Wright writes.....

[St Enodoc]

Just now, Tony Wright said:

I still maintain (opinion or not) that for DCC it's better to have a totally, electrically dead set of metal frames and loco body; just pick-ups to the all-insulated wheels.

I prefer that for DC too, especially if you want to couple locos together. The sparks between the couplings and/or buffers can be quite spectacular if they're opposite ways round.

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

It's good to differ, Frank.

 

It is, after all, a matter of opinion. It's just that I've witnessed 'chips being fried' (admittedly on DC control) where, for whatever reason, a short circuit has occurred (at high speed, usually, with the taps full-on) and the decoder has 'melted'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I agree that it is good to differ but I also think when we are posting narrative might be taken by other modellers as guidance, that we base are opinions as far as possible on fact rather than conjecture. 

 

I'm sure that there will be other topics on RM Web which will cover the do's and don'ts of DCC in great detail but I still think a quick summary is worth repeating on WW.

 

DCC wiring can be best split into three discreet parts: power to the decoder, the decoder itself, and the motor feed from the decoder.  All discussions about live frames, dead frames, pony truck/bogie wheels shorting out, double heading, etc... are associated with the power feed to the decoder.  A short in this area whilst annoying, because it can shut down the entire DCC system, will never damage the decoder. 

 

The decoder itself consists of circuitry on a circuit board with lots of bare metal parts.  If any of these touch the chassis or metal body work then this can fry the decoder.  Some decoder manufacturers now encase their decoders in insulation to mitigate this risk, but if you are using an un-protected decoder then you need to ensure that the decoder cannot short out anywhere.  I suspect this is most likely how decoders you (TW) have observed getting fried came to grief.

 

The feed from the decoder to the motor is so simple as to be almost fool proof but the risk is where electrical terminals on the motor come into contact with the power feed to the decoder by touching the metalwork of the loco.  Again the builder just needs to be sensible about how they mount the motor so that it can't rotate uncontrollably about the axle when power is applied. 

 

If these three things are sensibly observed then there is absolutely no risk of damage to the decoder irrespective of the materials the models are made from or the type of chassis design the builder chooses to adopt. 

 

These are the simple facts. There be no monsters here.......

 

Frank

 

Frank 

[gr.king]

Pick up through carrying wheels and tender wheels, in addition to the loco's coupled wheels, and any form of compensation / springing of those coupled wheels, may be "simply un-necessary" when track is laid almost perfectly smoothly and level, with no dead sections, all kept completely clean, loco wheels also completely clean carrying lots of weight, and there are no remaining plastic stock wheels to aggravate track fouling, but in the highly imperfect world in which I exist every scrap of extra current pick up is an asset. Installing additional pick-ups now and then as locos are added to the fleet seems like much less hard work, disruption and expense than a complete rebuild of a layout started over 30 years ago when track laying skills were less well developed, or waging a constant war against any dust accumulation on a loft layout, also easier and cheaper than getting rid of all remaining plastic wheels.

[thegreenhowards]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It's good to differ, Frank.

 

It is, after all, a matter of opinion. It's just that I've witnessed 'chips being fried' (admittedly on DC control) where, for whatever reason, a short circuit has occurred (at high speed, usually, with the taps full-on) and the decoder has 'melted'. It's happened on Little Bytham, where - and I apologise again Andy (The Green Howards) - an all-metal loco (with the American pick-up arrangement) shorted out, cooking the decoder instantly (I think it also fried the Portescap!). Could it be that the 'trip' on DC is slower than on DCC? 

 

I still maintain (opinion or not) that for DCC it's better to have a totally, electrically dead set of metal frames and loco body; just pick-ups to the all-insulated wheels.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I think the issue with that particular incident was that DC doesn’t cut out with a short circuit in the same way as DCC does. It also may be related to LB running on considerably more than 12V DC. I don’t think it was related to the live chassis as the problem was caused by running into a live frog point which was wrongly set.

 

The decoder was actually fine after a reset. However the Portescap was fried. You don’t need to apologise for it though. You kindly showed me how to replace the motor which was a new and slightly scary experience for me at that time and that was very useful training (I now do it very regularly). 
 

Regards

 

Andy
 

 

[Jesse Sim]

Howdy all, 

 

does anybody have instructions for Danny’s Cowans Sheldon Crane? I’ve had one land in my lap that’s 80% complete. 

