Peterborough North

[Bloodnok]

18 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

When I took that decoder out of 61626, the wires (in a most-untidy fashion) were stuck to the motor with masking tape; masking tape which had degraded, smearing everything with sticky goo! Goo which took me ages to remove this morning when I re-wired 61626 for resale. Is this sort of thing a necessity for DCC, or the huge gobs of solder on the pick-up pads?

 

No! That's the fault of the person who installed that previous decoder.

When I convert a pre-DCC-ready model to DCC, I don't hard-wire a decoder, I fit a socket.
That way a decoder can easily be removed later, whether that's being done to upgrade the loco to a new decoder, or to return it to DC (using a standard blanking plug), e.g. when it moves on to new ownership.

 

And now it has a socket, so anyone wanting to re-convert it back to DCC can just plug a decoder into it again.

[great northern]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

My apologies to Gilbert, too, but I feel obliged to reply.

 

If you read my post again you'll see that that is what I said - both for DCC and DC.

 

Except for the loco in front or behind that is facing the other way.

 

Depends what you mean by 'everything'. Power to the section of track involved will be shut down but only for as long as the short persists - just like DC. Inertia is exactly the same in both cases.

 

If that happens when there is a short across the rails then there is something wrong either with the chip or, more likely, its installation.

 

If you mix DC and DCC then all bets are off.

 

See above.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, as are we all. Mine is that DCC and DC are both equally suited to any loco (or other powered vehicle).

No apologies needed. It is very interesting, and I might even learn something from it.

[great northern]

60010 again, framed by one of the few signals Graham has not yet tackled, and doesn't it show?

Another immaculate Top Shed loco on the Up, 61200 on its usual turn, the Hull fish.

 

[Bloodnok]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Now, although stray shorts should never be tolerated, occasionally one occurs. On DC, the 'evidence' might be a spark and a loco jerk slightly, but inertia usually means it carries on. I might be wrong here, but if a short occurs on DCC doesn't everything shut down? For safety reasons?

 

A DCC controller will shut down when it detects a short, yes. Some are a permanent shutdown, others will intermittently retry to re-establish power.
 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I mention the latter because I've 'fried' chips (literally) running DCC-equipped locos where a short circuit has occurred (mainly because I've set a wrong road through incompetence).

 

That's a surprise -- DCC decoders are very well protected from track side shorts -- as you've noted, these happen quite frequently no matter what the layout control system is. You only need something with pickups to run the wrong way into a live-frog point and it'll happen.

Where DCC chips are known to be sensitive is accidental bridging of track power to motor outputs. Consider a split frame loco where the motor contacts are directly connected to each side of the chassis. Let's say you DCC fit this by separating the pickups from the chassis, and wiring pickups  to the track connections of the chip, and the chassis to the motor connections of the chip.

Done like this, It's ridiculously easy for a wheel to touch the chassis from underneath, and that kind of short (which would go unnoticed on DC as both would have been electrically connected anyway) is a big problem for DCC decoders.

Honestly though, leaving any part of a loco (or coach) frame live to anything (track or motor contacts) is asking for trouble eventually regardless of how it is controlled, and something to be strongly discouraged. The best way of wiring that loco is to also isolate the motor from the chassis, and wire the motor separately, not using the chassis for anything.

 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I have no idea what the time lapse is on a Helmsman or H&M controller (the latter still working perfectly after over half a century of use!) before power 'cuts-out' on detection of a short,

 

Far slower than a DCC controller or booster will do so. And it's normal for a DC controller to not completely remove power when there's a short, just limit the short current to a low value.

 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

but it's certainly 'fast' enough so as to never harm a DC loco;

 

I've managed to harm a DC loco. It stalled, and sat (still powered) without me noticing. The loco never ran smooth again after that. I presume I'd cooked one or two of the motor poles. Not enough to make it not run at all, but enough to introduce a noticeable stutter at low speed.
 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Yes, I know it's not good practice to mix the systems, but I did (and I don't just mean Little Bytham here). 

 

Depends what you mean by "mix the systems".

