25kv overhead wires

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi James

 

Naturally I will be adding wires but not conducting with them (would make the fiddleyard a royal PITA if I did). My point is we know wires are there but if you step back and really look they are not easy to see. In fact it might be because we are used to the scaffold like wires on RTR stuff that we think its a lot more prominent than it actually is.

 

Let me give you an example in model form

 

 

Yes the masts are obvious but the wires? Its a toss up between over scale or non at all for visual appearance - assuming RTR to scale isnt an option.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[peach james]

I don't have any photos of David Elliot's Swiss models (in HOm, for the most part...), but from the "low flying helocopter" angle that we normally view a model from, the lack of wires would be very noticable. It also comes to being something which we kind of gardner expectations of- seeing OHE locos with masts would probably fool the mind most of the time, but seeing OLE locos running with no masts is a no brainer to me- where's the wires? It's like running a train on a road...where's the track? The smaller the scale, the easier the disbelief of lacking wires, because they do scale out so small. But, when you get to 4mm, then I think that it is above the threshold of what is required to make a realistic model. This is very much a subjective area too...I can understand the great reluctance on behalf of people who are doing it (like you) to have live OHE, and armchair OHE modelers like me who don't have to deal with the fiddle yard !.

 

David's Swiss stuff when he uses OHE live, has vastly overscale equipment in the fiddle yards- 14 ga copper wire, if I am right- because it didn't need to look nice, it just has to conduct. (same for inside tunnels). Also, since it is basically self supporting, there is a lot less concern there about it getting bent out of shape. (if it does get bent too far over, you bend it back...). I think he uses Summerfeld (sp) wire for the visible sections.

 

I will try and get photos next time I am over there- might be a while, since I have the 2 month old son to look after & my home addition & hopefully, I will be moving Long Marton's fiddle yard back into place on Monday...all the fun things that take up time!

 

(To add- I love reading & looking at the photos of BNS, just not from home...dial up only here!)

 

James Powell

[7013]

I see your point Jim and the photo sample is a very good one, Is the Peco sytem a 'live' system? if it is and there are no British outline locos conducting from it then it is IMHO for British modellers pointless unless they go down the DIY electrification route!

As I stated I run mainly steam and my diesels are just that not electric so I dont really know why I got into this, it was only meant to be an observation, and it matters not a jot to me as far as modelling is concerned. However it is interesting to read peoples take on these things, and from my perspective I like to see a layout that at least has some representation of OLE that completes the impression regardless as to whether it works or not. I personally would not buy a sound steam loco at present because I have not heard one to date that does not sound as if it is chugging about in a biscuit tin, I prefer to let my imagination do the sound effects and that is probably where we agree....imagination.

 

 

 

Andrew

[Ron Ron Ron]

....Is the Peco sytem a 'live' system? .......

No, it's purely cosmetic judging from what they've shown so far. Just like the (Hornby) Electotren stuff.

 

Personally speaking, in H0/00 and larger scales, you really can't get away with masts without the wires.

The trick is, as Jim and some others have attempted to do, is to use the thinnest wires possible, otherwise they'll look like scaffolding pipes (Jim's work looks fantastic, by the way).

 

Using the OHLE for current collection, whilst a nice technical challenge for those so inclined, will invariably require excessively thick wire to be used. Trying to get a prototypical look and reliable current collection may be a challenge that is difficult to reconcile. IMHO it's a pointless exercise anyway if the intention is to obtain the best visual effect.

 

In addition, DCC operation via OHLE is a risky business and definitely not recommended (I'm sure someone will take issue with that?).

Also, as Jim mentioned earlier, there would be difficulty with DCC operating pantographs (raising and lowering) working with current supply via the overhead. Not to mention lights and sound.

 

Moving on....

If purely cosmetic, is it necessary to use wire, or could other thinner section materials be used?

Notwithstanding issues of pantograph spring tension etc, etc.

 

 

.

 

 

 

[DavidBelcher]

Moving on....

If purely cosmetic, is it necessary to use wire, or could other thinner section materials be used?

Notwithstanding issues of pantograph spring tension etc, etc.

 

 

.

 

I have read somewhere of a purely cosmetic OLE system using either cotton thread or fishing line rather than wire, though it may have been a tramway rather than railway layout.

 

David

[Gordon H]

Why does it need to pick up from the wires? 4 contacts are better than 1, theres no advantage to doing so and with things like DCC operated pans you have to communicate with the loco while the pan is down.

