Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I haven't reached perfection yet and probably never will but I agree totally about striving for the best running possible.

 

I had long conversations with Roy Jackson about it and we boiled it down to two simple statements. Every bit of poor running has a cause. If you can find the cause you can fix it.

 

I once visited a layout which is a team effort with many people having contributed. There was one particular train which derailed consistently in one place. The same bogie on a particular carriage derailed every time. All the other trains went over the points just fine and so did all the other bogies under the carriages on the train. The chap running it said that the point must be "a bit tight and needed looking at". I suggested that the coupling between the carriage and the next one might be the problem as it was tending to keep the carriages in a straight line and that was the only place it derailed so it was very likely the cause. I suggested that the point was the only place on the route with a slight reverse curve, which would explain why it only came off there. He wouldn't have it.

 

I asked questions and established that he had built the carriages and somebody else had built the track, so he wouldn't accept that it was his bit that was wrong.

 

I gave up!

 

There is a logic to sorting out faults that is as important to a good running layout as any other part of the hobby. If anybody adopts the right approach and is determined enough to eradicate as many faults as they can (I would exclude human operator error - we are stuck with that!) then we should all be able to get nearer the sort of running that TW gets on Little Bytham.

 

Top quality running isn't an unattainable holy grail. It is there for anybody who makes the effort to reach it.

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

I've come across the 'phenomenon' (that's probably not the right description) of the blinkered modeller who cannot accept that something of his was at fault. 

 

It's safe to assume that, down the years, there have been a few 'casualties' at Wolverhampton MRC; the cause was almost without exception, me! I make no apologies for this, because of my zeal with regard to good-running. If baseboards are solid and uniform (the trackbed, that is), the track is well-made, well-laid and the electrics are sound (irrespective of the gauge) then one is well on the road to good-running. Couple that with well-made locomotives and rolling stock, all with wheelsets with a consistent back-to-back and consistent wheel-profiles, then good-running (give or take) should be ensured. (I mention 'give or take' because on Tuesday an old friend from Scotland popped down, and we ran Little Bytham. During the running, the W1 was used. It went around for at least three circuits with ease, then 'Clunk!' on a couple of points. I investigated, and the shouldered screw holding its front bogie in place was becoming undone. How long this had been going on I don't know, but eventually it had dropped enough for it to clout the points' operating central pins. No matter how well the track had been laid or how well a loco might be built, only regular investigation would have prevented the problem. A quick turn of the screwdriver, and away she went. Cured!). 

 

Returning to folk leaving a club because of me, on one occasion I arrived to find an oaf filing away at some point crossings. 'My locos/stock derail' was his reason for doing so. After pointing out to the clot that everyone else's locos/stock ran through perfectly, I asked him to check his back-to-backs. Guess what? Yes, they were out (by some margin). I went ballistic and told him where to go in no uncertain terms. Which he did, and never returned. 

 

On another occasion, a 'man of God' (he was a lay preacher) caused chaos at a show because all his loco were wired the opposite polarity to convention. 'Why didn't you change them before putting them on the layout (it wasn't Stoke Summit, by the way)?' I asked. 'Because mine are right and the others are wrong!' was his Bible-thumping reply. He didn't last too long, either. 

 

Unless the actions of fools like this are intercepted, they'll cause potential chaos, which is why (in my opinion) so many club layouts are 'crippled' by democracy. How the great Roy Jackson achieved such marvellous running was because he had no time for (and certainly no need of) the types I've just described. 

 

With regard to LB's 'good-running', that's down to the fact that the team members who built it are at the top of their respective trees (yourself included). Thus, there are no weak links, and certainly no clowns to be tolerated. When things 'go wrong' (as they did this week) then I immediately investigate because there's always a cause (usually simple). in the case of the stalling A1, it'll have new pick-ups before long. In the case of the twisted coupling, that was fixed in moments, as was the shouldered screw on the W1. 

