Jump to content
 

Adventures in DCC and EM with a BRM 4MT


MichaelW

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Michael,

It looks alright to me with lots of shunting but I cannot see any run round loops.  It may be they are there but I just cannot see them.  How does this compare with the prototype track plan?

 

Edit:  Andy got in first, so they must be important

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy (G),

 

Internal user sounds a good idea, I haven't really thought that far...

 

I would be thinking a mix - some things (e.g. vans, coal hoppers etc.) would be rtr, other things (chemical tankers being a biggy) probably would need kit bashing / scratching.  

 

One thing that I do want to do is find something that would be transported by rail, but would need special workings to do so - I seem to recall some things when transported by rail had to have a brake van at each end, and the guards were instructed that if anything happened, they were to head away from the train to protect it and call for assistance, definitely not to go have a look...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, Bodgit - the exchange sidings that are in the second picture will continue onto the third board, and become run round loops there.  These will be the only ones on the layout - so to shunt all the sidings in the plant will require the works loco to be able to shunt from both ends of the trains...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Chris, Bodgit - the exchange sidings that are in the second picture will continue onto the third board, and become run round loops there.  These will be the only ones on the layout - so to shunt all the sidings in the plant will require the works loco to be able to shunt from both ends of the trains...

 

Michael,

Excellent!  Just didn't want you to miss it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Michael

 

But it looks like the Lunesters have got you thinking. :O

 

Just don't do too much of it. :jester:

 

At least by the end of the planning stage, you'll have a protypical layout that you can enjoy operating.

 

Duncan

Link to post
Share on other sites

That they have.  After the disappointment of finding the first plan just wouldn't work (far too much track), things have slowly been ticking over in my mind - and Jeff's comment earlier in the evening made me go back, have a look at the prototype, and get on with laying out the track (even if the only stuff I had available was some narrow gauge from my old 009 layout).  Still, it looks pretty good on the floor boards.  I just need to adjust them so I can plan out the last 4 foot.  I'm wondering though if another few inches in baseboard width would be possible, just to give a touch more room behind the branch line...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done that man, thinking ahead

 

Not another Bodgit LAYOUT :no:

 

I'd be careful saying things like that Andy - you always seem to produce layouts with a good deal of operating potential - and to me that's just as important as the way they look...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Andy (G),

 

Internal user sounds a good idea, I haven't really thought that far...

 

I would be thinking a mix - some things (e.g. vans, coal hoppers etc.) would be rtr, other things (chemical tankers being a biggy) probably would need kit bashing / scratching.  

 

One thing that I do want to do is find something that would be transported by rail, but would need special workings to do so - I seem to recall some things when transported by rail had to have a brake van at each end, and the guards were instructed that if anything happened, they were to head away from the train to protect it and call for assistance, definitely not to go have a look...

The old 16T minerals seem to have plenty of scope for modifying into other types of wagons (and for internal users too), and maybe you could go for some heavy items that could be moved around on ex loco tenders?

 

I have quite a few pages on tankers too.

 

With regards to hazadous stuff, what about liquid ammonia or chorine? Definate run away from! (And we signallers have rules for dealing with 'Rail Dangerous Goods Emergencies' from this sort of stuff!)

 

Just throwing some thoughts!

 

Andy g

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy (G),

 

Internal user sounds a good idea, I haven't really thought that far...

 

I would be thinking a mix - some things (e.g. vans, coal hoppers etc.) would be rtr, other things (chemical tankers being a biggy) probably would need kit bashing / scratching.  

 

One thing that I do want to do is find something that would be transported by rail, but would need special workings to do so - I seem to recall some things when transported by rail had to have a brake van at each end, and the guards were instructed that if anything happened, they were to head away from the train to protect it and call for assistance, definitely not to go have a look...

Michael

 

We can discuss, but some (!)  internal user wagons are in this large collection http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/industrialinternalwagons and there are industrial landscapes amongst these http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/paulbartlettsotherrailwayphotographs  I have more to do, although probably not so many from chemical plants. Other friends did the ICI plants.

 

The most dangerous tank traffic on BR was Hydrogen cyanide - they required  barriers at both ends. I'm not well off for their wagons but see http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/icihydrogencyanide http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/rlsbarriermatch  I do have the operating instructions available.

 

Ammonia was another product which was carried in a variety of tank wagons http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/?q=ammonia

 

ICI had a lot of variety. I have a Transport Age magazine that has 1960s photos of Billingham. More recently http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/?q=ICI shows the considerable variety in chemical tanks, as does VTG - such as this collection http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/ferryvtgtank but there are others.

 

Another was Associated Octel http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/?q=octel - I have more of these to post.

 

Chemical works have a lot of variety!

 

See you soon.