If you mean run a DCC chipped loco on a DC layout, that's fine. DCC chips are designed to allow running on DC.

If you mean have both DCC and DC power on the same layout at the same time ... that can be done but needs careful management to ensure the supplies stay apart. Things like a coach with pickups rolling over a gap between both systems would be bad news.

 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Where I have built electrically-dead frames (insulated drivers on both sides, and two sets of pick-ups), the risk of stray shorts is diminished almost to the extent of being abolished. Thus, the whole loco body, and the whole tender body have no 'polarity', and also the whole train, if it's built of all-metal carriages. Which suggests, at least to me, that it's more-desirable for DCC-operation. Not only that, the risk of a stray short inside a metal locomotive body is also greatly diminished.

 

That's definitely the best way of building all metal vehicles -- only the bits you need to be live are live, and everything else is electrically dead.

 

Also, paint or cover internal metal surfaces to minimise accidental contact. And for wiring, if it's loose, make sure it's insulated. If it can't be insulated, make sure both ends are secured so it can't go anywhere.

That should be the advice for all control systems though, not just for DCC.

 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Summing up, and alluding to a point I made earlier, it's my opinion (if not backed up entirely by empirical evidence) that DCC is probably more-suited to RTR plastic-bodied locos where a 'plug & play' system is employed, with no need for hard-wiring.

 

Re-phrase that as "RTR plastic-bodied locos with a plug are more suited to DCC than poorly built metal kits" and I think you'll get universal agreement. It's certainly possible to build a metal kit well, such that it works brilliantly on any control system. But it's also possible to mess one up such that it causes problems on every control system.

While some people consider DC tolerating more faults than DCC does as a virtue, that's not a universal opinion -- the alternative view is that it encourages continued poor design, workmanship and maintenance that continue to produce electrical faults...

[Oldddudders]

DC operation works just a well as ever it did, of course, and many fine and successful layouts continue to use it to the owners' satisfaction. Nevertheless I believe there is very little about good DCC practice that is not equally prudent for DC operation, be it a wired connection to every rail, or isolation of both motor brushes from the chassis. 

 

Plug and play, as Tony identifies it, is indeed convenient for a quick and easy decoder installation, but those of us who adopted DCC in the late 1990s, before such aids were provided, simply got used to adapting and re-wiring DC chassis accordingly. We got used to deploying tubular heat-shrink insulation to hide the iffy soldering!

[great northern]

My brain hurts trying to assimilate all this, but I think I get the general idea. Can you experts find a way around this please?  I have a Craftsman Models A5, which I very much like, but it has a live chassis and I keep getting shorts. Timara, quite rightly from what I read here, says that needs to be changed, and wants to put insulated wheels on one side. The problem is that, in common with many other things at the moment, the correct insulated drivers for this loco are impossible to source. Is there another way around this please?  I'd rather not have a favourite loco sitting around indefinitely if there is a cure.

[St Enodoc]

31 minutes ago, great northern said:

My brain hurts trying to assimilate all this, but I think I get the general idea. Can you experts find a way around this please?  I have a Craftsman Models A5, which I very much like, but it has a live chassis and I keep getting shorts. Timara, quite rightly from what I read here, says that needs to be changed, and wants to put insulated wheels on one side. The problem is that, in common with many other things at the moment, the correct insulated drivers for this loco are impossible to source. Is there another way around this please?  I'd rather not have a favourite loco sitting around indefinitely if there is a cure.

If you were to post the details here, Gilbert, I suspect that one or two followers might just be able to dig out the necessary spares...

[lezz01]

My solution would be to throw the Romford's away and fit Gibson wheels but I know they're for everyone so if you let us know what size the wheels are I'll have a look through my stock of kits and see if I have what you need. I have a few ebay brought kits that came with Romford wheels that I'm not going to use and most of them are in new condition having never been fitted.

Regards Lez. 

