Midland Railway Company

[Crimson Rambler]

Stephen

 

My reasoning was, as the LMS was more recent than the Midland we might establish more easily why the LMS did it. Regarding the  "...APLE & Co" and "...?NETWO.." I just assumed they were wagons as Kentish Town had a large back to back coaling stage and they were standing on the road behind but if you think not, then I am happy to yield to your greater knowledge on wagons. 

 

Improved visibilty when shunting is the usual reason for not fitting the backs but I suggest that then begs the question why (as far as I know) were all of the 50 very similar engines - 10off 1121 class and the 40off Class Q built by Stephenson - given cabs with backs yet many of them were destined for yard work. Regarding the improved visibility that having no cab back would confer is perhaps only really applicable when the engine is working with open wagons -  vans and carriages would essentially defeat it. In support of this latter point I offer the photo of No 1389 on page 36 of Jack Braithwaite's book.

 

Crimson Rambler

 

[Crimson Rambler]

Another little peculiarity of the Johnson small 0-6-0Ts concerns the cutting away of the platform between the cab handrail pillars. Only some engines were affected and while I see Summerson mentioned it in a caption he made no further reference to it. It appears though there was rather more to this. In effect the engines that had the cut-away were narrower in their overall width. The step plate was set back sufficiently from the outside frame so that the edge of the steps protruded no further than the edge of the platform. At this point it becomes interesting if you like the minutae of Johnson engines!

The Class N had the cut-away, as did some of the Qs - including all of the backless Sharp Stewart built ones - plus also it seems all of the 1377 Class built with low cabs and boiler mountings. The 1337 class had platforms 8ft - 4ins wide and were 8ft - 9ins wide over the steps. The Class N and the Q had platforms 8ft - 3ins wide and were that width over the steps as well. Finally the Class Qs not given cut-aways still seem to have retained the 8ft - 3ins width which I suspect may have given some of their crews barked shins as they climbed on board.

Was this narrowing simply an SWJ aesthetic change or did certain engines need to be narrower? As the cut-down engines forming the 1552 and 1982 series engines were of this type then possibly it was the latter.

 

Happy New Year to you all.

 

Crimsin Rambler

 

 

 

[Tricky]

On 30/12/2019 at 18:00, Dave Hunt said:

At long last I've completed track laying on my embryonic S7 Midland MPD layout. It's taken me since April to come up with a track plan, get the wood, make the baseboards and lay all the track but since it's all hand made, all the pointwork has scale chairs (made for me by my mate Crimson Rambler) and it includes three 3-throw turnouts (which are a bu**er to make) I'm not too displeased with progress. With luck I'll survive long enough to finish it.....

 

An overall view from the entrance to the MPD

 

A view from the other (shed) end

 

The middle bit

 

The Schenectady is standing outside what will eventually be the elevated coaling stage

 

One of the 'orrible three throws - during their construction I cursed the Midland more than a few times for being so wedded to the damn things 

 

I'm not sure whether I'll need to put some scotch blocks and/or a catch point on the road up to the elevated coaling stage; I'll have to do a bit more looking at photographs - anyone got any ideas?

 

Just the wiring and point motor installation and connections to be done and I'll have a working layout that only needs buildings, scenery and all the other bits 'n pieces to finish it . I've also got to make a fiddle yard but at least it only needs to be long enough for a breakdown train.

 

Maybe five years?

 

Have a good 2020 everyone.

 

Dave

Only just catching up with stuff in general after a few days in a strange in-between world otherwise known as 'Twixtmas' I believe. Loving the look of this though Dave and very much looking forward to seeing it take shape. I'm just about to tackle trying to design a small-ish layout combining an MPD (LNW) with a goods depot (MR, including grain warehouse). Should be interesting...

[Tricky]

On another matter completely, does anyone know of a decent etch or moulding of a 7mm banana van louvre, as depicted in plates 201 & 202, Midland wagons Vol 1? I have a vague notion this has cropped up before somewhere but can't for the life of me remember where....