 

The end result of my 'zeal' with regard to good-running is that I can leave friends to operate Little Bytham by themselves (as Roy could with Retford). The worst case scenario I can contemplate is having to apologise to guests for poor-running on LB (though I continually have to apologise for my duff operation!). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

[Tony Wright]

I'm just embarking on shooting some moving footage for a Hornby presentation at the end of this month. It's going to be linked with an emphasis on mental well-being; the principle is that, by having a creative hobby, then, at times of stress (lockdowns, for instance), being able to indulge in personal railway modelling can be a great help.

 

Having suffered myself from depression in the past, I can relate to this entirely. 

 

Anyway, I'll be showing how some items of Hornby's ranges of locos/rolling stock can be altered/improved/detailed/renumbered/renamed/weathered, all (apart from a couple of items adorned by a professional paint job) within the capabilities of the newcomer/inexperienced. 

 

One guinea pig will be Hornby's latest Hornby Dublo 'Princess Coronation'. 

 

Now with decent bogie wheels, front steps (with supports) added, etched 'plates and some minor detailing undertaken, it awaits Geoff Haynes' expertise to varnish/weather it.

 

All of this means, of course, that it's no longer a collectors' item. 

 

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

I've come across the 'phenomenon' (that's probably not the right description) of the blinkered modeller who cannot accept that something of his was at fault. 

 

It's safe to assume that, down the years, there have been a few 'casualties' at Wolverhampton MRC; the cause was almost without exception, me! I make no apologies for this, because of my zeal with regard to good-running. If baseboards are solid and uniform (the trackbed, that is), the track is well-made, well-laid and the electrics are sound (irrespective of the gauge) then one is well on the road to good-running. Couple that with well-made locomotives and rolling stock, all with wheelsets with a consistent back-to-back and consistent wheel-profiles, then good-running (give or take) should be ensured. (I mention 'give or take' because on Tuesday an old friend from Scotland popped down, and we ran Little Bytham. During the running, the W1 was used. It went around for at least three circuits with ease, then 'Clunk!' on a couple of points. I investigated, and the shouldered screw holding its front bogie in place was becoming undone. How long this had been going on I don't know, but eventually it had dropped enough for it to clout the points' operating central pins. No matter how well the track had been laid or how well a loco might be built, only regular investigation would have prevented the problem. A quick turn of the screwdriver, and away she went. Cured!). 

 

Returning to folk leaving a club because of me, on one occasion I arrived to find an oaf filing away at some point crossings. 'My locos/stock derail' was his reason for doing so. After pointing out to the clot that everyone else's locos/stock ran through perfectly, I asked him to check his back-to-backs. Guess what? Yes, they were out (by some margin). I went ballistic and told him where to go in no uncertain terms. Which he did, and never returned. 

 

On another occasion, a 'man of God' (he was a lay preacher) caused chaos at a show because all his loco were wired the opposite polarity to convention. 'Why didn't you change them before putting them on the layout (it wasn't Stoke Summit, by the way)?' I asked. 'Because mine are right and the others are wrong!' was his Bible-thumping reply. He didn't last too long, either. 

 

Unless the actions of fools like this are intercepted, they'll cause potential chaos, which is why (in my opinion) so many club layouts are 'crippled' by democracy. How the great Roy Jackson achieved such marvellous running was because he had no time for (and certainly no need of) the types I've just described. 

 

With regard to LB's 'good-running', that's down to the fact that the team members who built it are at the top of their respective trees (yourself included). Thus, there are no weak links, and certainly no clowns to be tolerated. When things 'go wrong' (as they did this week) then I immediately investigate because there's always a cause (usually simple). in the case of the stalling A1, it'll have new pick-ups before long. In the case of the twisted coupling, that was fixed in moments, as was the shouldered screw on the W1. 