[Bucoops]

1 hour ago, Jesse Sim said:

Howdy all, 

 

does anybody have instructions for Danny’s Cowans Sheldon Crane? I’ve had one land in my lap that’s 80% complete. 

I'll try and find them Meanwhile here's what should be in the kit which may be of use.

 

 

 

[gr.king]

I know somebody who built one of those recently, using the instructions, but still struggled. He said that it seemed to be necessary to know the names of all of the parts of a steam crane in order to make full sense of the instructions... 

[Jesse Sim]

35 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

I'll try and find them Meanwhile here's what should be in the kit which may be of use.

 

 

 

Thanks Richard. Jonathan Wealleans ended up seeing the post and sent them to me via Facebook. 
 

It’s half built, just some of the stuff not glued/soldered in place so I’m hoping to finish it. The match truck I knocked up years ago so at least that will work well with it. 

[Bucoops]

13 minutes ago, Jesse Sim said:

Thanks Richard. Jonathan Wealleans ended up seeing the post and sent them to me via Facebook. 
 

It’s half built, just some of the stuff not glued/soldered in place so I’m hoping to finish it. The match truck I knocked up years ago so at least that will work well with it. 

 

Phew - that kit is in "deep storage" aka I can't remember. Although it may well have to be found if the Oxford one never materialises.

[robertcwp]

I have a Retford-related question, which those who follow this thread may be able to assist with, please.

 

What, if any, iron ore traffic and empties used the GC route through Retford in 1957?

 

I have the Doncaster District freight WTT for 1957 but there is nothing obvious. Iron ore for Frodingham seems to have come from Highdyke but those workings did not go via Retford. The WTT does not identify what the traffic was but the class of working and origin/destination give clues. Most workings to/from Frodingham through Retford were coke and empties from and to Orgreaves. There were also some workings from Brookhouse colliery to Frodingham.

 

There was an 11.02 am Frodingham-Annesley Class J freight which was overtaken at Retford by the New Clee-Banbury fish, and I wondered if this might have been iron ore empties. In addition, there was a 3.00 pm Frodingham-Annesley Class J, which changed to Class H at Retford, which was also overtaken at Retford by another working.

 

Thanks

[DougN]

2 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Thanks Richard. Jonathan Wealleans ended up seeing the post and sent them to me via Facebook. 
 

It’s half built, just some of the stuff not glued/soldered in place so I’m hoping to finish it. The match truck I knocked up years ago so at least that will work well with it. 

Jesse, I have a part built version and a heap of research if your interested.... it's one of my projects that stalled as I haven't done a order for wheels in donkeys ages...

[Tony Wright]

On 03/09/2022 at 11:26, Chuffer Davies said:

I agree that it is good to differ but I also think when we are posting narrative might be taken by other modellers as guidance, that we base are opinions as far as possible on fact rather than conjecture. 

 

I'm sure that there will be other topics on RM Web which will cover the do's and don'ts of DCC in great detail but I still think a quick summary is worth repeating on WW.

 

DCC wiring can be best split into three discreet parts: power to the decoder, the decoder itself, and the motor feed from the decoder.  All discussions about live frames, dead frames, pony truck/bogie wheels shorting out, double heading, etc... are associated with the power feed to the decoder.  A short in this area whilst annoying, because it can shut down the entire DCC system, will never damage the decoder. 

 

The decoder itself consists of circuitry on a circuit board with lots of bare metal parts.  If any of these touch the chassis or metal body work then this can fry the decoder.  Some decoder manufacturers now encase their decoders in insulation to mitigate this risk, but if you are using an un-protected decoder then you need to ensure that the decoder cannot short out anywhere.  I suspect this is most likely how decoders you (TW) have observed getting fried came to grief.

 

The feed from the decoder to the motor is so simple as to be almost fool proof but the risk is where electrical terminals on the motor come into contact with the power feed to the decoder by touching the metalwork of the loco.  Again the builder just needs to be sensible about how they mount the motor so that it can't rotate uncontrollably about the axle when power is applied. 

 

If these three things are sensibly observed then there is absolutely no risk of damage to the decoder irrespective of the materials the models are made from or the type of chassis design the builder chooses to adopt. 

 

These are the simple facts. There be no monsters here.......

 

Frank

 

Frank 

Thanks Frank

 

Since my ignorance of DCC is well known, I'll comment no further.