[John-Miles]

As this thread has gone rather quiet, I thought I would post something. I have just received the two 2Fs back from Warren Haywood who has done the painting. Both are Gibson kits and unusually I have used most of the kit. The wheels are Ultrascale (I don't like Gibson wheels) and one has a scratchbuilt boiler. Both the chimneys are home made as are the smokebox wrappers, otherwise all Gibson. They are both in need of finishing with things like handrails, buffers and one needs the Salter springs. Not up to Dave Hunt standard but I am pleased with them. The station building is for my Penwyllt layout and was built by Graham Tierney. All in EM - 4mm scale. Apologies for the poor quality of the photograph - not my strong suit.

Edited February 5, 2020 by John-Miles

[Dave Hunt]

They look pretty damn good to me John! I think that Johnson's small boiler 0-6-0s have an elegance rarely seen in goods engines and your models capture that very well.

 

I'm still plodding on with wiring my layout but it's taking forever - the 32 isolating sections have been a pain but I'm within a couple of days of finishing all but the points and once the festoons of spaghetti are tidied up a bit I'll post some pictures of the control panels. Exciting or what??

 

Dave

Edited February 5, 2020 by Dave Hunt
Pressed send before finishing - dohhhh.....

[queensquare]

10 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

They look pretty damn good to me John! I think that Johnson's small boiler 0-6-0s have an elegance rarely seen in goods engines and your models capture that very well.

 

I'm still plodding on with wiring my layout but it's taking forever - the 32 isolating sections have been a pain but I'm within a couple of days of finishing all but the points and once the festoons of spaghetti are tidied up a bit I'll post some pictures of the control panels. Exciting or what??

 

Dave

 

Agreed, they look superb.

 

i have to say that being able to abandon all those isolating sections, and switches is what sold me on DCC. I'm not really interested in sound and all points and signals are still worked from a frame but getting rid of all those section switches and associated wiring is incredibly liberating.

 

Jerry

Edited February 6, 2020 by queensquare

[Tricky]

17 hours ago, John-Miles said:

As this thread has gone rather quiet, I thought I would post something. I have just received the two 2Fs back from Warren Haywood who has done the painting. Both are Gibson kits and unusually I have used most of the kit. The wheels are Ultrascale (I don't like Gibson wheels) and one has a scratchbuilt boiler. Both the chimneys are home made as are the smokebox wrappers, otherwise all Gibson. They are both in need of finishing with things like handrails, buffers and one needs the Salter springs. Not up to Dave Hunt standard but I am pleased with them. The station building is for my Penwyllt layout and was built by Graham Tierney. All in EM - 4mm scale. Apologies for the poor quality of the photograph - not my strong suit.

Beauties. Do you think your camera skills could extend to just a couple of close-ups? Pretty please....?

[Regularity]

2 minutes ago, Tricky said:

Pretty please....?

With sugar on top.

[Tricky]

21 minutes ago, queensquare said:

 

Agreed, they look superb.

 

i have to say that being able to abandon all those isolating sections, and switches is what sold me on DCC. I'm not really interested in sound and all points and signals are still worked from a frame but getting rid of all those section switches and associated wiring is incredibly liberating.

 

Jerry

Agreed Jerry. Although I’m quite taken with sound...

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, queensquare said:

i have to say that being able to abandon all those isolating sections, and switches is what sold me on DCC. I'm not really interested in sound and all points and signals are still worked from a frame but getting rid of all those section switches and associated wiring is incredibly liberating.

 

1 hour ago, Tricky said:

Agreed Jerry. Although I’m quite taken with sound...

 

I agree with both of you! The first time I tried DCC, I realised that I was now driving the loco/train, and not the track. 

I had always thought I was driving the engine on DC, but I realised how that was not true.

 

UK railways are different to North American operations outside of heavily trafficked urban areas, and so for me the use of DCC is in driving the trains, and not the signalling, although the DCC bus could be used to control the points and signals via an interface, but to not interlock the power feeds with the signalling. On the real railway, drivers have to obey the signalling, or the shunter/foreman/fireman for moves controlled without fixed signals. I think it should be the same on our models! (So I am a fan of "frog juicers" and also dead frogs as a simpler alternative where "stay alive" circuits are deployed.)