 

The end result of my 'zeal' with regard to good-running is that I can leave friends to operate Little Bytham by themselves (as Roy could with Retford). The worst case scenario I can contemplate is having to apologise to guests for poor-running on LB (though I continually have to apologise for my duff operation!). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

It must be a church thing. All the Buckingham locos go the "wrong" way too. Mind you, They were built before there was, as far as I recall, any commercial 2 rail available, so who can say that it wasn't Peter Denny (and your lay preacher) who got it right and Hornby Dublo and everybody else who followed after who got it wrong. At the time, if a modeller was building their own track, locos and controllers, the way the locos went would have been arbitrary as long as they all went the same way. There would have been precious few EM layouts or locos around for anybody to even notice the difference.

 

You may well have had dealings with oafs, fools and clowns over the years. All I have had are those with lower levels of skill, experience and ability, or those who had picked up some bad habits along the way that might have needed a bit of re-educating. Such as those who believe that they could never possibly get something wrong!

[Barry Ten]

A bit more work on the Hornby/Crownline Bulleid pacific:

 

 

The moulded deflectors have got the chop, and plastic sheet used to fill in the gap in the sides, ready for etched deflectors to go over the top. I've also added the cast smokebox front, after carving off the BR bits (the intention is that the loco will remain in early Southern condition). It would probably have been possible to retain the original front but I thought I'd use as many of the castings as possible. The rear pony truck has also been added, and one of the ashpan castings. I'm doing everything one step at a time, then testing, before adding anything else.

 

 

 

[JamesSpooner]

I can only echo what others have said with regard to running.  The standard and quality of running on LB on Thursday was something we should all take note of and aim for, if only because it adds to the pleasure of the operating session by removing much of the frustration.  To see four trains (regularly changed by Tony) going round so consistently smoothly and reliably was a joy to behold.  Thank you Tony for a very enjoyable day.

[Denbridge]

12 minutes ago, JamesSpooner said:

I can only echo what others have said with regard to running.  The standard and quality of running on LB on Thursday was something we should all take note of and aim for, if only because it adds to the pleasure of the operating session by removing much of the frustration.  To see four trains (regularly changed by Tony) going round so consistently smoothly and reliably was a joy to behold.  Thank you Tony for a very enjoyable day.

I echo this. When I visited at the end of August the running was exemplary, as is the whole layout. If it is possible to fall in love with a model railway, then I fell hard 

I very much look forward to visiting again at some point. 

[John Smart]

I would like to say what a good day I have had, thanks to the Grantham operators, JW especially. 

 

I note the carriage aesthetics discussion, re-Mk1s, but there are bigger disasters with regards to the looks of railway vehicles. 

 

Many people know my views on this, but I am going to say, here, the Gresley A4s fall into the hopeless category for me. I think Gresley had an idea of this too.

 

The GresleyA1/A3 and P1 are a rather better examples of the 20th century large steam locomotive design, from an aesthetic view-point. One could add they are less good than many late 19th Century examples, but designs have to move with the times.

 

I look forward to the 'discussion' on this!

 

On the plus side the A4 is more pleasing on the eye than other streamlined locos in Britain at that time.

 

I shall put on the tin-hat now.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

It must be a church thing. All the Buckingham locos go the "wrong" way too. Mind you, They were built before there was, as far as I recall, any commercial 2 rail available, so who can say that it wasn't Peter Denny (and your lay preacher) who got it right and Hornby Dublo and everybody else who followed after who got it wrong. At the time, if a modeller was building their own track, locos and controllers, the way the locos went would have been arbitrary as long as they all went the same way. There would have been precious few EM layouts or locos around for anybody to even notice the difference.

 

You may well have had dealings with oafs, fools and clowns over the years. All I have had are those with lower levels of skill, experience and ability, or those who had picked up some bad habits along the way that might have needed a bit of re-educating. Such as those who believe that they could never possibly get something wrong!

Good evening Tony,

 

I don't think it matters a jot in which direction a system's locos run when power is supplied, as long as they're all the same polarity, and Buckingham's always run well, and have done for years; Peter's layout was (is) entirely self-created, self-reliant and unique. It mattered not (and matters not still) whether the locos follow 'convention' or not. They only have to operate on Buckingham.

 

The problem arises when locos which are wired the opposite polarity (to 'convention') try to run on a system where the other locos are wired 'conventionally' At an exhibition, this is disastrous. 