 

I'll leave it to those in the know.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

 

 

[Tony Wright]

22 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I think the issue with that particular incident was that DC doesn’t cut out with a short circuit in the same way as DCC does. It also may be related to LB running on considerably more than 12V DC. I don’t think it was related to the live chassis as the problem was caused by running into a live frog point which was wrongly set.

 

The decoder was actually fine after a reset. However the Portescap was fried. You don’t need to apologise for it though. You kindly showed me how to replace the motor which was a new and slightly scary experience for me at that time and that was very useful training (I now do it very regularly). 
 

Regards

 

Andy
 

 

Good afternoon Andy

 

It was an expensive way of proving the 'fail-safe' system on LB - that which means that a (very) heavy train, travelling fast, cannot reach a hand-made point set the wrong way. Either there's a short circuit or no feed. Thus, no damage can be done to a (more-fragile) point, though it certainly damaged your engine's, Portescap!

 

Oddly, though I've cocked-up in the same way many times, it's never damaged any of my motors.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[Chamby]

6 hours ago, robertcwp said:

I have a Retford-related question, which those who follow this thread may be able to assist with, please.

 

What, if any, iron ore traffic and empties used the GC route through Retford in 1957?

 

I have the Doncaster District freight WTT for 1957 but there is nothing obvious. Iron ore for Frodingham seems to have come from Highdyke but those workings did not go via Retford. The WTT does not identify what the traffic was but the class of working and origin/destination give clues. Most workings to/from Frodingham through Retford were coke and empties from and to Orgreaves. There were also some workings from Brookhouse colliery to Frodingham.

 

There was an 11.02 am Frodingham-Annesley Class J freight which was overtaken at Retford by the New Clee-Banbury fish, and I wondered if this might have been iron ore empties. In addition, there was a 3.00 pm Frodingham-Annesley Class J, which changed to Class H at Retford, which was also overtaken at Retford by another working.

 

Thanks

 

To the best of my knowledge, the GC traffic to/from Frodingham was mostly Nottinghamshire coal travelling north to the steelworks from Annesley, and in the other direction it was semi-finished steel going through to South Wales.  With the associated empties in the other direction, of course.

 

Most of the ironstone used in the steelworks was allegedly sourced more locally, however there’s a possibly relevant photo on page 56 of ‘Rabbits and Runners’ by Mike Kinder of the HMRS (ISBN 978-0-902835-28 3) taken in 1964 showing 92092 hauling a rake of loaded iron ore tippers heading north at Braunston, south of Leicester.  The caption describes it as originating from Byfield, and a passing comment also states Charwelton as another source of this traffic up until 18/11/61.

 

Edit:  The 1953 WTT shows an ironstone train (3138) timetabled from Byfield to Woodford Halse daily in the late afternoon.  Presumably this would then be worked North from there as one of the scheduled ‘runners’?  Whether this ended up either at Frodingham or Retford is unclear, as online references cite GC traffic from Byfield as being very diverse, including to South Wales and Shotton.

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Chamby
Added info.

[Hollar]

10 hours ago, gr.king said:

I know somebody who built one of those recently, using the instructions, but still struggled. He said that it seemed to be necessary to know the names of all of the parts of a steam crane in order to make full sense of the instructions... 

I didn't find the instructions to be any use at all.  In the end during a quiet moment at an Expo, Danny generously took his demonstration model out of its display case and let me take half a million digital photos, which more or less did the trick.  Getting the wheels to spin was a bit of a trial, too, but there's nothing new about that, sadly.

 

Tony

[Flying Fox 34F]

8 hours ago, robertcwp said:

I have a Retford-related question, which those who follow this thread may be able to assist with, please.

 

What, if any, iron ore traffic and empties used the GC route through Retford in 1957?

 

I have the Doncaster District freight WTT for 1957 but there is nothing obvious. Iron ore for Frodingham seems to have come from Highdyke but those workings did not go via Retford. The WTT does not identify what the traffic was but the class of working and origin/destination give clues. Most workings to/from Frodingham through Retford were coke and empties from and to Orgreaves. There were also some workings from Brookhouse colliery to Frodingham.

 

There was an 11.02 am Frodingham-Annesley Class J freight which was overtaken at Retford by the New Clee-Banbury fish, and I wondered if this might have been iron ore empties. In addition, there was a 3.00 pm Frodingham-Annesley Class J, which changed to Class H at Retford, which was also overtaken at Retford by another working.