[great northern]

2 hours ago, lezz01 said:

My solution would be to throw the Romford's away and fit Gibson wheels but I know they're for everyone so if you let us know what size the wheels are I'll have a look through my stock of kits and see if I have what you need. I have a few ebay brought kits that came with Romford wheels that I'm not going to use and most of them are in new condition having never been fitted.

Regards Lez. 

This loco was built many years ago, and I am almost certain will have Romfords. I did think of trying to measure them and count the spokes, but instead visited Markits website, which shows them to be 5ft 8ins 22.66mm 18 spoke. The catalogue reference number is BRe 5-81.

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, great northern said:

My brain hurts trying to assimilate all this, but I think I get the general idea. Can you experts find a way around this please?  I have a Craftsman Models A5, which I very much like, but it has a live chassis and I keep getting shorts. Timara, quite rightly from what I read here, says that needs to be changed, and wants to put insulated wheels on one side. The problem is that, in common with many other things at the moment, the correct insulated drivers for this loco are impossible to source. Is there another way around this please?  I'd rather not have a favourite loco sitting around indefinitely if there is a cure.

Good afternoon Gilbert,

 

I imagine the A5 you mention has Romford 22mm drivers (nobody bothered about the number of spokes in those days). Be careful, however, because the 22mm driver might have been a later arrival to the range, and some A5s I've seen (both Craftsman and Nu-Cast versions) have been fitted with 21mm drivers. Because of the over-scale flanges, that discrepancy is not as bad as might be thought. 22mm Romford drivers scale at 5' 6", which, because of the over-scale flanges makes them look like 5' 8" types. Anyway, driving wheel tyres could often be turned down by at least two inches during their life (probably more). May I suggest you measure the fitted drivers' diameter and let everyone know? If they are 21mm drivers, beware if you want to fit 'nearer scale' ones; because they might well foul the brake blocks.  

 

The usual practice (pre-DCC) was to have what's called a 'half-and-half' system, meaning three insulated drivers and three plain. As has been already explained, it's desirable to have an electrically-dead set of frames for DCC, so three insulated ones (of the same diameter as the others, of course) are needed as replacements.

 

Though the 'correct' drivers for an A5 might be 'impossible to source', 'standard' 22mm drivers are available from Markits - I've just ordered a set for another K2 I'm making. 

 

Please let me know what size the drivers on your A5 are, and I'll obtain what necessary. I'll even fit them (FOC) if you like - though don't ask me to fiddle with the decoder!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[great northern]

I shall park all the technical stuff until tomorrow, and we will just follow the fish.

 

 

[MikeParkin65]

On 13/07/2023 at 13:15, great northern said:

OK, off I went to try again. K2 seems to much prefer being 1626, as it refuses to be changed either on the programming track or the main. Then I tried another loco on the programming track. It was immediately recognised, and CVs could be changed. But put that same loco on the main and try to change address, no reponse. Yet another loco also refused to do anything on the main, from which I conclude that that option just isn't working. That may well be because of the condition of the Powerpro. I don't have another decoder I know to be reliable to try in the K2, so that will have to wait until Timara is next here in a couple of weeks time. I reckon it is all down to degradation of the main controller, which is intermittent. it will only get worse, so I'm hoping NCE does some new stock sooner rather than later.

I'd check the cable from the powercab to the booster before assuming the Powercab itself is at fault - I've gone through a couple now, either the RJ connectors 'go' or the cable itself (especially if it is a cheaper aftermarket one).  

[lezz01]

5 hours ago, great northern said:

This loco was built many years ago, and I am almost certain will have Romfords. I did think of trying to measure them and count the spokes, but instead visited Markits website, which shows them to be 5ft 8ins 22.66mm 18 spoke. The catalogue reference number is BRe 5-81.

I'll have a look in my boxes either tonight or tomorrow but the one's I have will be either 4'7 &1/2" for a 1F, 5'3" for a 0-4-4T or 6' something being for a slim boilered 4-4-0 so I don't think I can help but I will check for you.

Regards Lez.

Edited July 14, 2023 by lezz01

[Tony Wright]

One final point about those un-insulated A5 drivers.