 

I have no idea what the 'convention is'. All I do (and have done down the years) is make sure my locos run the same way as did Tri-ang, and all the two-rail systems ever since. It means they're all compatible in this regard.

 

You know all this, of course.

 

I suppose those who use DCC are sitting pretty in this regard.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

[brightspark]

I think the Churchman and TBG may be correct. Met Junction loco's are also wired the correct way around.

And as these layouts were the first, everyone else is wrong.

 

[Points trembling finger at congregation] Who set us on the wrong path away from the true and divine method of wiring up our loco's?

 

So impressed was I at the rest of the layout that I forgot about the three link failure. It has puzzled me as to how this has happened. I like to run rakes of wagons with three links in the middle and AJ's at the end. I have only come across the problem of the coupling "knotting itself" after someone has tried to fiddle with it.

 

I am also still bemused by the Crownline attempt at compensation. 

Thank you for showing it to me, it was interesting to see and has got my little grey cells working around what is happening to the loco to make it dance it's merry jig and more importantly how I avoid making the same error. 

I think that when Mr Crownline designed that chassis, he must either have lost faith in the principle or only read part of the book, or had some other idea that he only half pursued. 

 

(BTW, I have a strong idea as to what is happening and will make sure that my efforts will run as smooth as silk when on show)

 

Either way it is a very unhappy loco, even if does look exquisite.

 

Oh and I really enjoyed running the MR/M&GN bit. 

 

Thanks Muchly

 

[Dave John]

Actually all my locos run the wrong way too. After 30 + years of building stuff I had a go at converting a bachman O4 to the version hired in by the Caledonian in 1919, converting it to my version of EM while I was at it.  I managed to get it to run quite happily, but was surprised to find it ran in the opposite direction from all the rest. Did I change all the rest ? Nope, just the O4. Not really a problem since my stuff won't run on anything other than my layout. 

 

Anyway, modelling the Caledonian I almost feel obliged to do everything in the opposite way to everyone else.  Which it might be argued is part of the fun of modelling the Caledonian. 

 

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tony,

 

I don't think it matters a jot in which direction a system's locos run when power is supplied, as long as they're all the same polarity, and Buckingham's always run well, and have done for years; Peter's layout was (is) entirely self-created, self-reliant and unique. It mattered not (and matters not still) whether the locos follow 'convention' or not. They only have to operate on Buckingham.

 

The problem arises when locos which are wired the opposite polarity (to 'convention') try to run on a system where the other locos are wired 'conventionally' At an exhibition, this is disastrous. 

 

I have no idea what the 'convention is'. All I do (and have done down the years) is make sure my locos run the same way as did Tri-ang, and all the two-rail systems ever since. It means they're all compatible in this regard.

 

You know all this, of course.

 

I suppose those who use DCC are sitting pretty in this regard.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

 

I do something similar when I build an EM gauge loco. I just put it on a bit of Buckingham and if it goes the same way as a Buckingham loco, I swap the wires round. I have been building a few 7mm locos for myself and the first three are now runners. They all go the same way but as I have nothing to compare them with, I have no idea if they run the same way as either RTR or kit built locos built by others.

 

There is a convention, otherwise Hornby etc. wouldn't all go the same way. I can't imagine somebody at Hornby getting the first working prototype of a new loco and putting on a track with an old model to see which way it goes. Or maybe they do just that!

 

Either positive or negative on the LH rail to make it go in a particular direction. I remember my physics teacher demonstrating how it all fell into place by holding up his hand with his first two fingers and thumb all pointing in various directions, which showed which way things would move. Somebody will remember what it is called but I don't.

 

There was one Buckingham loco which did run the right (wrong for Buckingham) way. It is a split frame loco with a wooden chassis block. The motor was live to one side through the gears. Peter had run out of ideas as to how to make it go the other way without a major rebuild but it runs quite nicely so he left it alone. I went back to schoolboy physics and fixed it by turning the magnet the other way around in the motor and it now goes the same way as all the others but it caused much chuckling for many years as people forgot and sent it in the wrong direction.