 

Paul Bartlett

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

You're not the only one Andy  :O

 

Things have come to a halt while I'm busy trying to get the house back to a reasonable standard (that is, until I've got walls and floors to all rooms at least).  Worry not though, much thinking and planning is going on in the background  :paint:

 

One big problem though, it's time to go to work again :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Not much has happened with my 4mm standard gauge recently, mostly due to the railway room being occupied by building works, but a day at the Pickering exhibition resulted in the acquisition of another loco, this time a Stanier 4F tank.  

 

post-6640-0-72749900-1376806177.jpg

 

A quick check on www.brdatabase.info reveals the following allocations:

 

 

24C Lostock Hall   01/01/1948 (Snapshot)

14D Neasden 4w/e 04/10/1958

2F Woodford Halse w/e 06/02/1960

15E Leicester (G.C.) w/e 19/03/1960

9B Stockport Edgeley w/e 02/05/1964   

Withdrawn   23/05/1964
 

 

Some renumbering may be required to allow it to fit with the other locos I already have...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, you might have problems fitting a Stanier tank into a Scottish layout (it seems you're still thinking about Scotland). They weren't shedded in Scotland after enough Fairburn tanks became available, with (literally) only one or two exceptions. Here's a previous topic on here about Stanier tanks in Scotland - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/15601-stanier-4mts-north-of-the-border/?hl=%2Bstaniers+%2Bupperby

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well, more time goes by, more thinking occurs, and I need to make a few confessions...

 

1)  I didn't just buy the 2-6-4T at Pickering, somehow I got adopted by a lonely looking Hornby class 110 (or BRCW Calder Valley DMU) in green...

 

2) I went to ExpoEM at the weekend, and yet another 2-6-4T adopted me.  This time a Bachmann Standard 4.

 

post-6640-0-76906500-1379585276.jpg

 

According to www.brdatabase.info, its allocations were:

 

07/55 Kittybrewster (61A)

11/55 Keith (61C)

07/61 Aberdeen Ferryhill (61B)

07/61 Polmadie (66A)

06/66 Withdrawn

 

3) I think I'm going to go EM...

 

Why EM?  Well, I like the finer look to the track (the more I look at Peco track, the more I see the problems with it) - I know that C&L / SMP do finer 00 track, but I do like the look the extra width of EM gives.  I think the clinching bit though is the fact you can generally convert RTR 00 to EM quite easily.  Consider a Bachmann Mk1.

 

Before:

post-6640-0-57895300-1379585272.jpg

 

After (2 minutes swapping axles and it's done):

post-6640-0-09329400-1379585275.jpg

 

And on a trip on the club's EM gauge layout (though quite why they are testing the strength of the coal drops is beyond me...):

 

post-6640-0-21650200-1379585278.jpg

 

4) I've been coveting some Judith Edge kits. Do I need an excuse for a nice little industrial diesel?

 

Away from the change in gauge, I've been busy with DCC conversions.  The Stanier 4MT came with a chip (not sure which one though), which I've reprogrammed to match the loco number (as I have with all my locos).  The Standard 4MT was pretty easy to convert, the body comes off easily once you remember about the screws under the tanks that Digitrains warned you about, and there is plenty of space between the socket and motor to fit the Lenz chip I ended up using.  Only problem came as I put it back together and managed to lose a screw into the wheels and motion - only way to get it back out was to undo all the other screws (it would have to be the last one, wouldn't it!) and take the body back off.  The Calder Valley unit was slightly trickier, first one I've had to hardwire for the chip.  It was a little fiddly (mostly due to it having quite short bits of wire between the motorised and non-motorised bogies.  I did manage to do it (despite the wire being thinner than my wire strippers can cope with), and they all have been trundling happily up and down my test track.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since making the decision to swap from 00 to EM, I've been thinking of building a simple test track to play on.  Whilst I already have a length of flexi-track laid on a flat board, I'm thinking of something a little more interesting to play with, and experiment on.  So this morning I cranked up Templot, and had a play.  Resulting in the following plan:

 

post-6640-0-69376700-1379756126_thumb.png

 

The boards measure 6'6" x 16", and the points are all B6s.  Templot says this gives a minimum radius of 34.2" (being the two inside the curve at the bottom of the plan).  The theory being - platform below th bottom line, goods shed, cattle dock etc on the two sidings.  Now, a couple of questions:

 

1) What do people think of the plan?

 

2) Is 34" going to be too tight a radius for 6-coupled locos?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been off out doing things most of the day, I've come back, had a look at the plan, and decided I didn't like the curve - it looks too sharp, and cramps up the left end a bit.  So I've had a quick go at it, and straightened things out a little.  Still the same idea, but seems a lot better to my eye:

 

post-6640-0-96394400-1379786128_thumb.png

 

What do people think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...