Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

I am not concerned with which control system people use. I am happy with DC and it works well on my layout.

 

I did let my DCC mates(?) take over Hanging Hill at one exhibition, all section switches on and to the same controller. It was good for me when there was a short as all the sound fitted locos went quiet, but that is personal thing, you either like sound or hate noise. Most the shorts were where people were not adhering to my markers at the points end of the sidings. I had lamps, bright coloured oil drums and figures as markers to prevent locos walloping each other. They were also where the DC sections butted on to each other. Even with DCC if bridged and the point not set for that siding there was a short.

 

Anyhow this is not the purpose of this post, it is the question of "socialising" and taking stock to run on a mate's layout of visa-versa. It is sad that in a few weeks time a couple of my guest will not be bringing their DCC fitted locos to run but it is something we as adults realise and do not see it as a problem.

 

It also reminds me of being invited to a school friend's house to see his dad's model railway. I think it was the first proper model railway I had seen, scenery, tunnels, station, it had the lot, so it seemed. My friend said that it was OK for me to bring my engines. So I duly packed D5572 and City of London for a day of model railway fun. Oh dear his dad's layout was 3 rail. I think my friend was as disappointed as me that my engines did get ago, but what a great day we had. I think his dad did to.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I am not going to join in the DCC vs DC debate. I don't think anybody has anything new to add and it has been covered on this very thread and elsewhere many times before.

 

I will just mention that today is the second anniversary of Roy Jackson leaving us, so I will be thinking of all the often good, sometimes difficult but always entertaining hours spent in his company.

 

We miss you Roy.

 

Tony Gee

 

 

 

 

Is it really two years, Tony?

 

Yes, of course. So much has happened since. 

 

In my 'encounters' with Roy, I'm sure there were far more good times than difficult ones (apart from my first chat with him, where I was told to 'go forth and multiply'!).

 

Yes, much-missed.

 

I, too, will say no more about DCC. I don't know enough about it to really make a sensible comment (so just make clottish ones). I also think I need to improve my written communication skills if I attempt to promulgate further about it. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

We seem to be going around in circles.

 

 I don't think we are. We are having a civil debate and hopefully our exchange will clear up a few DCC misconceptions.

 

26 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I merely observed that a loco (with a slight shorting problem) shut down a DCC system. Yet that same loco, on analogue, worked perfectly (the slight shorting problem not causing any erratic running). 

 

A short cannot be described a "Slight". You have either a short circuit condition or you don't. From what you said It was an intermittent short. The most difficult type of s/c faults to reliably detect. It was a "problem" (your description) that existed which should not have regardless of the control system in use.

 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Does that not illustrate that a DCC layout is more prone to be affected by shorts than a DC one? It might not have been a 'DCC problem', but the loco certainly caused it to be one. Perhaps we agree on that. 

 

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the more sensitive DCC system prevented a faulty locomotive running.

I think you would agree that allowing any loco to run with a short circuit under any circumstances and for reasons outlined in my earlier post would be bad practice.

 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't think it's entirely dependent on the size of the layout that it should be wired in sections; sections which can be isolated, irrespective whether it's DCC or DC. 

 

Oh I don't know. I think putting power sections into this layout might be a little OTT.  (I have suggested it!).

 

150183762_CDepot-Gland19-007-EditSm.jpg.d7cbbf6bfec9f5b79825d64542c514d7.jpg

  • Like 8
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

 I don't think we are. We are having a civil debate and hopefully our exchange will clear up a few DCC misconceptions.

 

 

A short cannot be described a "Slight". You have either a short circuit condition or you don't. From what you said It was an intermittent short. The most difficult type of s/c faults to reliably detect. It was a "problem" (your description) that existed which should not have regardless of the control system in use.

 

 

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the more sensitive DCC system prevented a faulty locomotive running.

I think you would agree that allowing any loco to run with a short circuit under any circumstances and for reasons outlined in my earlier post would be bad practice.

 

 

Oh I don't know. I think putting power sections into this layout might be a little OTT.  (I have suggested it!).