 

It is nice to hear of a few more rebels doing their own thing. I always appreciate a bit of individuality. 

 

 

[JamieR4489]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

holding up his hand with his first two fingers and thumb all pointing in various directions, which showed which way things would move. Somebody will remember what it is called but I don't.

Fleming's left hand rule. Point your left thumb up, your left index finger forwards and your left middle finger to the side, i.e., all at right angles to each other. The thumb is the direction of the force, the index is the direction of the magnetic field (north to south) and the middle is the direction of the current (presumably -ve to +ve).

[Dave John]

Heh, Flemings left hand rule for motors, right hand rule for generators tbg. 

 

It's funny, some things stick in the mind. I can't remember what day it is sometimes, and I forget names of folk I have been introduced to two minutes ago. I can however remember my mothers Co-op dividend number from before they started giving out stamps.

 

I would add a dim old git emoji , but I can't find that either ...... 

 

 

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, Dave John said:

Heh, Flemings left hand rule for motors, right hand rule for generators tbg. 

 

It's funny, some things stick in the mind. I can't remember what day it is sometimes, and I forget names of folk I have been introduced to two minutes ago. I can however remember my mothers Co-op dividend number from before they started giving out stamps.

 

I would add a dim old git emoji , but I can't find that either ...... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, JamieR4489 said:

Fleming's left hand rule. Point your left thumb up, your left index finger forwards and your left middle finger to the side, i.e., all at right angles to each other. The thumb is the direction of the force, the index is the direction of the magnetic field (north to south) and the middle is the direction of the current (presumably -ve to +ve).

 

That was it. Good old Fleming.

 

I remember little from school days. I learned French, German, Latin and ancient Greek at various times but just remember a handful of words in French and German now.

 

About the only thing I do remember from Physics is Stefan's law of heat exchange which was all about the rate at which heat energy is transferred from one body to another when they are at different temperatures to start with. It depended on a value based on the colour, up to a maximum of one being black, a constant for the material and the temperature to the power of 4.

 

One day, I will find a use for it but it hasn't happened yet.

 

Perhaps the best lessons I have carried on from school were from Drama class. I had a brilliant teacher and his lessons on how to speak well, how to breathe properly and how to perform in front of a crowd, or indeed a video camera have stayed with me to this day. When it came to running training courses when I had a real job, or doing some of the model railway videos, his lessons came flooding back to me.

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I suppose those who use DCC are sitting pretty in this regard.

Well, knock me down with a feather!

 

1 hour ago, Dave John said:

my mothers Co-op dividend number from before they started giving out stamps.

424251

[Michael Edge]

The two rail wiring convention is the same in O gauge as in OO (and I think in N as well), as far as I know it was effectively set by Rovex/Triang since there were no other two rail systems at that time, Hornby Dublo being exclusively three rail didn't come into it. However the convention in 3mm scale is the opposite, simply because the Triang locos were wired this way.

DCC has its own problems, easy to tell which way is forward with a steam loco but what about diesels and electrics? The only convention I can come up with is that No.1 end is forward, this works with most BR diesels since the radiator is at that end but what do you do with Deltics, Westerns, Claytons etc? I have no experience of DCC electric locos so can't offer any suggestions there.

[St Enodoc]

34 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

The two rail wiring convention is the same in O gauge as in OO (and I think in N as well), as far as I know it was effectively set by Rovex/Triang since there were no other two rail systems at that time, Hornby Dublo being exclusively three rail didn't come into it. However the convention in 3mm scale is the opposite, simply because the Triang locos were wired this way.

DCC has its own problems, easy to tell which way is forward with a steam loco but what about diesels and electrics? The only convention I can come up with is that No.1 end is forward, this works with most BR diesels since the radiator is at that end but what do you do with Deltics, Westerns, Claytons etc? I have no experience of DCC electric locos so can't offer any suggestions there.

I put a crew in No 1 end of my diesels.

