Wright writes.....

[96701]

On 03/04/2019 at 22:04, Tony Wright said:

does LB constitute a large layout?

It does in my book.

 

[Kier Hardy]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 It also revealed seven 'chuffs' per wheel revolution, which I thought odd, given that there should be eight. I'm told the chip cannot be altered. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Synchronisation - that's usually something alien to DCC sound, and don't let anyone tell you any different....... I've yet to hear a DMMU make the right noises as it picks up speed and changes gear, a kettle chuff out the correct number of beats per wheel rotation, or a diesel electric work to the sound of its associated load (maybe I've lead a sheltered life so far), and as long as it makes a noise (much to the annoyance of many) and has plenty of high intensity lights to blind you, then we can be safe in the knowledge that it's giving someone pleasure.

 

Who are we to criticise the avenues of the average railway modeller, whether it be steam, diesel or general atmospherics that are needed to enhance our trainsets?

 

Me? Well I'm an average enthusiast (I'd like to think) and my trainset brings me (and others too) plenty of enjoyment without the complications or expense that modern technology has to offer. That's one thing in this thread that remains pertinent - each to their own and may we all live happily alongside one another, regardless of what turns us on.

[96701]

On 04/04/2019 at 21:35, Tony Wright said:

I know some advocate keeping superglue in the fridge, but that's in the kitchen, and, as such, is a place of mystery to me! 

We have a beer fridge in the utility room, so no mysteries for me.

[Barry Ten]

On the subject of chuffs...

 

Did the Turbomotive chuff? It's been keeping me awake, this one.

 

Al

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Did the Turbomotive chuff?

 

 

I think not - I'm sure that I read that it had a forced draught because of the lack of any significant blast from exhausted steam.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[copleyhill007]

It roared! Have a look at Tim Hillier-Graves The Turbomotive - Stanier's Advanced Pacific (Pen and Sword)

[Tom F]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

One model collected from the York Show was Ian Wilson's detailed Hornby D16/3. 

 

I detailed it and Tom Foster weathered it. He really is the master of this process. His work is so subtle and so natural. Thanks Tom.

 

Actually, the 'detailing' was no more than to remove the awful couplings, chop off the obtrusive pocket in the bogie's front stretcher, fit a screw shackle to the front 'beam, put a lamp in place, and add a crew and fire irons/shovel. Tom coaled it.

 

Though not that common, ex-GE 4-4-0s did work this far westwards on the M&GNR, so I'll probably be borrowing it. 

 

 

 

Thanks Tony, she looks right at home on the M&GN! It was good to see you both yesterday and congratulations on more money raised for CRUK.

Regarding Bob Dawson, his build of the Cwm Prysor crossing keeper's cottage now has pride of place on the layout, along with the PW hut! What a gentlemen he is! He's already on with the first buildings for the Bala extension!

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

. It also revealed seven 'chuffs' per wheel revolution, which I thought odd, given that there should be eight. I'm told the chip cannot be altered. 

 

Tony,

 

It is possible to change the number of bears per revolution on a full spec DCC chip. I know this because I’ve just done it on an L1 to which I fitted a B1 chip - there being no L1 to record, a B1 seemed like the closest comparator. My chip is no pretty well synchronised, with ‘chuffs’ , coasting and bring at the right times

 

I suspect it may not be possible on the much cheaper TTS chips which Hornby often factory fit. You get what you pay for - To me, they’re OK for diesel but rather too basic for steam.

 

I don’t suppose this will change your mind on sound (!), but I felt I should explain that it is possible to sychonise these things correctly.

 

Andy

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Kier Hardy said:

Synchronisation - that's usually something alien to DCC sound, and don't let anyone tell you any different....... I've yet to hear a DMMU make the right noises as it picks up speed and changes gear, a kettle chuff out the correct number of beats per wheel rotation, or a diesel electric work to the sound of its associated load (maybe I've lead a sheltered life so far), and as long as it makes a noise (much to the annoyance of many) and has plenty of high intensity lights to blind you, then we can be safe in the knowledge that it's giving someone pleasure.

 

Who are we to criticise the avenues of the average railway modeller, whether it be steam, diesel or general atmospherics that are needed to enhance our trainsets?

 

Me? Well I'm an average enthusiast (I'd like to think) and my trainset brings me (and others too) plenty of enjoyment without the complications or expense that modern technology has to offer. That's one thing in this thread that remains pertinent - each to their own and may we all live happily alongside one another, regardless of what turns us on.

