeds, for which my small, cross-country layout is fine for me. Each to their own as to the realism of the sound - for me, it works, but it depends on a good installation. I particularly like the random sounds that are interjected by some of the decoders - the occasional hiss as the valves lift, or the scrape of some coal going in. Some quiet shunting, a glass of whisky, some ambient birdsong playing in the background - to me it's a wonderful evocation of bucolic country atmosphere.

 

For pre-nationalisation running, I just flip a pair of DPDT switches and off I go. The whole layout's wired on bog-standard common return with section switches, and works equally well on DCC or DC.

 

Al

 

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Barry Ten
added video

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

A couple of weeks ago I was asking questions about cut down tenders on A4s for my ‘SEAGULL’. Well she’s now just about finished, so here is a final picture before weathering.

 

This was my first attempt with an airbrush and I’m quite pleased with the result. The lining is probably rather too pronounced, but I’m not sure what I can do about that.

 

I wanted a white metal body to pull my most problematic train - The 1956 Aberdonian. This is 14 coaches, mainly kit built and is rather heavy. None of my other Pacifics will pull it without a fair bit of slipping, particularly on the uphill section (it’s not supposed to be uphill, but I’m incompetent with a spirit level - so I have a slight incline which taxes many locos on the longer trains). The Aberdonian was previously in the hands of a DJH A1, but it really struggled in places, so something more powerful was required. I’m please to say that SEAGULL does the job superbly - just a hint of a slip on starting and then purrs round without even slowing on the uphill section thanks to the back EMF.

 

This video shows her in action. As you can see she has mastered the job.

 

 

Andy

First of all, my compliments Andy; and you've solved the problem of haulage, using (am I right?) a Hornby A4 mechanism (though the bogie is off the road in the second static picture).

 

You mention the lining (which is generally well-applied - transfers?), but I think its position is slightly wrongly on the cabside. The result is that the numbers are a bit too low down, which means the worksplate is too close to the bottom lining. The proportions are altered, and it's rather squeezed.

 

Look at the prototype picture, please, to show you what I mean...............

 

 

It could well be that the top horizontal lining band on your model needs raising a twitch, the numbers raising and the worksplate raising - not much, but it would look better, although weathering will disguise this. 

 

At least you've painted it all yourself, for which you should be applauded (something I don't do with my A4s!).

 

 

Built from the same body-source as yours, but with a SE Finecast chassis, and painted by Geoff Haynes. You've made a better job than I have of disguising the joint between the tops of the cylinders and the footplate.

 

I offer the above words in the spirit of constructive criticism The biggest thing is that you've made and painted your model, all by yourself, and that is by far the most important element.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

As above, DCC with its 'two wires' to supply the entire layout, no matter how many tracks there are, is entirely 'commoned'.

 

No good wishing, undertake a physics degree. Then you may with confidence do all sorts of things with electrons that the knowlessmen suck their teeth and pronounce impossible because it didn't work for them. Our entire national grid for electrical power distribution has three AC phases which share a common return. If that is possible, then a mixture of AC and DC at low voltage on a layout is simple and achievable: but only by rigorous adherence to 'the rules'.

 

 

 

'No good wishing, undertake a physics degree.'

 

At almost 74 years of age? I take it you're kidding? 

 

I know what and which works for me, even though I might not know all the rules. However, I still wish I knew more.................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[thegreenhowards]

19 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

First of all, my compliments Andy; and you've solved the problem of haulage, using (am I right?) a Hornby A4 mechanism (though the bogie is off the road in the second static picture).

 

You mention the lining (which is generally well-applied - transfers?), but I think its position is slightly wrongly on the cabside. The result is that the numbers are a bit too low down, which means the worksplate is too close to the bottom lining. The proportions are altered, and it's rather squeezed.

 

Look at the prototype picture, please, to show you what I mean...............

 

 

It could well be that the top horizontal lining band on your model needs raising a twitch, the numbers raising and the worksplate raising - not much, but it would look better, although weathering will disguise this. 

 

At least you've painted it all yourself, for which you should be applauded (something I don't do with my A4s!).

 

 

Built from the same body-source as yours, but with a SE Finecast chassis, and painted by Geoff Haynes. You've made a better job than I have of disguising the joint between the tops of the cylinders and the footplate.