 

Some people will enjoy the technical challenge sure but for most picking up from the OLE is just a train set gimmick.

 

Do your diesel locos run on diesel? I dont get this fascination with OLE locos must pick up from the wires.

How can it be considered a 'gimmick' when it is the closest approximation to a prototypical power supply method available, along with third rail? If anything, diesel is more of a train set gimmick because it is nowhere near representative of real life operation. Using the two running rails alone for power supply is about as far away from reality as you can get.

 

I take the opposite view - go to all that time and trouble erecting the stuff and then not bother using it in the intended way seems ridiculous to me!

A properly designed pantograph head mechanism has at least two points of contact, so that argument is void anyway.

 

Jim, How would New Street look without wires? Just "pretend" them. How about if the sleeper spacing was HO? Or, if there was none of the fabulous details you are adding?

 

"Just Because", would be my answer as to why to put the wire there. Conduct with it? That's more a question of model reality than not. If near scale overhead will work, I see no point in not using it as a conductor. If it won't, then I don't see a big deal with pickup from the track. (forinstance, using string in N gauge, and running on both rails).

 

I just like to see things done, and think that OLE being live is a neat thing...note, I am firmly in the kettle camp myself ! (and don't have any live steam OO models...but do have 3.5" gauge ones...)

It can and does work. As such, with New Street it seems to be a shame not to take that final step, but that is Jim's choice.

 

Using the OHLE for current collection, whilst a nice technical challenge for those so inclined, will invariably require excessively thick wire to be used. Trying to get a prototypical look and reliable current collection may be a challenge that is difficult to reconcile. IMHO it's a pointless exercise anyway if the intention is to obtain the best visual effect.

What evidence do you have to say that excessively thick wires are needed? I have plenty to the contrary.

If the mechanics of the system are OK, there is no problem as far as conduction goes.

In addition, DCC operation via OHLE is a risky business and definitely not recommended (I'm sure someone will take issue with that?).

No more risky than doing the same with DC. It simply requires an awareness of the issues involved.

Also, as Jim mentioned earlier, there would be difficulty with DCC operating pantographs (raising and lowering) working with current supply via the overhead. Not to mention lights and sound.

Unless and until DCC controlled pantographs become the norm in RTR (highly unlikely), I don't see this as relevant. The number of people likely to engineer such a feature for themselves is vanishingly small, and most of those will already be here discussing it.

Lights and sound, maybe - if that's your particular area of interest over and above the OHLE engineering.

[Guest jim s-w]

 

It can and does work. As such, with New Street it seems to be a shame not to take that final step, but that is Jim's choice.

 

 

Hi Gordon

 

It would make the fiddleyard nigh on unuseable plus it would double the amount of storage required for it. Plus it does make setting up the DCC more complex (locos have to know which way round they are or have some kind of switching gear) and I either have all the OLE as 1 section (thus risking killing the whole layout with 1 short) or have sections with dead bits - as we know real locos will coast over these dead bits models wont and again the DCC wont like it. You also have to consider the length of the contact area - on a 4mm scale class 87 thats about 8 inches spread over 4 points per side. On a pan head it would be about 5mm spread over 2 points. While a loco will happlily straddle a baseboard joint with potentially 25% of the contact area dropping out you will loose hals of your contact area with a pantograph head. (The way I am planning things that is.

 

Finally to get enough upward pressure for reliability you may have to abandon the scale appearance. At the moment my pans do run on the wires but they have just enough pressure to hold themselves up. The contact would be far from relaible.

 

Also any sparks would be the wrong colour! Its a lot of grief for no practical or visual gain IMHO.

 

I stick with my rule 1, model what you actually see, not what you think you know.

 

 

Unless and until DCC controlled pantographs become the norm in RTR (highly unlikely), I don't see this as relevant. The number of people likely to engineer such a feature for themselves is vanishingly small, and most of those will already be here discussing it.

Lights and sound, maybe - if that's your particular area of interest over and above the OHLE engineering.

 

They are available RTR in europe - why shouldn't we have them too?

 

Let me ask you this, do you believe tinplate models better than current RTR stuff because they, like the real thing, are made from metal and not plastic?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Gordon H]

It would make the fiddleyard nigh on unuseable plus it would double the amount of storage required for it. Plus it does make setting up the DCC more complex (locos have to know which way round they are or have some kind of switching gear) and I either have all the OLE as 1 section (thus risking killing the whole layout with 1 short) or have sections with dead bits - as we know real locos will coast over these dead bits models wont and again the DCC wont like it. You also have to consider the length of the contact area - on a 4mm scale class 87 thats about 8 inches spread over 4 points per side. On a pan head it would be about 5mm spread over 2 points. While a loco will happlily straddle a baseboard joint with potentially 25% of the contact area dropping out you will loose hals of your contact area with a pantograph head. (The way I am planning things that is.