Thanks Kier,

 

Wise words, as always. 

 

I think you're being over-modest by calling yourself an 'average' enthusiast (though that's what I consider myself to be). The dear old Railway Modeller used to carry the strapline 'For the Average Enthusiast'. It doesn't now. I wonder what it, and other, mainstream magazines are aimed at these days. 'For the Below Average Modeller'? 'For the Above Average Modeller'? Actually, I think the RM these days is more for the above average thanks to Steve Flint's and his team's editorship. I would say that, of course, because (hypocrisy and pomposity in abundance here) he's accepted my build article on the DJH Princess Coronation, which was 'rejected' elsewhere. 

 

And, thanks for your use of the description trainset. That's what I call mine. When visitors come, that's what I say it is. It amuses me when there are (synchronised?) 'puffs of indignation' from some, but I loath pomposity. 

 

As for the 'enjoyment' expensive (new?) technologies bring, there is a cost-imperative, of course. Hornby's DCC on board Nelson is a lot more expensive than the DCC-ready one. I would have thought that the right number of beats per revolution might have been essential, but, I concede, neither my eyes and ears are what they were. As will be expected, I have no time for electronic (and very-artificial in my view) sounds on my trainset. The trains make a satisfying mechanical roar and rattle as they belt through LB. That said (hypocrisy rules!), a major RTR manufacturer is visiting next month to do some filming of its latest light/sound creation. A 'large', main line, OO layout was needed, so LB must fit the bill. 

 

Going back to technological costs; my dear friend, Kevin Cartwright brought his exquisite O Gauge Ventnor to York. All was working well until the major 'board' on his DCC control system just died. £200.00 for a replacement, thank you very much! When you next see him, don't mention DCC. 

 

Finishing with 'criticism', it was interesting (at least to me) when chatting to folk at York over the Easter weekend that two main points of view were apparent. The first was that if one exhibits at a show, posts pictures of work on sites or shows work in a magazine, then one automatically invites 'critical' comment. Not destructive or sniping criticism, but a genuine critical observation. The second was that, particularly at shows, what's on display should be the product of someone's work, whether it be modified RTR/RTP or kit- or scratch-building, not just evidence of purchasing-power. If anyone disagreed with these two observations, they didn't personally make it known to me, face to face. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, 9793 said:

 

Thanks Tony, she looks right at home on the M&GN! It was good to see you both yesterday and congratulations on more money raised for CRUK.

Regarding Bob Dawson, his build of the Cwm Prysor crossing keeper's cottage now has pride of place on the layout, along with the PW hut! What a gentlemen he is! He's already on with the first buildings for the Bala extension!

 

 

They fit in beautifully, Tom,

 

Thanks for showing us. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

It is possible to change the number of bears per revolution on a full spec DCC chip. I know this because I’ve just done it on an L1 to which I fitted a B1 chip - there being no L1 to record, a B1 seemed like the closest comparator. My chip is no pretty well synchronised, with ‘chuffs’ , coasting and bring at the right times

 

I suspect it may not be possible on the much cheaper TTS chips which Hornby often factory fit. You get what you pay for - To me, they’re OK for diesel but rather too basic for steam.

 

I don’t suppose this will change your mind on sound (!), but I felt I should explain that it is possible to sychonise these things correctly.

 

Andy

Thanks Andy,

 

You're dead right about nothing changing my mind about digital sound, or anything DCC for that matter!

 

I fitted the decoder in the K3 I built for Archie Brown (Manxcat). What a fag! All those bl**dy wires to be accommodated. Un-solder this, re-solder that, don't pinch a wire, etc, etc. What had previously been two wires, one from each pick-up to each brush became four, just so it could run. As for any future 'sound' considerations, I told Archie, if ever I build another loco for him, he'll have to install all the 'nonsense' himself! 

 

What I find baffling (not with regard to Archie) is that (in conversation with DCC experts) so many folk who use DCC haven't a clue as to how to even install decoders. businesses make a good living out of providing this service. One fool at the Doncaster Show last year complained about poor running on some layouts (not all). 'DCC is the answer for good running' he blathered out! I later went to look at what he was criticising. Unfortunately, he'd gone before I was able to ask him the following questions......

 

Will DCC cure derailments?

Will DCC make a loco with a tight spot run smoothly?

Will DCC ensure signals are correctly-sited?