 

The three massive benefits of DCC are:

Reduction in wiring (not quite two wires, although I did manage that on my son's trainset);

Constant voltage and higher current ensures better supply of power;

The quality of the better DCC decoders is astounding, and produces extremely fine control.

 

Sound/lights are a bonus, if you are into that sort of thing, but this is purely optional.

 

Notice, though, that on-board battery power also satisfies the above criteria, albeit at the expense of needing to find room for a battery, and arranging the charging thereof. Radio control though, could be applied with constant voltage supplied via the rails...

[Holmesfeldian]

As an aside, what are peoples' thoughts about the forthcoming Bachmann 1P

https://www.Bachmann.co.uk/product/category/150/mr-1532-(1p)-tank-1273-midland-railway-crimson-lake/31-740

This may be a boon for non-scratch builders like myself !

Edited February 6, 2020 by Holmesfeldian

[John-Miles]

The Bachman loco looks pretty good to me. Shame it's a Deeley smokebox door. I'm not too sure about the chimney - I'll leave the experts to comment on that. Once it's painted and heading a rake of Slater's 6 wheelers, it will look great. Slaters by the way are planning pre-printed carriage sides in 4mm, already available for 7mm. 

 

In reply to Tricky, I'll have a go at a close up but don't hold your breath. Cameras and me are like oil and water.

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

 

 

I agree with both of you! The first time I tried DCC, I realised that I was now driving the loco/train, and not the track. 

I had always thought I was driving the engine on DC, but I realised how that was not true.

 

UK railways are different to North American operations outside of heavily trafficked urban areas, and so for me the use of DCC is in driving the trains, and not the signalling, although the DCC bus could be used to control the points and signals via an interface, but to not interlock the power feeds with the signalling. On the real railway, drivers have to obey the signalling, or the shunter/foreman/fireman for moves controlled without fixed signals. I think it should be the same on our models! (So I am a fan of "frog juicers" and also dead frogs as a simpler alternative where "stay alive" circuits are deployed.)

 

The three massive benefits of DCC are:

Reduction in wiring (not quite two wires, although I did manage that on my son's trainset);

Constant voltage and higher current ensures better supply of power;

The quality of the better DCC decoders is astounding, and produces extremely fine control.

 

Sound/lights are a bonus, if you are into that sort of thing, but this is purely optional.

 

Notice, though, that on-board battery power also satisfies the above criteria, albeit at the expense of needing to find room for a battery, and arranging the charging thereof. Radio control though, could be applied with constant voltage supplied via the rails...

I remain a follower of DC for my own layout, although a member of a group building a DCC powered layout. That has firmly exploded the two wire myth which I believe only applies if you have a CAN bus system (although the experts will soon tell me if that is incorrect).

 

On London Road the signalman sets the route, signals, etc. and the driver controls the locos. We don't "drive the track" as it is fixed down to the baseboards and won't move.

 

"Constant voltage and higher current" - the current draw depends on the load placed on it so it is difficult to see why DCC ensures a better supply of power. The higher voltage may minimise the effect of poor pickups, dirty rails, etc. but I have found - even under exhibition conditions - that correctly laid track, properly built loco mechanisms with good pickups, good motors and controllers (Pentroller and Modelex units in our case), then it is not difficult to achieve very good running. I think that some people consider that DCC provides a cure all for running problems, but basic maintenance and regular cleaning should always be first on any layout owners list.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

but basic maintenance and regular cleaning should always be first on any layout owners list.

 

"Dustless tracks", eh?

[Regularity]

4 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

"Constant voltage and higher current" - the current draw depends on the load placed on it so it is difficult to see why DCC ensures a better supply of power.

There is usually more power available to be drawn. I am aware of the physics, but also aware that for most modellers, the availability of sufficient current will be enough of a benefit.