Fiddle yard design need only be minimalist. A single solid large diameter wire (we used old code 100 rail) supported by substantial uprights or equally simple gantries which can withstand occasional knocks is all that's required. It really isn't as awkward as some people think once you get used to it.

Sectioning wise, I would treat the OHLE as a common return, just as I would a common return running rail. In fact this assists in train-on-track current detection as the second rail is the only one that need be broken into sections, and then works for both diesel and overhead fitted stock.

As far as the contact wire goes, there shouldn't ever be any 'dead' gaps to span because the contact surface by its nature has to be mechanically continuous (and of course, smooth). Any issues with this tend to become immediately apparent, most frequently due to mechanical failure of soldered joints. By using the wire 'live', you can often get early indication of impending problems which might not become obvious until it is too late with a 'dead' system.

Finally to get enough upward pressure for reliability you may have to abandon the scale appearance. At the moment my pans do run on the wires but they have just enough pressure to hold themselves up. The contact would be far from relaible.

 

Also any sparks would be the wrong colour! Its a lot of grief for no practical or visual gain IMHO.

 

I stick with my rule 1, model what you actually see, not what you think you know.

I prefer to stick with what I know from experience.

Do you have any evidence that contact would be unreliable? Have you tried it?

My scratch-built cross-arm pans when I built them used fairly weak elastic as the springing mechanism. We had no issues with poor contact due to lack of pressure, only if the head failed to reach the wire at all.

Personally, I don't see the fascination of spark colour, when there aren't meant to be any sparks in the first place. I can certainly live with that one.

One could (and many do) equally argue that building track in 18.83 is a lot of grief too (not me, I might add!)

If visual effect is the only consideration, then fair enough, but to me, the knowledge that the stock is using a reaistic method of obtaining power because it has been engineered to do so is just as important as getting the track engineering right. It is all applied engineering one way or another, and each individual will have their own take on this, emphasising their pet aspect. For me that is using an electrical supply system in the intended way.

They are available RTR in europe - why should we have them too?

No reason at all, but I'll believe it when I see it, especially on a truly representative British style pantograph (of any persuasion). People already balk at spending extra money on 'DCC Fitted' decoders they don't necessarily want, and this falls into a similar category, same as operating doors. Until such gimmicks become affordable as a standard fitted item, they will remain the domain of the 'tinkerers' such as myself who enjoy the challenge rather than having an absolute requirement for the end result.

Let me ask you this, do you believe tinplate models better than current RTR stuff because they, like the real thing, are made from metal and not plastic?

Depends which principles you choose to apply.

Based solely on reliability of track pick-up, anything made from metal is going to be heavier, and therefore more likely to maintain good 'rolling' electrical contact. This is the main reason I originally chose to use US based loco mechanisms in my scratchbuilt EMUs, and for demonstration of control systems.

Looks aren't the be all and end all, though clearly they grab the attention - it is the total package of well applied engineering practice in all its aspects that adds up to the overall impression.

[7013]

Rather a defeatist attitude, available in Europe so why should we bother, mind you that has been the British attitude for some years now, that is why our car, steel and manufacturing industry was lost.The tinplate argument does not stand up as it is only one factor in the decision, if you take your argument Jim to its natural conclusion why bother making and running models when we can go and watch the real thing?

[Guest jim s-w]

Fiddle yard design need only be minimalist. A single solid large diameter wire (we used old code 100 rail) supported by substantial uprights or equally simple gantries which can withstand occasional knocks is all that's required.

 

Yes indeed but you have ignored the doubling of the storage space required factor. A 60ft long fiddleyard with 3ft 3 deep boards takes up a hell of a lot of room to store even when the boards are stored with a half inch gap - double that and we are into the realms of potentially needing a truck to move it.

 

If visual effect is the only consideration, then fair enough, but to me, the knowledge that the stock is using a reaistic method of obtaining power because it has been engineered to do so is just as important as getting the track engineering right. It is all applied engineering one way or another, and each individual will have their own take on this, emphasising their pet aspect. For me that is using an electrical supply system in the intended way.