Will DCC cure trains dividing?

Will DCC obviate operator incompetence? 

 

There were many other questions I'd have liked to have asked him. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Tony Wright

[thegreenhowards]

Tony,

 

For someone who is never happier than when a soldering iron is in his hand, I can't help thinking, that you're complaining a little too much about sorting out four wires!

 

As for people's inability to fit DCC chips, I couldn't agree more, especially when it has a socket...but I don't think that's DCC's fault. It's the same issue as people being unprepared to change a loco's number or weather it. In fact it could be related to your point last week about all the fragile detail bits. Some people are afraid to take the loco apart for fear of breaking something. I know I've broken small pipes off when getting a loco apart, but nothing that some superglue wouldn't fix.

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

16 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

My own afternoon 'Talisman' was built many years ago now, from a mixture of kits and modified RTR. 

 

When I built the twin FOs from Mailcoach kits, I was ignorant of the necessity of putting extra doors at each inner, LH end. I'm afraid that's how they're staying. 

 

 

 

 

 

Tony,

 

Thanks for showing your Talisman. I also built my twin FO before I knew about the door issue and that's how it will stay. Even if building it today, I'm not sure I'd fancy tackling the doors in the Mailcoach sides. They're not exactly made for kit bashing!

 

One point about your Talisman rake. The front vehicle looks like a Mark 1 BSK. The carriage workings list both end vehicles as BSOs, certainly for 1958, and also for the other years that I've checked. I remember this as I spent some time building the Southern Pride kits before Hornby announced their BSO. So could I suggest you swap it over? Having said this, I half expect you to counter me with some photographic evidence to prove that BSKs were used on the day!

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

[Mallard60022]

As discussed elsewhere Tony, the TTS sound chip in this Nelson of yours is a toy in a truly great RTR model. A misplaced item is the consensus.

ATB and good to see you both in good form on Monday....I've only just recovered and I was only there a few hours!

Phil

[Tony Wright]

58 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

 

 

Tony,

 

Thanks for showing your Talisman. I also built my twin FO before I knew about the door issue and that's how it will stay. Even if building it today, I'm not sure I'd fancy tackling the doors in the Mailcoach sides. They're not exactly made for kit bashing!

 

One point about your Talisman rake. The front vehicle looks like a Mark 1 BSK. The carriage workings list both end vehicles as BSOs, certainly for 1958, and also for the other years that I've checked. I remember this as I spent some time building the Southern Pride kits before Hornby announced their BSO. So could I suggest you swap it over? Having said this, I half expect you to counter me with some photographic evidence to prove that BSKs were used on the day!

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Rumbled!

 

It is a BSK at the front, Andy, and will be replaced by a (yet to be built) Southern Pride BSO. The BSO at the rear is a modified Hornby item. I suppose I could fit a Hornby one at the front as well.

 

The car in question (and the SK immediately behind it) are made-up of chopped-about Palitoy Mk.1 cars, fitted with Comet overlays and detail bits and pieces. They were made a while before Bachmann's Mk. 1 range appeared. Tony Geary and I did quite a few of them, and they're still running. 

 

Who knows, anyway? I have a picture of the afternoon Talisman with at least one Mk.1 in its formation in carmine and cream (and obvious substitute, because the Talismans were usually formed of maroon stock). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

For someone who is never happier than when a soldering iron is in his hand, I can't help thinking, that you're complaining a little too much about sorting out four wires!

 

As for people's inability to fit DCC chips, I couldn't agree more, especially when it has a socket...but I don't think that's DCC's fault. It's the same issue as people being unprepared to change a loco's number or weather it. In fact it could be related to your point last week about all the fragile detail bits. Some people are afraid to take the loco apart for fear of breaking something. I know I've broken small pipes off when getting a loco apart, but nothing that some superglue wouldn't fix.

 

Andy

Andy,

 

Me complain!?

 

I think the point I was trying to make was that I took a perfectly-running DC loco and installed a chip in it. The original feed wires acted as stays for the motor/gearbox, preventing the drive from jumping around inside under load. These had to be reconfigured, which is a fag. I then tested it (only on DC, of course), and it then didn't run as sweetly. It didn't start straight away, then shot off. I know this sort of thing is common (and, thus, expected), but there's still something in me which finds it hard to have built a loco which runs beautifully-smoothly (on analogue), then to install an expensive further item inside it which then means it doesn't run as well! 

 

Maybe Tom Foster will comment here. I built him a 16XX Pannier from a SE Finecast kit. It ran perfectly. Despite my protestations, he wanted a chip fitted, which I did. The result, a poor runner (on analogue). Tom tried 'fiddling' with it using DCC. He couldn't get it to run as well as it did originally. What I found interesting was that a DCC supplier said that such a thing can happen. The motor (a wee Mashima) turned out to be happier on analogue than DCC, however the chip was configured. Though he's a very dear friend, it's up to him now. I'm not faffing around with it any more. He received a perfectly-functioning loco I'd built. Because of DCC it's now not as good a runner. No doubt the DCC-ites will tell me I'm talking nonsense (I often do!), but perhaps they'd like to investigate. I'm not! 

 

I think you're right about DCC not being at fault because users won't fit chips (though why anyone would use a system for which they can't do even the most basic things with puzzles me). Bits fall off all the time, of course, whether one wants to install DCC or not.

 

I remain, as ever, a Luddite. Nothing I've seen convinces me that DCC is a way forward for me. If folk want to invest lots of dosh, buying into systems they don't understand, and/or drive fellow exhibitors nuts with constantly-droning, too loud sound effects, then that's up to them. If they wish to be seen as 'entertainers' at a show, with all of them gazing blankly at 'tablet'-like things (or, worse still, mobile phones!) while nothing happens on their railway, then let them do it. As you know, on LB I flick a switch, move a slider and a train just moves away, making its own natural sound. Why do I even need to know its number before I can drive it?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Will DCC obviate operator incompetence? 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Possibly yes.

 

But only if you want to go to full computer control (I don't and never will). 

 

Of course you will need a degree in computer programming plus a second degree in logistics and route pathing!

[Chamby]

There seems to be a theme emerging here, around the trend towards more accuracy and detail in modelling.  With both ‘fiddly detail parts’ and DCC control, greater realism can be achieved, but there is an increase in cost, complexity and  hence more that can, and will at times, go wrong.

 

The irony is that for many modellers, the fidelity of the model purchased, and the sophistication of the systems used to control them, are often at odds with the accuracy and attention to detail of other aspects of their modelling.  

 

How many people actually fit all of the detailing parts supplied with modern RTR products?  How many modellers fine-tune their DCC sound chips to synchronise the beat to wheel rotations?  How many modellers actually use a DCC chip’s ability to modify acceleration rates and inertia, or control the illumination of working lamps they have not even fitted to their steam locomotives?

 

It is no different to most modern technology, I suggest.  There are a lot of buttons I never use on our TV handset, for example... and programmes my wife never uses on our washing machine.

 

DCC and super-detail isn’t for everyone, but at least in our hobby we do have choices!

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Andy,

 

You're dead right about nothing changing my mind about digital sound, or anything DCC for that matter!

 

I fitted the decoder in the K3 I built for Archie Brown (Manxcat). What a fag! All those bl**dy wires to be accommodated. Un-solder this, re-solder that, don't pinch a wire, etc, etc. What had previously been two wires, one from each pick-up to each brush became four, just so it could run. As for any future 'sound' considerations, I told Archie, if ever I build another loco for him, he'll have to install all the 'nonsense' himself! 

 

What I find baffling (not with regard to Archie) is that (in conversation with DCC experts) so many folk who use DCC haven't a clue as to how to even install decoders. Businesses make a good living out of providing this service. One fool at the Doncaster Show last year complained about poor running on some layouts (not all). 'DCC is the answer for good running' he blathered out! I later went to look at what he was criticising. Unfortunately, he'd gone before I was able to ask him the following questions......

 

Will DCC cure derailments?

Will DCC make a loco with a tight spot run smoothly?

Will DCC ensure signals are correctly-sited?

Will DCC cure trains dividing?

Will DCC obviate operator incompetence? 

 

There were many other questions I'd have liked to have asked him. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Now there Mr Wright

 

We will have none of this nonsense. As I have been reminded many a time with DCC you drive the trains not the track.

 

No matter how hard I try I still cannot get the track to move.

 

As for sound, if I want it I can go Chuffffff Chufffffff Chuffffff.....mind you I am pleased I am not a Southern modeller, doing 8 chuffs per revolution on a Nelson heading an express, one would soon be out of breath.

 

 

[Barry Ten]

38 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 How many modellers fine-tune their DCC sound chips to synchronise the beat to wheel rotations?  