 

If necessary (assuming that identical insulated wheels cannot be found) it's no more than a couple of days' work to take them off, cut through the spokes other than those at 12.00, 3.00, 6.00 and 9.00 with a piercing saw and plugging the gaps with Araldite. Thus, 24 hours later cutting through the final four and plugging those with Araldite. Then, Heh Presto, on the third day, one's got insulated wheels! The greatest time is spent waiting for the (original) Araldite to cure.

 

I've done it umpteen times, from my youthful days of two-railing Hornby Dublo three-rail locos, right up to a couple or so years ago............

 

 

When I built this Crownline J17 (close examination will reveal the Araldite, but when it's painted matt black...........)

 

 

I left the other side as they were (I usually employ live chassis).

 

How I ended up with six un-insulated J17 drivers, I have no idea!

 

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Tony Wright
clumsy grammar

[lezz01]

So I had a look and all the Romford wheels I have are either too small or too big sorry mate I had a feeling once I knew the size you needed that it would be a bust.

Regards Lez.

[65179]

On 13/07/2023 at 15:18, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Gilbert,

 

You're right - though we agree on many things, DCC isn't one, and I hope my previous post isn't seen as my being too prejudiced. 

 

Anyway, having removed BRANCEPETH CASTLE's decoder to fit into your new K2, I've brought her back and 'worked on her' for you - the aim being to offer her for sale.........

 

 

First things; the correct 12-spoked bogie wheels fitted, cylinder drain cocks attached, the return cranks altered so that they both lean forward (inside admission), rather than backwards as they were, the cab windows glazed and the drawbar altered to give a better arrangement 'twixt loco and tender. I've also reinstated the tender's rear bufferbeam (filling the gap left by the Kadee coupling's removal), though I've not made the prominent guard irons (they're missing from the front of the loco's frames as well).

...

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Does 61626 need front frame mounted guardirons? They started to be removed from B17s in July 1952. 61626 probably ran for a couple of years between generals with early emblem and no frame guardirons before conversion to a B17/6 in spring 1955 (see Colour Rail ref no.90948).

 

Regards,

Simon

Edited July 15, 2023 by 65179

[great northern]

It seems there are a lot of people wanting to travel North this evening, as we have a second relief to the main train which will have departed KX at 5.35pm, and should be arriving here shortly. 

 

[thegreenhowards]

I do like reliefs - the stock is much more interesting (hint hint). Is this relieving the Tees Tyne Pullman or have I missed something in between?

 

Andy

[great northern]

39 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I do like reliefs - the stock is much more interesting (hint hint). Is this relieving the Tees Tyne Pullman or have I missed something in between?

 

Andy

Running ahead of the main train Andy. It is one I sort of invented to give my locos a bit more to do.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, 65179 said:

Does 61626 need front frame mounted guardirons? They started to be removed from B17s in July 1952. 61626 probably ran for a couple of years between generals with early emblem and no frame guardirons before conversion to a B17/6 in spring 1955 (see Colour Rail ref no.90948).

 

Regards,

Simon

Good morning Simon,

 

No, it doesn't. I foolishly glanced at the top picture on page 99 of Peter Coster's book (Irwell Press) on the B17s, where they're present. The lower picture clearly shows the frame-mounted guard irons as having been removed (at Peterborough North), but by this time the loco has reverted to the original type NER-style smokebox door, with much flatter profile and smaller diameter (the model has the GNR-style, more-bulbous smokebox door - if it did re-revert to this type, then it would have carried the later emblem). Who'd be a railway modeller?!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[great northern]

14 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

I'd check the cable from the powercab to the booster before assuming the Powercab itself is at fault - I've gone through a couple now, either the RJ connectors 'go' or the cable itself (especially if it is a cheaper aftermarket one).  

Very helpful, and many thanks. What first alerted us to a problem was random messages on Procabs, which we assumed to be the  culprits, but weren't. It hadn't occurred to me to check connections from the Powerpro, which will be done when Timara is next here in a couple of weeks.