 

Not "only" but "main" - its toy trains at the end of the day - no matter how clever a person is with things like suspension etc that doesnt make them an engineer. Models are always going to be an artistic interpretation of something real. Until you get to the model enginnering type of stuff then its always going to come down to playing trains. 99% of people will judge a model in does it look real and does it work well. For some they get immense enjoyment from tinkering or playing with electronics but its kinda lost on me - I joined MERG for a year and didnt get a word of it!

 

No reason at all, but I'll believe it when I see it, especially on a truly representative British style pantograph (of any persuasion).

 

Indeed so - perhaps we are running before we can walk and a good pan is definately a must. But why not both? It adds another bullet point to the advert so the marketing chaps love it and it costs pence at the end of the day - I see it much like lights or rotating fans in that regard.

 

Looks aren't the be all and end all, though clearly they grab the attention - it is the total package of well applied engineering practice in all its aspects that adds up to the overall impression.

 

Indeed so but I would say its atmosphere that is the biggest draw - along with an emotional connection to the real thing. You must have had many people tell you of times on Carstairs platforms or 'I grew up near there.

 

As you rightly say its the overall package that gives the ultimate result. For me though knowing the overhead is live adds nothing to that package for myself anyone else. I would have loved to have seen High Gill in the flesh. Would non powered OLE have made my experience of it somehow less than it could be? Not in the slightest.

 

Rather a defeatist attitude, available in Europe so why should we bother, mind you that has been the British attitude for some years now. why bother making and running models when we can go and watch the real thing?

 

Not at all, This stuff is available in europe so why cant we have it too. Simple typo.

 

Can you watch the real thing though? You are a GWR modeller arent you? Can you go and see steam loco's lined up on the blocks at Paddington or masses of steam trains running to and fro at Swindon? Of course you cant.

 

Let me end on another question for Gordon - how many times have you had the question is the OLE powered? Probably hundreds if not thousands right? Ask yourself this though - why do the intended audience have to ask if it makes a difference?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Glorious NSE]

if you take your argument Jim to its natural conclusion why bother making and running models when we can go and watch the real thing?

 

He can't. The 1980s haven't been around for a while.

 

Sorry i'm with Jim on this, it adds complexity (to the point of being unworkable if you're using DCC) and has absolutely no advantages to my mind.

 

I can sorta see the attraction of powering it "prototypically" but surely then you would be more narked that your internal combustion trains aren't then powered just as prototypically!

 

To my mind if the objective is creating the illusion of real (if you like all about the looks) then the non-visible stuff that makes it work just needs to work and keep out of the way - if you're adding all that work to power diesels through the track why duplicate it, there is no visible advantage.

 

And as someone who's worked on a layout with 25kv on the visible bits and no 25kv on the fiddle yard, I have to say I found it VASTLY easier to rail, stock, couple and whatever else you need to do when there isn't a wire (or big metal rail, or whatever your chosen method might be) in the way. Maybe that's just me though.

[jamie92208]

I'm also with Jim. I'm working in 7mm and intend to have OLE (dating from 1907 practice), However wiring the fiddle ayrd woulkd be just about impossible and would make access for putting stock on derailments etc would be well nigh impossible. The main thing is in my opinion for the punter to see what looks like OLE. We make many other compromises as some things such as mas don't scale down that the minor compromise of locos/emu's not picking up from the OLE is a minor loss though I understand why people want to see it.

 

Jamie

[7013]

This discussion appears to be degenerating in to camps, I am not against what Jim is writing I was under the impression we were having an open discussion. I fully respect Jims opinions and he has some valid points, the more I read through this thread the more I believe there is a convergence of many points.

Just to clarify a couple of points

A) Is the OLE system in Europe 'live' and is it fully compatible with DCC? If it is then it should not be a major problem to use it. But yes I do appreciate that for British outline (other than DIYers) it will not be usable

B) One may not be able to see lots of GWR locos running around at Swindon Jim, but at Didcot one can see several running to and fro. And recently a Castle ran non stop from Paddington to Bristol, so technically one could see a GWR train at Paddington, but I take your point.

[298]

I personally have no fascination with OHE as I run mainly GWR steam. I do have a live steam Mallard and although it is not the way to go for the future of kettles it is great fun. However in a few years time there will be a lot of OHE locos/trains with their pantographs wafting in the breeze, so one may have lights and sound but one of the most visible signs of an OHE train will be missing, ces't la vie!

 

I thought the two compliment each other quite nicely, I model WCML 25kV AC, an American Interurban (with overhead), and am planning a 16mm live steam layout in the garden for my Brunswick Green "Edrig" to run on. And today i've just returned from bashing "City of Truro" at the GWR 175 gala. Don't forget the GWR planned to electrify just about all of Devon and Cornwall, had the war not got in the way.