 

Quote

I think that some people consider that DCC provides a cure all for running problems, but basic maintenance and regular cleaning should always be first on any layout owners list.

I took that as read - same as using DC feedback controllers to disguise poor construction is also a bad thing.

 

I wired up a reasonably comprehensive layout for my son, using the two wires from the DCC station to the track, and nothing else. It had set track points with dead frogs, and I simply bonded all switchblades to their respective stock rails, making everything live. It was possible to do many things that a DC layout would have found impossible without an absurd amount of wiring, switches and breaks. Whilst it is more than two wires, it is possible to simply have two busbars, with feeders from those to their respective running rails, and then feeders to the crossing vees from switches, either manual (e.g. micro switches) or electronic (current-sensing circuits such as “frog juicers”).

 

But yes, I agree that DC, DCC or RC as the means of control is irrelevant compared to the ideal situation of having separate signallers and drivers, at least for busy layouts.

[Dave Hunt]

I did consider DCC but since I already had the DC controllers and switches I would need and all eleven of my locomotives would have needed chips putting in, the extra expense would have been considerable. I'm also not really likely to want to run more than one locomotive at a time and there are no signals. I realised that to achieve what I wanted would involve lots of wire and switches but overall decided that I'd stick with DC. Mind you, three weeks into the wiring and still at it........

 

Regarding the Bachmann 0-4-4T, since I helped them with its development I'm a bit biased but within the constraints of making it compatible with the arrangement necessary for 00 and having to accept some manufacturing restrictions I think they have done a good job.

 

Dave

[John-Miles]

As promised, close up of 2F attached. I finally managed to do one which is in focus and doesn't have one of my fingers over the lens. Note the coal rails are a bit bent. They are very fragile and handling has pushed the out of place. My plan is to use the coal to stiffen them up!!  Apologies for the delay in posting but we had a weekend in Hay-on-Wye, one of my favourite places. If you ever visit, it is possible to walk quite a lot of the trackbed where it runs between the town and the river Wye. There are also other remnants of the HH&B such as a goods shed at Kinnersley and Eardisley.

 

On the DCC topic, being a Neandertahl, I like the fact that with analogue, if you get a fault you can track it down with a meter very quickly, essential at an exhibition when you have  punters looking on. I don't understand the talk about there being more power. Surely a motor will only take so many amps, you can push more through it with DCC>

[Caley Jim]

2 hours ago, John-Miles said:

...... I don't understand the talk about there being more power. Surely a motor will only take so many amps, you can push more through it with DCC.

It's not so much that you are pushing more amps through, but that you are working with a slightly higher voltage which has some benefit in improving pick-up, especially in the smaller scales where mass is limited.

 

One benefit you have with DCC is that you have very fine control .  I have a CR 171 class 0-4-4T, fitted with a Branchlines minimotor. It is mechanically sound - can be brought down to a crawl - but under DC analogue control it was impossible to start it slowly, I suspect because there is a certain degree of 'stiction' (as my old physics teacher called it) in the motor.  You had to crank the power up to get it to start, which it did like a jack-rabbit, and then try to quickly bring it back down.  In DCC, it starts beautifully smoothly because the chip is putting that burst of power in for a few milliseconds and then reducing it far more quickly than a human could.

 

My latest loco has 880µf of stay-alive in it which helps smooth running no end as dirty spots on the track have no effect.  If you lift it off the track when it's running the wheels will do a further almost half revolution.

 

Jim

[Dave Hunt]

Wiring of my MPD progresses and all the plain track is now done. I still have the points to sort out, both mechanically and electrically, and hope to start that this week. In the meantime here are a few pictures of my, admittedly antediluvian analogue, control panels. All are made from offcuts of ply finished with several coats of sanding sealer then painted using a red oxide rattle can and lettered with some very old Letraset that much to my amazement still worked. The lines are just masked off using Tamiya masking tape and brush painted then the whole lot spray varnished.

 

This is the overall arrangement. The two controllers are for the track and the turntable respectively and arranged so that power can't be applied to both simultaneously, thus avoiding nasty accidents (I hope).