[great northern]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Simon,

 

No, it doesn't. I foolishly glanced at the top picture on page 99 of Peter Coster's book (Irwell Press) on the B17s, where they're present. The lower picture clearly shows the frame-mounted guard irons as having been removed (at Peterborough North), but by this time the loco has reverted to the original type NER-style smokebox door, with much flatter profile and smaller diameter (the model has the GNR-style, more-bulbous smokebox door - if it did re-revert to this type, then it would have carried the later emblem). Who'd be a railway modeller?!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

It did indeed revert to the GNR style door at next overhaul, and I have found a 1958 photo to confirm. The reincarnation using a Hornby donor will indeed have that door and late crest. I'm afraid that back in 2000 when I commissioned the loco you now have I just asked for a B17 to be built using a Crownline kit and numbered as 1626. I suppose I got what I deserved.

[great northern]

19 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Gilbert,

 

I imagine the A5 you mention has Romford 22mm drivers (nobody bothered about the number of spokes in those days). Be careful, however, because the 22mm driver might have been a later arrival to the range, and some A5s I've seen (both Craftsman and Nu-Cast versions) have been fitted with 21mm drivers. Because of the over-scale flanges, that discrepancy is not as bad as might be thought. 22mm Romford drivers scale at 5' 6", which, because of the over-scale flanges makes them look like 5' 8" types. Anyway, driving wheel tyres could often be turned down by at least two inches during their life (probably more). May I suggest you measure the fitted drivers' diameter and let everyone know? If they are 21mm drivers, beware if you want to fit 'nearer scale' ones; because they might well foul the brake blocks.  

 

The usual practice (pre-DCC) was to have what's called a 'half-and-half' system, meaning three insulated drivers and three plain. As has been already explained, it's desirable to have an electrically-dead set of frames for DCC, so three insulated ones (of the same diameter as the others, of course) are needed as replacements.

 

Though the 'correct' drivers for an A5 might be 'impossible to source', 'standard' 22mm drivers are available from Markits - I've just ordered a set for another K2 I'm making. 

 

Please let me know what size the drivers on your A5 are, and I'll obtain what necessary. I'll even fit them (FOC) if you like - though don't ask me to fiddle with the decoder!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I'Ve now measured the drivers Tony, and subject to my poor eyesight they appear to be 22mm.

[Tony Wright]

Thanks Gilbert,

 

I'll see what I've got in stock; and, if not, I'll order some. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, great northern said:

It did indeed revert to the GNR style door at next overhaul, and I have found a 1958 photo to confirm. The reincarnation using a Hornby donor will indeed have that door and late crest. I'm afraid that back in 2000 when I commissioned the loco you now have I just asked for a B17 to be built using a Crownline kit and numbered as 1626. I suppose I got what I deserved.

Good afternoon Gilbert,

 

You didn't get what you deserved; you got a (generally well-built) B17 which was made from the Crownline kit. 

 

However, the builder can't have looked at too many prototype pictures, or he'd have realised that the bulbous 'door suited the loco in earlier BR days (still with frame-mounted guard irons), with the earlier BR device, but not without the guard irons and the earlier device on the tender. As you comment, that 'door returned when the later BR device was applied (with the wrong-facing line), and probably lasted until 61626 was withdrawn. 

 

You're wrong in your supposition regarding what you deserved! You deserved to have a loco with the correct smokebox door; you deserved to have the correct bogie wheels fitted; you deserved to receive a loco with the the cab window frames fitted, and all the windows glazed. You deserved to get a loco with all that lubricator pipework present on the boiler sides; you deserved to have the right-sized cabside numbers applied; you deserved to be able to run a loco which would go round a bend. All of these things should have been attended to by a 'professional' builder.

 

The above is not unusual in my experience. At least the loco runs well.

 

No matter, if you send me your bank details I'll pay you what I suggested, and I'll have fun putting things 'right' (I've already attended to some). As you know, I much prefer kit-builds over RTR, so I'll see what I can make of it. 

 

I'll let you know when I've got the A5 wheels, then arrange (if convenient) to pop over and fit them.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.