 

150183762_CDepot-Gland19-007-EditSm.jpg.d7cbbf6bfec9f5b79825d64542c514d7.jpg

Thanks,

 

As I intimated, I'll say no more on the matter.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst diesels are not generally my thing, I applaud that for the fact that it's a conversion that required thought, skill and effort, with a neat result, that has turned something RTR that was modest (possibly even cheap and cheerful) into something different, individual and better.

  • Agree 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, gr.king said:

Whilst diesels are not generally my thing, I applaud that for the fact that it's a conversion that required thought, skill and effort, with a neat result, that has turned something RTR that was modest (possibly even cheap and cheerful) into something different, individual and better.

Thanks Graeme,

 

I'll tell David Rae. I don't think he does RMweb.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

Oh I don't know. I think putting power sections into this layout might be a little OTT.  (I have suggested it!).

 

150183762_CDepot-Gland19-007-EditSm.jpg.d7cbbf6bfec9f5b79825d64542c514d7.jpg

I'm not fussy who plays with my trains set (obviously).

 

My first encounter with Roy was him shouting at me (me being Retford shunter 3rd class), he had a glint in his eye...something his daughters remembered fondly, you knew he liked you if his eyes glinted when he shouted at you!

 

If you ever stood in front of Retford and had a controller thrust into your hand and were asked to help with a shunting move, then that was the yard crew...during one lull in proceedings we even had the cheek to run our own train round the layout and back (only Mr Hall noticed)

 

Can't believe its been 2 years.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

As an aside and (hopefully) to move away from the DC/DCC debate, because we will never agree, has anybody been following the “kirtley Pete” thread of the model he is building of York station. 
Simply the most amazing modelling I think I’ve seen IMHO!!

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Just a little question, if I may.  Regarding LNER 10000 in original grey livery. The lack of colour photographs (inevitably) of this loco, can someone please tell me if the bufferbeams were red, and if so were the buffer shanks black?

Thanks

Chas

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Something new (and unusual?) on Little Bytham today. 

 

1849795591_HornbyNBType2.jpg.a4e90c31b9077950199b0ac2f114a24f.jpg

 

This is a conversion from a Hornby NB diesel-hydraulic Type 2 into one of the (ill-fated) diesel-electric ones, completed by a friend.

 

He's done a lot of work on the original, and I think it looks quite presentable. No doubt Clive will tell us (I hope) what's wrong (or, with luck, what's right) with it.

 

With its original wheels opened out to the correct b-t-b and its flanges turned down, it actually works (astonishingly) well through all types of pointwork, even with its pancake-type motor.  Yes, I know the wheels should be spoked. 

I thought the Hornby one was the diesel-electric version. I remember making the hydraulic one by cutting something like an inch out of the Hornby model. It is a beautifully finished model regardless.

Robert

  • Agree 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Erichill16 said:

I thought the Hornby one was the diesel-electric version. I remember making the hydraulic one by cutting something like an inch out of the Hornby model. It is a beautifully finished model regardless.

Robert

Correct. The Hornby model was a sort of hybrid of a Pilot Scheme 21 as built and one rebuilt as a 29. I converted one to a 22 back in 1990, since superseded by the Dapol one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Something new (and unusual?) on Little Bytham today. 

 

1849795591_HornbyNBType2.jpg.a4e90c31b9077950199b0ac2f114a24f.jpg

 

This is a conversion from a Hornby NB diesel-hydraulic Type 2 into one of the (ill-fated) diesel-electric ones, completed by a friend.

 

He's done a lot of work on the original, and I think it looks quite presentable. No doubt Clive will tell us (I hope) what's wrong (or, with luck, what's right) with it.

 

With its original wheels opened out to the correct b-t-b and its flanges turned down, it actually works (astonishingly) well through all types of pointwork, even with its pancake-type motor.  Yes, I know the wheels should be spoked. 

Hello Tony

 

As noted by Robert (Erichill16) the D61xx series were diesel-electric. 

 

As for what is wrong, it has the wrong radiator grill, only D6100-D6109 had the two part grill. Even they were replaced by the single grill before they were hid in the shed building at Peterborough New England.  The other main visual problem with the old Hornby model is the valances around the buffer beam. Here is a photo of D6100 after being banished north of that wall. https://rcts.zenfolio.com/diesel/br/locomotives/21/hA0FE4359#ha0fe4359

Edited by Clive Mortimore
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

As noted by Robert (Erichill16) the D61xx series were diesel-electric. 

 

As for what is wrong, it has the wrong radiator grill, only D6100-D6109 had the two part grill. Even they were replaced by the single grill before they were hid in the shed building at Peterborough New England.  The other main visual problem with the old Hornby model is the valances around the buffer beam. Here is a photo of D6100 after being banished north of that wall. https://rcts.zenfolio.com/diesel/br/locomotives/21/hA0FE4359#ha0fe4359

Many thanks Clive,

 

I was going on what the modifier told me. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Whoops forgot to say the front end has been well modelled. Hornby having made a pigs ear of the model by having the front of a class 29 rebuild and the sides of a pilot scheme loco when new.

Thanks again, Clive.

 

I was told the front end (and rear end, which is which?) had been extensively modified. 

 

Does Dapol produce such a loco today? Not that you've got one, I'd imagine - have you scratch-built one? 

 

Though they were originally employed on the southern end of the ECML, I never saw one in reality. I believe they were rapidly removed to 'home waters', much further north, such was their unreliability. I did see several examples of the WR hydraulic equivalents. Were they any better?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Not all that much!

 

I think it's fair (if not charitable) to say that diesels proved not to be North British's forte. 

 

John

 

Dapol have done the D61xx though the differences before/after rebuilding (or subsequent) are outside my range of knowledge. They had already made a pretty decent job of the D63xx hydraulics, so hopefully they are good too. Maybe Clive could comment? 

Edited by Dunsignalling
Addition
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ScRSG said:

 Just a little question, if I may.  Regarding LNER 10000 in original grey livery. The lack of colour photographs (inevitably) of this loco, can someone please tell me if the bufferbeams were red, and if so were the buffer shanks black?

Thanks

Chas

Good morning Chas,

 

I honestly don't know................

 

I know one should never model from a model, but here are four interpretations.

 

736586723_LLovelessOgaugeW101.jpg.3945f7344fed88988db429ca6dd887f6.jpg

 

The Loveless RTR W1 in O Gauge.

 

394328887_W104.jpg.d7fbd95e0ad485253e92f1e5d1532e8a.jpg

 

And Nick Dunhill's O Gauge one, built (at least in part) from an ACE kit.

 

805995769_GresleyBeat04W1onexpress.jpg.33df66b8ddbe416e4d49ff36d1b5ddb7.jpg

 

Built from a SE Finecast kit ( think), running on The Gresley Beat. 

 

W1.jpg.337039e7cc0b46b80750ea1b04a5ef4b.jpg

 

And another SEF W1 (builder/painter unknown) which I had for sale. 

 

Not really conclusive at all, in fact, quite the opposite. As for which is the right 'battleship grey', well...............

 

The 'official' photograph on the cover of the SEF box for the kit has a grey front buffer beam.

 

Does anyone know what Hornby has done with regard to its forthcoming RTR examples?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Photographs of ‘Hush Hush’ show that it had ‘No.10000’ painted on the front buffer beam in typical LNER style. 

 

I’m not aware of any other LNER loco that displayed its number on a buffer beam painted in any other colour than red, but my knowledge is far from exhaustive on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Not all that much!

 

I think it's fair (if not charitable) to say that diesels proved not to be North British's forte. 

 

John

 

Dapol have done the D61xx though the differences before/after rebuilding (or subsequent) are outside my range of knowledge. They had already made a pretty decent job of the D63xx hydraulics, so hopefully they are good too. Maybe Clive could comment? 

The class 21s and 22s were built when North British were going downhill.  I was told that they were sent to Swindon for a general overhaul before entering service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a model of the Hush Hush in the NRM annexe which is (as I recall) roughly contemporary with the original.   You'd assume that that was painted to match, as the builder would have known and be able to look at the real one.   How are the buffer beams treated on that?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...