 

I offer the above words in the spirit of constructive criticism The biggest thing is that you've made and painted your model, all by yourself, and that is by far the most important element.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony,

 

I’m quite encouraged that I’ve got off with a marginal tweak to the lining - I’m always nervous putting an LNER Pacific on here given your encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject! The lining is Modelmaster and comes preformed for the cab. I lined the bottom up on the hole thingy and the rest followed by default. I do see what you mean and I also think the numbers are slightly too bold and / or big. I think that’s a lesson I will learn for next time rather than changing this one.

 

Yes it’s a Hornby chassis - sorry! The kit came without a chassis and I find the Hornby one powerful, smooth and easy to chip. It’s also a fraction of the cost of a kit built chassis.
 

Andy

[Tony Teague]

Tony

 

I just want to thank you and Mo for your usual generous hospitality during my 'socially distanced' visit to LB today.

 

Having lost my 'modelling mojo' about 2 months ago, I seriously needed some inspiration, and LB always gives me that - today was no exception!

 

Thank you

 

Tony

 

 

[Tony Wright]

29 minutes ago, Tony Teague said:

Tony

 

I just want to thank you and Mo for your usual generous hospitality during my 'socially distanced' visit to LB today.

 

Having lost my 'modelling mojo' about 2 months ago, I seriously needed some inspiration, and LB always gives me that - today was no exception!

 

Thank you

 

Tony

 

 

It was our pleasure, Tony,

 

And a delight to see you. 

 

LB worked well (though I, as usual dropped the odd clanger) and why that O2's pony truck came off, I have no idea; I've tried it again and guess what? Perfect running! 

 

We'll both have to put in the time at positioning those Sprat & Winkle-fitted wagons to uncouple perfectly.

 

Isn't it gratifying how operating a model railway can be therapeutic? And, if it's got your enthusiasm back, then I'm delighted. 

 

I hope your cats have been good. Ours was pleased to meet you. 

 

Kindest regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barry O]

I have a Wills A4... it doesn't have any of the heavyweight cladding joins like the Bachmann and Hornby bodied ones seem to have. Recent shots of A4s on LB seem to have a variety of viewable" joins . (The streamlined real ones have very little to show the cladding joins)  My question is though are the more recent  SEF castings no longer as flat as the Wills ones were?

 

 

 

Baz

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

First of all, my compliments Andy; and you've solved the problem of haulage, using (am I right?) a Hornby A4 mechanism (though the bogie is off the road in the second static picture).

 

You mention the lining (which is generally well-applied - transfers?), but I think its position is slightly wrongly on the cabside. The result is that the numbers are a bit too low down, which means the worksplate is too close to the bottom lining. The proportions are altered, and it's rather squeezed.

 

Look at the prototype picture, please, to show you what I mean...............

 

 

It could well be that the top horizontal lining band on your model needs raising a twitch, the numbers raising and the worksplate raising - not much, but it would look better, although weathering will disguise this. 

 

At least you've painted it all yourself, for which you should be applauded (something I don't do with my A4s!).

 

 

Built from the same body-source as yours, but with a SE Finecast chassis, and painted by Geoff Haynes. You've made a better job than I have of disguising the joint between the tops of the cylinders and the footplate.

 

I offer the above words in the spirit of constructive criticism The biggest thing is that you've made and painted your model, all by yourself, and that is by far the most important element.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

A little query Tony.

 

On the real A4, the tender wheels were a bigger diameter than the rear truck wheels, but on the model, the tender axleboxes look slightly lower than the one under the cab and indeed they look lower than the axleboxes on the leading carriage.

 

Is something a bit off in the height department?

 

The tender already seems a bit high as there looks to be too much flat sheet visible between the top of the lining and the start of the bend and the tender footplate is slightly higher than the loco one.

 

If it is being offered as part of a correction of somebodies model, it ought to be right!

 

Even as a non expert on A4s, there are a number of things that Jar a little bit with me, like the too high position of the headlamps, the slab sided rather than curved under cylinder side and the wrong shape of the cab front window. the back edge of the chimney looks a bit square too. I always thought you could see a curve at the back from that angle but that may depend on the camera angle.

 

As I say, I know nothing about A4s compared to you and I may be wrong about them all but they just don't quite look right to me.