[Guest jim s-w]

This discussion appears to be degenerating in to camps, I am not against what Jim is writing I was under the impression we were having an open discussion.

 

 

Absolutely yes.

 

I am just saying what I do and why. If people want to do something different then good for them. I do understand Gordon's frustration that perhaps RTR OLE should be live but after years of nothing I also take the view that anything new is good. Yes theres probably no chance I personally would ever use it but if it creates options for people who dont fancy the idea of building their own then thats a good thing surely?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Dave777]

Bit late to the party but I too find myself agreeing with Jim - I can't see the advantage of powering the loco from the overhead wires. It's a 'nice to have', but from a practical point of view makes no difference to me. Diesel locos need power from the rails - totally unrealistic, but does it matter when it has no effect at all on the looks or how it runs? Electric locos could take power from the overhead wires, but again, would it matter when it has no effect on how it looks or runs?

 

Hypothetically speaking, I can imagine two identical layouts at an exhibition - totally the same - and one has locos that take their power from the overhead wires and one doesn't. I'm not sure if either the operator or myself gets anything from that additional feature.

 

And if the working overhead wires reduce the realism in any way, then the point of modelling the overhead wire in the first place seems to start getting lost. Surely it's there to increase the realism of the completed layout?

 

Steam needs power from the rails, so does diesel. I'm not sure why, when we get to electric, suddenly powering it the 'correct' way becomes important. The source of the power - rails or overhead - is invisible, so why bother?

 

I can see the argument to some extent in that if you are indeed going to put all that overhead wiring in then you may as well go the whole hog and use it for power anyway. But when the end effect will be invisible to both operator and observer it feels like the extra effort hugely outweighs any gains that are made. But, one area where I could see it being an advantage is with increasing track realism. As I said, if adding power to the overhead wires takes away the realism (verus a non-powered version) then I think the point of adding it in the first place has been lost, but equally if adding power to the track (ie, using that as the source of power for the locos) causes a decrease in the realism then overhead could be useful. For example, would frog appearance on points be better if the track doesn't need to power the loco? (just an example, remember!). So the question I'm asking here is 'has model track been compromised in appearance so that it can be used for power?'. If the answer is yes, then powered overhead - if it can be powered without decreasing the realism and/or scale appearance - could actually result in a higher overall appearance of the whole layout. In short, and in a weird way, the trackwork might end up looking better.

[298]

 

Indeed so but I would say its atmosphere that is the biggest draw - along with an emotional connection to the real thing. You must have had many people tell you of times on Carstairs platforms or 'I grew up near there.

 

Jim

 

Jim, we tend to avoid people who have claimed to have spent alot of time near Carstairs.....

 

Something i've mentioned before is the concept of a DCC decoder with a third input from the pantograph, so the chip automatically selects this and the opposing rail but could also revert to 2-rail should the pickup from the overhead be lost. But the obvious reply is "what does it do that a regular chip can't...? Not alot really...

 

Having built and operated a few overhead layouts of a variety of differing prototypes, and viewed alot more at shows, I have come to the following conclusions:

 

There is no right or wrong way of doing things, as a certain amount of experimentation and a "Pioneering spirit" is definitely needed.

 

Layouts which are OHLE only may be simpler to wire but seriously restrict what can be run, and how until the knitting is put in place.

 

Most layouts with exclusive collection from the overhead have compromised design details, either curved wires for improved contact, or bright shiney ones for cleanliness (a bit like pointwork with shiney check rails). It is possible to weather the tops of the wires and keep the underside clean, but modellers don't seem to do this.

 

And most importantly, it is sometimes best to lie to punters who ask if the overhead is live. Someone once pointed out to me that they were about to ask that question after seeing my Interurban layout, but figured out it was 2-rail after the trolley pole dewired and the loco carried on under power. Would you rather see an asthetically-compromised layout with working overhead, or one that looks and runs alot better...?

[Glorious NSE]

A) Is the OLE system in Europe 'live'

 

I believe some versions at least can be, but they don't have to be - i'd be very surprised if all/most Euro modellers used live catenary just because some of it has the capability of being live, the main point firstly i'd expect is a visual one - an electric train running on a non-electrified line looks a bit odd, just watch The Cassandra Crossing for a good example.

 

There's a nice HO German layout next to us at the Exeter show, and an N one further down the hall, i'll do a quick voxpop tomorrow (oops, today!) if you like?