[Chamby]

2 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

The two rail wiring convention is the same in O gauge as in OO (and I think in N as well), as far as I know it was effectively set by Rovex/Triang since there were no other two rail systems at that time, Hornby Dublo being exclusively three rail didn't come into it. However the convention in 3mm scale is the opposite, simply because the Triang locos were wired this way.

DCC has its own problems, easy to tell which way is forward with a steam loco but what about diesels and electrics? The only convention I can come up with is that No.1 end is forward, this works with most BR diesels since the radiator is at that end but what do you do with Deltics, Westerns, Claytons etc? I have no experience of DCC electric locos so can't offer any suggestions there.

 

Flash the lamps on using F0.  Most RTR diesel models have working white and red lamps installed these days.

[Michael Edge]

Yes but I'm not just talking about rtr diesels with enough lights for Blackpool illuminations.....

Some of us still prefer to build models.

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, brightspark said:

I think the Churchman and TBG may be correct. Met Junction loco's are also wired the correct way around.

And as these layouts were the first, everyone else is wrong.

 

[Points trembling finger at congregation] Who set us on the wrong path away from the true and divine method of wiring up our loco's?

 

So impressed was I at the rest of the layout that I forgot about the three link failure. It has puzzled me as to how this has happened. I like to run rakes of wagons with three links in the middle and AJ's at the end. I have only come across the problem of the coupling "knotting itself" after someone has tried to fiddle with it.

 

I am also still bemused by the Crownline attempt at compensation. 

Thank you for showing it to me, it was interesting to see and has got my little grey cells working around what is happening to the loco to make it dance it's merry jig and more importantly how I avoid making the same error. 

I think that when Mr Crownline designed that chassis, he must either have lost faith in the principle or only read part of the book, or had some other idea that he only half pursued. 

 

(BTW, I have a strong idea as to what is happening and will make sure that my efforts will run as smooth as silk when on show)

 

Either way it is a very unhappy loco, even if does look exquisite.

 

Oh and I really enjoyed running the MR/M&GN bit. 

 

Thanks Muchly

 

The twisted three-link puzzled me, too, Andy,

 

The rake in question reverses into the Down north lay-by during the sequence, which might account for the coupling getting twisted (though it had run several times around after that). Perhaps a slight jolt, a critical juxtaposition of twisted coupling, deflection, wheel and crossing which caused the wagon to derail. Who knows?

 

All I know is that it was investigated, the problem/cause identified and rectified. 

 

Identifying and rectifying running problems is a Little Bytham principle which I adhere to without fail. There is always a reason for a failure, and it must be fixed before running can continue. Rectified in the right way, however. The wagon in question derailed on entry pointwork to the fiddleyard. To have started investigating/altering the crossings would have been absurd.

 

Which is what happened in the situation I described earlier at WMRC (the participants are all  deceased now, except me). I'd watched a really well-made O Gauge point being installed and wired up on a club layout. The builder knew what he was doing. It was tested using locos and stock built by another most-accomplished modeller. They stood back, saw that it was good, and I took a photograph. Can anyone imagine my outrage when a week later a guy was filing away like crazy at the crossing 'V' because his locos/stock bounced over it or derailed! Inexperienced? Less-capable? A picker-up of bad habits? None of these things mattered; it was the most crass of acts, the builder of the point was appalled, and the fool (that's a 'sensitive' description on my part) didn't last long at the club. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited October 3, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error

[D.Platt]

Morning All

Sorry to go off subject here , a few months back I mentioned that I was building a K’s Jubilee, and that I had won an eBay bid for another K’s Jubilee kit , but when I came to unpack it I discovered that the firebox had the same hand castings  (still on its vacuum packed card )

Somebody on here suggested calling Dave Ellis and last week after seeing the advert for nu-cast I sent them an email asking for a miracle, and a prompt reply came back and a miracle happened, I phoned him had a lovely conversation and yesterday the missing casting arrived.

Dave told me they have no plans to produce a Jubilee, but they do have castings from a lot of the old nu -cast /K’s kits so for me a little miracle happened, and obviously for anyone building old kits don’t give up if you need a part .