 

Next up are some close-ups of the individual panels that I think will be self-explanatory. I know that I could have combined everything into one large panel but this arrangement suits me. As can be seen, the point control panel isn't yet connected to anything and just has a bunch of spaghetti coming out of the back. All the rest works, though. Miniaturised it isn't!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately the drive belt for the turntable wasn't sufficiently tensioned and it slipped with a heavy locomotive on it so I had to take it apart and re-tension it. A bit of a PITA but it now works well and the fine control available from the controller makes it easy to align the tracks by eye. Automation is something else that doesn't feature on the layout. Me, a dinosaur? The up for on arrangement of the isolating switches is because that is how the switches in aircraft cockpits are arranged so it is natural for me.

 

Onward and upward as they say.

 

Dave

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Dave Hunt said:

The two controllers are for the track and the turntable respectively and arranged so that power can't be applied to both simultaneously, thus avoiding nasty accidents (I hope).

 

 

Like so:

 

 

NRM DY 1012, released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence by the National Railway Museum.

[Tricky]

10 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

Wiring of my MPD progresses and all the plain track is now done. I still have the points to sort out, both mechanically and electrically, and hope to start that this week. In the meantime here are a few pictures of my, admittedly antediluvian analogue, control panels. All are made from offcuts of ply finished with several coats of sanding sealer then painted using a red oxide rattle can and lettered with some very old Letraset that much to my amazement still worked. The lines are just masked off using Tamiya masking tape and brush painted then the whole lot spray varnished.

 

This is the overall arrangement. The two controllers are for the track and the turntable respectively and arranged so that power can't be applied to both simultaneously, thus avoiding nasty accidents (I hope).

 

Next up are some close-ups of the individual panels that I think will be self-explanatory. I know that I could have combined everything into one large panel but this arrangement suits me. As can be seen, the point control panel isn't yet connected to anything and just has a bunch of spaghetti coming out of the back. All the rest works, though. Miniaturised it isn't!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately the drive belt for the turntable wasn't sufficiently tensioned and it slipped with a heavy locomotive on it so I had to take it apart and re-tension it. A bit of a PITA but it now works well and the fine control available from the controller makes it easy to align the tracks by eye. Automation is something else that doesn't feature on the layout. Me, a dinosaur? The up for on arrangement of the isolating switches is because that is how the switches in aircraft cockpits are arranged so it is natural for me.

 

Onward and upward as they say.

 

Dave

Onwards and upwards indeed. A very impressive array of controls. Almost as impressive as the array of coffee mugs on the window sill...! 

[Poor Old Bruce]

On 09/02/2020 at 18:46, Caley Jim said:

One benefit you have with DCC is that you have very fine control .  I have a CR 171 class 0-4-4T, fitted with a Branchlines minimotor. It is mechanically sound - can be brought down to a crawl - but under DC analogue control it was impossible to start it slowly, I suspect because there is a certain degree of 'stiction' (as my old physics teacher called it) in the motor.  You had to crank the power up to get it to start, which it did like a jack-rabbit, and then try to quickly bring it back down.  In DCC, it starts beautifully smoothly because the chip is putting that burst of power in for a few milliseconds and then reducing it far more quickly than a human could.

 

That type of performance is typical of DCC fitted locos on an analogue controller. It may depend on the make of chip, others will know more. I recently bought a chipped loco from a swapmeet (it was cheap ad I thought I could use it on a friend's digital layout as well as my own analogue one) which the knowledgable chap at the local club  worked out could be set to either be nicely controlled on DCC only or rubbish controlled on both DCC and DC. I opted for the DCC only.

[Caley Jim]

Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was talking about how the loco behaved before it was fitted with a chip. 

 

Jim

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Caley Jim said:

Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was talking about how the loco behaved before it was fitted with a chip. 

That's as much to do with the on-board high-frequency pulse-width-modulation with back EMF as it is with DCC: a good DC controller should be able to deliver that, too.