 

and is it fully compatible with DCC?

 

I would have said no - or at least no unless you accept a few large drawbacks like having to run all your loco's one particular way round (and no turntables or reverse loops allowed on your layout) or else they won't work.

 

But if that kind of custom chip as described by 298 were to be available it could be, the tech exists as it's used to switch polarity on reversing loops (or even point frogs nowadays!)

 

Personally i'd still be questioning why i'd want to pay extra, add extra work in setting up, add extra complexity, make your staging/fiddle yard access harder and after all that have no benefit (in a visual context) though.

[Pete the Elaner]

Having scratchbuilt OLE myself in OO, I know there are compromises in every direction: Make it robust & it looks hideously overscale. Make it look good & it becomes very fragile.

I stripped my first effort off the layout & replaced it with a second attempt which looked better but still (to me) unsatisfying.

 

I think that last bit sums it up: We must all build to suit ourselves. Jim's OLE looks excellent, but I imagine it is very delicate & I certainly would not trust it to provide power.

 

One thing that does stand out with exhibition layouts: Many I have seen have unpainted wires. Why? Painting them a dark colour is an effective method of disguising them without compromising strength.

[max]

Hi Gordon,

 

What about a picture of that working, scale OHLE you're talking about? Preferable with a loco midways between two line masts.Are you running with one pantograph up only?

Does the system run on DCC?

Andi(Dagworth) has taken the same approach as Jim....and he knows his way around AC-DC-DCC, probably he will reply soon :-)

 

Regards

 

Max

[Dagworth]

Hi Gordon,

 

What about a picture of that working, scale OHLE you're talking about? Preferable with a loco midways between two line masts.Are you running with one pantograph up only?

Does the system run on DCC?

Andi(Dagworth) has taken the same approach as Jim....and he knows his way around AC-DC-DCC, probably he will reply soon :-)

 

Regards

 

Max

I've already said my bit way back up the thread.... lol

 

Andi

[great central]

Hi Gordon,

 

What about a picture of that working, scale OHLE you're talking about? Preferable with a loco midways between two line masts.Are you running with one pantograph up only?

Does the system run on DCC?

Andi(Dagworth) has taken the same approach as Jim....and he knows his way around AC-DC-DCC, probably he will reply soon :-)

 

Regards

 

Max

 

This is the only picture I can get at the moment, many more are on a disk somewhere!

Not directly built by Gordon but by a mutaul friend (and others) following the same principles as Gordon.

Although this pair don't use the overhead for pickup, there are some that do. Not DCC, it wasn't really around when this was built, started in 1985, blimey I feel old!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This must be the prototype for the upturned rail-in-fiddleyard catenary as well

 

Then there's the 'electric off the wires thing as well'

 

 

Edit to add off wire shot

[298]

 

One thing that does stand out with exhibition layouts: Many I have seen have unpainted wires. Why? Painting them a dark colour is an effective method of disguising them without compromising strength.

 

Unpainted wires means a clean pickup area, and the paint can crack and fall off as the wire flexes. One solution i've found is to use a black permanent marker to darken the wire, my excuse being although the colour is wrong, the eye's perception when viewing overhead wires from the ground is they appear dark against the bright sky. It's also easier to touch up prior to a show.

[Dagworth]

Unpainted wires means a clean pickup area, and the paint can crack and fall off as the wire flexes. One solution i've found is to use a black permanent marker to darken the wire, my excuse being although the colour is wrong, the eye's perception when viewing overhead wires from the ground is they appear dark against the bright sky. It's also easier to touch up prior to a show.

My wires are painted, on Dagworth they are two different colours, a copper colour on the contact and a grey colour on the catenary and droppers. Dagworth is meant to represent a new installation of OLE so nothing would have hda time to corrode to its oxide colours.

Ravensclyffe OLE is all painted than lovely green that copper oxidises to, as it is a representation of older Mark1 equipment that has been in place for 20 years.

When painting the OLE I use a very thinned mix of Humbrol enamel applied with a brush, it doesnt add significantly to the thickness of the wires and I've not seen any evidence of it cracking and falling off.

 

One other reason to not paint though is it makes it easier to resolder when droppers work loose.

 

Andi

[max]

great central.......it looks like the OHLE needs a serious overhaul(if this layout still exists).I would guess copper wires were used for the original setup? Must have been a tedious job to make a compound type catenary.

Are there any layouts around with live catenary and DCC?

 

 

Regards

 

Max