Now can I ask for some more help with the Jubilee , I have my brothers K’s Jubilee and typically when you start building one you notice differences , so on the long firebox Jubilee there is a mud cover /washout plug on the top radius of the firebox, my brother had drilled and fitted a brass representative of this , and here’s where I need help , does anybody have any idea who’s casting it could be ?  I talked to our friend at Markits and it’s not one his .

Hope someone can point me in the right direction again.

Dennis

[92220]

Morning Tony,

 

Talking of searching for excellent mainline running on handbuilt track - as close to perfect as I can manage - here are a few down trains at Camden.  
 

 

I do have a little fettling to do, to make sure we always have reliable and smooth running otherwise the entire project doesn’t really work.  However, I am working under the handicap of not being Norman Solomon, or at least not having his experience and skill.  Anyway, on we go and I hope this section isn’t too far off.  Once it is done, it should give a decent impression of prototype heavy mainline trains running past the shed.

 

Best wishes to you and Mo as always,

 

Iain

Edited October 3, 2021 by 92220
Grammar

[PupCam]

 

11 hours ago, Dave John said:

Heh, Flemings left hand rule for motors, right hand rule for generators tbg.

 

Yes, the direction of thumb, first & second finger when held mutually perpendicular to each other indicate the relative directions of motion, magnetic field and current for motors and generators.

 

As a general comment, I'm not certain Fleming's rule has got anything to do with the convention for which way a commercially built model loco goes when the track is a certain polarity.    I think it's more than likely that it's got everything to do with which brush Triang decided to isolate on the X04 motor by convention and even then, if I remember correctly, that could be easily changed by the simple expedient of transferring the insulating sleeve to the other leg of the brush spring followed by the contact on the end of the wire from the pick-up.     I stand to be corrected on that though as it's ~50 years since I last studied an X04 ....

 

11 hours ago, Dave John said:

It's funny, some things stick in the mind. I can't remember what day it is sometimes, and I forget names of folk I have been introduced to two minutes ago. I can however remember my mothers Co-op dividend number from before they started giving out stamps.

 

Yes that is strange isn't it.   I can remember the registration number of my father's  Triumph Herald.     I would have been 6 years old when it turned up on the drive.    Some of the vehicles I've actually  owned I could never remember the registration numbers for!   I can also remember Avogadro's constant from school but, like then, I haven't got the foggiest idea what to do with it! 

 

I was talking to @polybear on our way home from visiting Tony the other day about how I became quite proficient with the MiniTrix track numbers when serving in my father's model shop back in the 70's.   I can still remember some of the more common numbers which of course is totally useless information for me these days!

 

And as for remembering something someone said to me yesterday, well perhaps I ought to be getting concerned on the state of my short term memory!

 

Alan

 

[zr2498]

Great video to enjoy

 

[Iain.d]

Last weekend, well I think it was last weekend, I started this Johnson 3500 gallon tender from a George Norton / Connoisseur’s Choice kit to replace an old Triang one that came with a MR 3F.

 

 

The fit of parts has been superb, in particular the brass work. The nickel silver not quite so, it was/is also coated with something like a clear varnish or preservative. I found when I soldered the brake gear up, it seemed okay, the flux sizzled and the solder flowed and everything was secured, but the next day more than half of the joints were loose. So I unsoldered the few secured pieces and then scrubbed all the parts in Jif.  It seems okay now. The brake gear is removable so that the wheels can be inserted. The axles have 2mm-1/8in sleeves that have been secured in place with Loctite 601, from a very old bottle which I was half expecting to be ‘off’. There's not much sideplay on the chassis but it will happily negotiate Peco OO bullhead points.

 

The flares at the tender top were done by bending the brass around a 1/8in bar and applying little more than finger pressure. I need to decide on a buffer beam; two are provided, one seems too deep and the other too shallow. And I think I’ve worked out the bending and fitting of parts for the coal hole and tool boxes. All being well I’ll be able to do some more this week.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain