Wright writes.....

[Chamby]

38 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

It sounds like it is only one step up from stud contact.

Switches for sections, and stud contact for point changing, oddly it works. There are also switches for the signals but these are still in their box waiting installment. 

 

Hi Clive, 

 

Yes, a ‘push-to-make’ switch performs exactly the same function as stud contacts, only making a connection whilst it is depressed.  Stud contact will work just as well with the SS control units, if that’s more to your liking.

 

It has to be said, if you wire up a control panel this way for a DCC layout, you lose one of the big benefits of DCC because you’re back to having a lot more wires running between the panel and control units, which are best located on the same baseboard as the turnouts. 

 

With DCC I much prefer (though admittedly it is more expensive) to stick with just the infamous two wires in/out of the control panel and use a ‘mimic’ digital display, where a route indicator responds to the same digital command that is used to drive the point motor.

 

I very much enjoy working with DCC, for me it has become a fascinating part of the hobby.  Each to his own!

 

Phil

[Theakerr]

I have used EZ line for signal wires.  It is thin enough to go through the holes in the Wizzard signal posts and because it is so stretchy the line can be made realistically tight without the risk of pulling the posts out as you go round a corner.  There was a bit of a learning curve though, at least twice i managed to get all the posts threaded only to have the line behave like an elastic band depositing all the post back onto the workbench.  I was only able to get black and it hardly shows.  I was not sucessful at all when trying to thread into planted posts, the thread just doesn't want to be gripped because it is so stretchy.

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

Hi Clive, 

 

Yes, a ‘push-to-make’ switch performs exactly the same function as stud contacts, only making a connection whilst it is depressed.  Stud contact will work just as well with the SS control units, if that’s more to your liking.

 

It has to be said, if you wire up a control panel this way for a DCC layout, you lose one of the big benefits of DCC because you’re back to having a lot more wires running between the panel and control units, which are best located on the same baseboard as the turnouts. 

 

With DCC I much prefer (though admittedly it is more expensive) to stick with just the infamous two wires in/out of the control panel and use a ‘mimic’ digital display, where a route indicator responds to the same digital command that is used to drive the point motor.

 

I very much enjoy working with DCC, for me it has become a fascinating part of the hobby.  Each to his own!

 

Phil

Hi Phil

 

While not disagreeing with, each to his own. But where is the fun in not seeing the spark as wire touches the stud (or in my case a screw head) accompanied with the crash of two Peco point motors.  I am not a full Luddite, my frog switching on the live frog points is done by using GM500 latching relays, that are mounted in the back of the control panel. I have found these far more reliable once I worked out which ones needed the resistors bypassed than any of the Peco switches mounted on a point motor. It also means no crawling under the baseboard with a soldering iron to wire up the switches and frogs.  

 

One part of the hobby I enjoy is wiring up the layout, switching it on and it runs first time, well most of it.

[Chamby]

19 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

.....One part of the hobby I enjoy is wiring up the layout, switching it on and it runs first time, well most of it.

 

Ditto.    

[Clive Mortimore]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I've got stud-contact to operate the fiddle yard points, Clive.

 

Is that sophisticated electrickery?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Hello Tony

 

We both have seen each others layouts in operation and they both work, despite the best efforts of human element to try and mess things up. I would say that LB has reached a high enough level of  sophistication to enable you to replicate the normal movements of trains through Little Bytham in the time period you enjoy modelling.

 

There are other people who enjoy using more modern forms of controlling their model railways. If the end result is the train you desire to put in motion goes backwards (or the other way if you wish) along the tracks you have set the route for and you have had fun achieving it, wonderful.

 

My own cynical scepticism is like many modern innovations we are sold are not necessary to achieve the same end result. My brother-in-law was demonstrating his new gadget, an Alexa, when he asked it to play a song. To which my sister-in law said "We have that record why didn't you just get it out and play it". It might be with some of our fellow modellers, "We have the technology and we are going to use it". As I have already said if doing so the train moves and the person has had fun getting there then, great.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[john new]

Personally I like the reassuring thud from a solenoid. I know the real one's hiss/clunk (Old style pneumatic - are there any still in use?) or whir (new electric style) so I guess one of the newer geared drives is more realistic but they don't give the same positive aural indication they've gone over. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by john new

[Jesse Sim]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for that, Andy,

 

I'm sure Jesse will succeed.

 

On a non-related subject, I've just looked at a report from a prominent manufacturer claiming that the 'days of simply flicking a switch to change a signal's aspect are long-gone'. Because of DCC. 

 

I know you use DCC, and I don't, nor ever will, but what arrogance! 

 

Every main line signal on LB is operated by the flick of a simple switch - 'on' for the signal to go 'off', and vice versa. What could be simpler? 

 

When will these DCC-ites realise that their's is not the only way to operate a model railway. Long-gone? I'll bet simple on-off switches have lasted longer (and will continue to do so) and have certainly been around a lot longer than any DCC systems! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

As you know Tony, I use DCC, it’s excellent for a simple way of controlling all trains, but I still and will use DC for my point motor and eventually my signal controls. If you just want to play trains without the worry of signals you can, if you want to get moving footage, you can, simply flick the switch and the board moves. I will stick to flicking switches, feels like a real signal box to me. 

[thegreenhowards]

14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for that, Andy,

 

I'm sure Jesse will succeed.

 

On a non-related subject, I've just looked at a report from a prominent manufacturer claiming that the 'days of simply flicking a switch to change a signal's aspect are long-gone'. Because of DCC. 

 

I know you use DCC, and I don't, nor ever will, but what arrogance! 

 

Every main line signal on LB is operated by the flick of a simple switch - 'on' for the signal to go 'off', and vice versa. What could be simpler? 

 

When will these DCC-ites realise that their's is not the only way to operate a model railway. Long-gone? I'll bet simple on-off switches have lasted longer (and will continue to do so) and have certainly been around a lot longer than any DCC systems! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

Tony,

 

I'm a bit late in responding to this (planning a new club layout extension all last night), but I just thought I’d agree with you that this seems a ridiculous claim. I presume that there was some context about automation of complicated route setting? I agree agree that yours works well, although I do struggle to remember to put the signals back to danger, so maybe some automation would be a good idea for numpties like me! 

 

While I use DCC for my train control, my points and signals are currently analogue, and I expect the signals to stay that way. They will be semi automated using Heathcote IRDOTs so that the movement of the trains controls them. I know this is back to front, but at least it ensures that the signals are changed. 

 

One advantage of DCC is the reduction in wiring, and I will be using DCC to control the points in my fiddle yard (they’re currently manual). As the 30ish points in the fiddle yard are 15-30 yards from the control panel, this will save several 100 metres of wire which I think is a genuine benefit. It will also enable me to automate road setting using DCC macros. I realise that this is possible in analogue using diode matrices, but that looks very complicated to me.

 

As Phil said, each to his own.

 

Andy

[Tony Wright]

13 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

I'm a bit late in responding to this (planning a new club layout extension all last night), but I just thought I’d agree with you that this seems a ridiculous claim. I presume that there was some context about automation of complicated route setting? I agree agree that yours works well, although I do struggle to remember to put the signals back to danger, so maybe some automation would be a good idea for numpties like me! 

 

While I use DCC for my train control, my points and signals are currently analogue, and I expect the signals to stay that way. They will be semi automated using Heathcote IRDOTs so that the movement of the trains controls them. I know this is back to front, but at least it ensures that the signals are changed. 

 

One advantage of DCC is the reduction in wiring, and I will be using DCC to control the points in my fiddle yard (they’re currently manual). As the 30ish points in the fiddle yard are 15-30 yards from the control panel, this will save several 100 metres of wire which I think is a genuine benefit. It will also enable me to automate road setting using DCC macros. I realise that this is possible in analogue using diode matrices, but that looks very complicated to me.

 

As Phil said, each to his own.

 

Andy

Thanks Andy,

 

As has been said several times, 'each to their own', and we (especially me) should all respect that. 

 

The DCC debate keeps on coming up on here (because of me, I suppose?) but I do take exception to the 'arrogance' of some 'modern thinkers' in their assuming that their 'revolutionary' new methodologies will immediately render obsolete everything which has gone before. 

 

A few examples; not all DCC-related......................

 

Not long ago, one of my local clubs staged an open weekend. In the past, these sorts of things had been organised by old duffers and were well-attended. The sorts of blokes who'd put up local posters, tell the local newspapers, write to the model press, etc........ Oh no; 'that's too old-fashioned' must have thought the replacement young organiser. When questioned as to why so few turned up to the event, his answer was 'Well, I put everything on line!' And the target market (in the main)? Retired old gits like me! Many, literally, don't have a computer. I'm not saying that those (like me) born in the first half of the last century aren't computer-literate (many, unlike me, embrace the new technologies), but one or two old blokes attended the event who just happened to be passing by. 'I didn't know this was on' was their response. 

 

One massive layout I photographed had everything-DCC. It worked, then a short circuit occurred. Because it was not only all-DCC-controlled, it was computer-controlled as well, and everything shut down. It had to be rebooted, and after a few minutes, everything worked again. I must admit, I could see an advantage here. If I detect a short circuit on LB, it doesn't do the slightest bit of good to switch everything off and then put it on again - the short is still there! 

 

I've mentioned this before, but one huge O Gauge layout I attempted to take pictures of at a show was DCC-controlled, and there was a short somewhere on the system. The operators behind it constituted a who's who in the hobby, yet none could fix it (the guy who'd installed it all wasn't there!). The layout was inoperable for the duration. I've never seen an analogue system crippled so comprehensively. 

 

A couple of chaps I know operate their whole layouts from one tablet - locos, points, routes, signals, you name it. No real railway does this, yet some of the propaganda suggests that's all that's needed. I'm sure their layouts can be made to work, but what a recipe for chaos in my view - and my experience. 

 

My simplistic point of view is that I need to be able to personally fix things when things go wrong. I know this is an ideal, and I must thank the likes of my good friend Tony Gee who cured a short circuit on a set of point switches by simply employing another set. I'd just stared blankly at it. The big thing, though, was that it just affected one siding, not crippling the whole layout. If a loco doesn't work, I'm more in my comfort zone. On analogue, it's usually a doddle to discover what's wrong (if not always a doddle to fix). With DCC there are so many other factors. On one occasion, after struggling for ages to find a 'fault' on a loco, the owner then discovered it had 'lost its address'. He was entirely incapable of fixing anything himself, yet has bought into a system of which he knows less than I do! And, less than I know is nothing! 

 

As for installing chips into locos I've built or others have built, I've now given up. My Luddism now means I will no longer build anything for anyone who uses DCC. By that I mean I refuse to install the chip? Why? A previously beautifully-running GWR Pannier I'd built needed a chip fitting because its owner wanted DCC. I retrospectively installed the chip, and lo and behold, a jerky runner. So, if I do build anything for mates now, it's up to them to fit whatever electronic gizmo they want. Not me! 

 

I have several locos powered by D11 or D13 motors. These are very fast-runners, and need a gearbox to get the best out of them. This I've done, and they run really sweetly. A friend has also installed some in locos he's built, now up for sale (ex-Stoke Summit and ex-Charwelton). For DCC, these motors are useless, because their armatures cannot be isolated. One friend who'd bought one some time ago uses DCC, and then was stuffed because he couldn't re-motor it himself. Along came muggins (have you ever dismantled chassis fitted with outside valve gear to fit a new motor/gearbox?). Never again! 

 

All the above said, 'each to their own' once more, but it does puzzle me how some use control systems of which they know nothing about and are complete hostages to fortune  when things go wrong.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Jesse Sim]

The J39 is coming along nicely....I think

[Buhar]

Clive, the stud and probe system is very intuitive, not unlike using a mouse and screen, but I don't like dangling wires so I used push to make. 

 

The issue about not knowing how to fix things is very pertinent, Tony. If a chip or control unit fails then being able to replace it is enough. But whatever system you choose to run your railway being able to manage the inevitable shorts, breakages or failures is essential. Often it is a matter of planning ahead, never assuming something is indestructible or foolproof and so building in access or workarounds and making sure one problem doesn't render the whole shebang fubr. 

 

Alan 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Buhar
Name - again

[St Enodoc]

On 22/07/2019 at 22:05, stewartingram said:

Is that what is known as an Open coach?

 

Stewart

 

[Clive Mortimore]

5 hours ago, Buhar said:

Clive, the stud and probe system is very intuitive, not unlike using a mouse and screen, but I don't like dangling wires so I used push to make. 

 

The issue about not knowing how to fix things is very pertinent, Tony. If a chip or control unit fails then being able to replace it is enough. But whatever system you choose to run your railway being able to manage the inevitable shorts, breakages or failures is essential. Often it is a matter of planning ahead, never assuming something is indestructible or foolproof and so building in access or workarounds and making sure one problem doesn't render the whole shebang fubr. 

 

Alan 

Hi Alan

 

My whole layout has been designed with accessibility in mind. Should anything happen to me there is room to get me out (Mrs M would object to the smell of decaying flesh). The base board height was determined not by leanability or the perfect viewing height but at what height when I am sat under it holding my arms up for five minutes without being uncomfortable. Luckily it is also a nice height to work at and to lean on.  I can reach every thing without too much stretching. I have bar stools and chairs to sit on. As I have already mentioned most the gubbins that makes it work is in the control panel, so very easy to reach. I know the control panel is big but wouldn't Sulu and Chekov looked daft controlling the USS Enterprise holding a mobile phone each.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[mark54]

19 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Sandra,

 

Many thanks. I'll pass your thanks on to Mo. 

 

I'm glad you got home safely. 

 

I really enjoyed the day, though I wish I could operate the trainset properly. I liked your driving of the Down trains - Bill Hoole reincarnate!

 

Thanks as well for your most-generous donation of models to sell for CRUK. 

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony, a belated thanks from me as well, to you and Mo for your hospitality on Sunday. Also to Sandra and Robert too, for a most enjoyable day!

 

With regard to the photo that you have on the wall of the LB shed, there is a link below to the accident report at Welwyn Garden City in 1957 if you are interested. The plan at the bottom of the report shows how 60520 ended on it side. Unfortunately amongst the casualties one person was killed in the Baldock train that it ran into, because the rear Gresley Brake Second was marshalled with the van end leading. The passenger was in the rear compartment which was destroyed.

 

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Welwyn1957.pdf

 

Kind regards

Mark

[stewartingram]

On 16/07/2019 at 19:44, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

An interesting duty; the water train for the more remote 'boxes, not having mains access. A churn would be delivered each week, full of fresh water.

 

 

Going back a bit to this water train if I may?

Those churns, full of water, would be very heavy. How on earth were they unloaded at the remote 'boxes?

 

Stewart

[t-b-g]

16 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

 

Going back a bit to this water train if I may?

Those churns, full of water, would be very heavy. How on earth were they unloaded at the remote 'boxes?

 

Stewart

 

They would get the local kids to carry them.

 

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-boys-club-carrying-milk-churns-1935-56681372.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=8FD3307C-8D6E-4206-9AE6-D75622E91A3F&p=181734&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d100%26sortby%3d2%26resultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d0%26qt%3dmilk%20churns%26qt_raw%3dmilk%20churns%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d1%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26pseudoid%3d%26a%3d%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d%26apalib%3d%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d1%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3d%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1%26vd%3d0%26lb%3d%26fi%3d2%26edrf%3d%26ispremium%3d1%26flip%3d0%26pl%3d

[DaveF]

1 hour ago, stewartingram said:

 

Going back a bit to this water train if I may?

Those churns, full of water, would be very heavy. How on earth were they unloaded at the remote 'boxes?

 

Stewart

 

 

The only time I saw it done they were simply lifted down - it may have been a two man job - guard and signalman/crossing  keeper.

 

I remember that when I was a young lad and "helped" on a local farm in the late 50s the full milk churns were lifted onto a trailer to be taken to the top of the farm lane for the milk lorry to collect.  There they were rolled from the farm trailer onto a platform on the verge for the milk lorry.

 

The normal cylindrical type of churn, used from the 1930s held 10 gallons, and a gallon weighsabout 10lbs.

 

So a churn full would be less than 1cwt, that used to be considered a one man lift - think of coalmen delivering to houses.

 

David

Edited July 23, 2019 by DaveF

[Tony Wright]

30 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

 

Going back a bit to this water train if I may?

Those churns, full of water, would be very heavy. How on earth were they unloaded at the remote 'boxes?

 

Stewart

I don't know, Stewart,

 

But they're no bigger than milk churns, which were manhandled. Perhaps they weren't full?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Northmoor]

14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I do take exception to the 'arrogance' of some 'modern thinkers' in their assuming that their 'revolutionary' new methodologies will immediately render obsolete everything which has gone before. 

Call it "arrogance" or evangelism, but you'll generally find these people are in the business of selling said technology.  When Version 1.1 becomes available, they will be telling you that V1.0 is not longer sufficient.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, DaveF said:

 

 

The only time I saw it done they were simply lifted down - it may have been a two man job - guard and signalman/crossing  keeper.

 

I remember that when I was a young lad and "helped" on a local farm in the late 50s the full milk churns were lifted onto a trailer to be taken to the top of the farm lane for the milk lorry to collect.  There they were rolled from the farm trailer onto a platform on the verge for the milk lorry.

 

The normal cylindrical type of churn, used from the 1930s held 10 gallons, and a gallon weighs 8.6lbs.

 

So a churn full would be less than 1cwt, that used to be considered a one man lift - think of coalmen delivering to houses.

 

David

"A pint of pure water weighs a pound and a quarter" so an imperial gallon weighs exactly 10 lb.

[DaveF]

8 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

"A pint of pure water weighs a pound and a quarter" so an imperial gallon weighs exactly 10 lb.

 

 

I've no idea why I wrote the weight of a US gallon, I know perfectly well that one UK gallon of milk is 10lb almost exactly.   Thanks for the correction, I've amended my post.

 

David

[manna]

G'Day Folks

 

I wonder how much a 'Un-Pure' pint of water weighs. ?????

 

manna

[jamie92208]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't know, Stewart,

 

But they're no bigger than milk churns, which were manhandled. Perhaps they weren't full?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Giggleswick Station never had mains drinking water. The supply was delivered by the first Leeds bound DMU  each morning. From memory the kits, as we called them were only about 5 gallon ones and half the size of the regular 10 gallon ones that the farms used for milk.  I liked going to that station as Mr Greenhow had several very attractive daughters......  He would also look after my bike for me when I was out on the train for the day. As the station was over a mile from the village the bike was essential.

 

Jamie

[Tony Wright]

On 22/07/2019 at 06:29, jamie92208 said:

It can be done. There is a US product called EZline or something similar. It's thin elastic and comes in different co,ours and sizes. I used it on Long Preston and we even managed to make it removable and re erected it ar each show. In 7mm the poles and cross arms had to be scratchbuilt.  However the effect was wortwhile. I did do an article in the Modeller a few years ago but can't remember the reference. I'll try and dig some details out.  

 

Jamie

Good morning Jamie,

 

I came across this EZline product in use yesterday, on a layout I photographed.

 

I must admit to being very ambivalent about it.

 

Here, it's out of focus, but looks quite effective. 

 

 

This image is yet to be fully-processed, but, again, to the right, I think the wires work quite well. However, there is no 'droop'.

 

 

It seems to have a habit of pulling the posts out of plumb. And, it'll be no fun filling-in all the spaces in between! 

 

 

The tension can cause the poles to take up an unrealistic angle, as here. The fixings do look a bit 'whiskery'. 

 

This is on an OO layout, so it could look better in 7mm Scale.

 

 

As for me, I live without wires, especially on a largish system, viewed from a few feet away. The eye just 'believes' that they're there (as it believes the fence wires are there as well?). 

 

I recall during my art school days being told that' What you leave out of a drawing/painting is often as important as what you put in. Let the observer do the work - economy is essential'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

[RLBH]

11 hours ago, manna said:

I wonder how much a 'Un-Pure' pint of water weighs. ?????

 

Depends very much on the impurities! For professional reasons I had cause a few years ago to look into ways of making water heavier - there are chemicals out there which will make a pint of 'water' weigh about four and a half pounds, although at great expense. And potentially making it toxic.

 

Shifting a milk churn of mere ordinary water by hand would make a modern health-and-safety person wince, but needn't be prohibitively difficult if two chaps who've had their Weetabix are on hand. Or one who's had double helpings. If need be, a sack truck could probably be found to take the worst of the weight.