 

 

 

I have but it's a pain in the arse to do. I seem to remember that you have to do set two CVs - one for the chuff rate at slow speed, and another to keep the chuff rate consistent across a range of speed levels. I normally stop when I've got it chuffing reasonably realistically at shunting speeds, up to a moderate lick. Beyond that, I defy anyone to count the chuffs per wheel rotation anyway. It's the sort of job where you only do it irregularly enough that you have to go through the same learning curve each time. It's a chuffing nuisance!

 

Anyway, it can be done, at least with the usual sort of sound decoder, rather than the budget type. It can also be done by picking up the wheel rotation directly, via a sensor, but that's a bit out of my comfort zone although I imagine it would be hard to beat for realism.

[Tony Wright]

39 minutes ago, Chamby said:

There seems to be a theme emerging here, around the trend towards more accuracy and detail in modelling.  With both ‘fiddly detail parts’ and DCC control, greater realism can be achieved, but there is an increase in cost, complexity and  hence more that can, and will at times, go wrong.

 

The irony is that for many modellers, the fidelity of the model purchased, and the sophistication of the systems used to control them, are often at odds with the accuracy and attention to detail of other aspects of their modelling.  

 

How many people actually fit all of the detailing parts supplied with modern RTR products?  How many modellers fine-tune their DCC sound chips to synchronise the beat to wheel rotations?  How many modellers actually use a DCC chip’s ability to modify acceleration rates and inertia, or control the illumination of working lamps they have not even fitted to their steam locomotives?

 

It is no different to most modern technology, I suggest.  There are a lot of buttons I never use on our TV handset, for example... and programmes my wife never uses on our washing machine.

 

DCC and super-detail isn’t for everyone, but at least in our hobby we do have choices!

Thanks Phil,

 

For me there are too many 'buttons' everywhere. Especially in my car. 

 

I cannot tune the radio, and, on returning from York on Monday, I inadvertently turned on the CD player. My car is second-hand, and the original owner had left a CD in the machine. His taste in music was abominable - some sort of rap, I think it's called. Now, I can't get back to the radio! 

 

Why are modern things so complicated? No doubt it won't be long before all electronic gadgets are sold with a free grandchild!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[grahame]

1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

Possibly yes.

But only if you want to go to full computer control (I don't and never will). 

Of course you will need a degree in computer programming plus a second degree in logistics and route pathing!

 

And doesn't it simply shift operator incompetence to programmer error.

 

44 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

We will have none of this nonsense. As I have been reminded many a time with DCC you drive the trains not the track.

No matter how hard I try I still cannot get the track to move.

 

Yep, and oddly enough my preference is not to drive trains or control track but to run a service. 

 

G

[Ian Smeeton]

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Phil,

 

For me there are too many 'buttons' everywhere. Especially in my car. 

 

I cannot tune the radio, and, on returning from York on Monday, I inadvertently turned on the CD player. My car is second-hand, and the original owner had left a CD in the machine. His taste in music was abominable - some sort of rap, I think it's called. Now, I can't get back to the radio! 

 

Why are modern things so complicated? No doubt it won't be long before all electronic gadgets are sold with a free grandchild!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Have you missed a 'c', there, Tony?

 

Regards

 

Ian

[richard i]

39 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Phil,

 

For me there are too many 'buttons' everywhere. Especially in my car. 

 

I cannot tune the radio, and, on returning from York on Monday, I inadvertently turned on the CD player. My car is second-hand, and the original owner had left a CD in the machine. His taste in music was abominable - some sort of rap, I think it's called. Now, I can't get back to the radio! 

 

Why are modern things so complicated? No doubt it won't be long before all electronic gadgets are sold with a free grandchild!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

For a number of years tech companies have been trying to work towards simplicity, believe it or not. So you do not need an instruction book. The latest use voice commands. You just have to know the right thing to say. Telling ours it was cr-p got the response, “ I am sorry you feel that way.” But it did not get me the result I was after in the first place. 

Richard

[Fat Controller]

18 minutes ago, richard i said:

For a number of years tech companies have been trying to work towards simplicity, believe it or not. So you do not need an instruction book. The latest use voice commands. You just have to know the right thing to say. Telling ours it was cr-p got the response, “ I am sorry you feel that way.” But it did not get me the result I was after in the first place. 

Richard

The spirit of the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation walks the land; that poor machine's probably had to have counselling.