 

Thanks

Iron Ore traffic from High Dyke to Frodingham, was routed via Sleaford, Boston and the East Lincs line.  There was the Aldwarke run with fitted wagons which ran ECML with Pacific haulage to boot!

 

Paul

[robertcwp]

25 minutes ago, Flying Fox 34F said:

Iron Ore traffic from High Dyke to Frodingham, was routed via Sleaford, Boston and the East Lincs line.  There was the Aldwarke run with fitted wagons which ran ECML with Pacific haulage to boot!

 

Paul

I believe that going via Firsby and Louth was itself a rerouting, which avoided reversals, the trains having previously run via Waddington to Lincoln (reverse) then via Market Raisen to Barnetby (reverse again) which not only included two reversals but also two crossings of the level crossing at the east end of the Lincoln stations. From 1965, the trains took the Newark Curve then via Market Raisen to reverse at Barnetby, as the East Lincs line was being run down for closure. 

[robertcwp]

2 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

To the best of my knowledge, the GC traffic to/from Frodingham was mostly Nottinghamshire coal travelling north to the steelworks from Annesley, and in the other direction it was semi-finished steel going through to South Wales.  With the associated empties in the other direction, of course.

 

Most of the ironstone used in the steelworks was allegedly sourced more locally, however there’s a possibly relevant photo on page 56 of ‘Rabbits and Runners’ by Mike Kinder of the HMRS (ISBN 978-0-902835-28 3) taken in 1964 showing 92092 hauling a rake of loaded iron ore tippers heading north at Braunston, south of Leicester.  The caption describes it as originating from Byfield, and a passing comment also states Charwelton as another source of this traffic up until 18/11/61.

 

Edit:  The 1953 WTT shows an ironstone train (3138) timetabled from Byfield to Woodford Halse daily in the late afternoon.  Presumably this would then be worked North from there as one of the scheduled ‘runners’?  Whether this ended up either at Frodingham or Retford is unclear, as online references cite GC traffic from Byfield as being very diverse, including to South Wales and Shotton.

 

 

 

Thanks, I have the book you refer to and there is no doubt about what the train consists of. Only twelve wagons and a brake van but the load in each wagon was much heavier than had they been carrying coal. I have the 1956 GC London Extension WTT which also shows an Ironstone working from Byfield to Woodford. There is a 5.55 pm Class H from Charwelton to Aldwarke Main, but that seems unlikely to have gone from there to Frodingham (if at all) unless via Doncaster. I note there are several empties from Woodford to Frodingham, which I presume were steel empties.

[Ian Rathbone]

I have a 7mm Jersey Lilly that has a live body with dcc. It has Allan Harris wheels which are only insulated one side so it’s loco one side and tender the other. Additionally it has wiper pickups on the insulated drivers so that the loco can be run on its own; the wipers being mounted on double sided copperclad soldered to the chassis. The tender chassis is insulated from the body with insulating tape and a couple of bits of plasticard. It was fine while dc but on conversion to dcc it started shorting. The short was traced to the copperclad but there was no obvious visible cause, such as solder bridging the insulation. The problem was solved by substituting single sided copperclad glued to the frame. The cause of shorting is still a mystery but it runs fine now. So you can have live bodies and dcc, it just needs a little extra care on insulation and clearances.

 

 

Ian R

 

 

[nzpaul]

Hello Tony, and readers of WW.

I've followed WW for some time but until now didn't believe that I had anything useful to contribute to the conversation. After consultation with a couple of LNER forum collogues, I've been assured that I'm doing the right thing in bringing this to your attention. The Proscale A4 with Comet chassis from a few pages back has valve guide crossheads of the type found on A3s.  I think the type fitted should be the later, less elegant type common on V2s. A small detail but older type  do  look a little odd on an A4.

I sincerely hope I haven't ruined your day, and apologies if this has already been covered or rectified.

 

Paul

[30368]

6 hours ago, nzpaul said:

The Proscale A4 with Comet chassis from a few pages back has valve guide crossheads of the type found on A3s.  I think the type fitted should be the later, less elegant type common on V2s.

Hi Paul,

 

A great piece of observation and an interesting point. When building my Pro-Scale V2 and then Nu-Cast V2 I checked many V2 images which seemed to confirm that the first 10 V2's were fitted with the older style guide whilst the rest had the later version. My PS V2 was therefore fitted with the latter style and 60800 the former.

 

I have just checked some images of A4's and to my real surprise some A4's had the earlier style of valve guide however most seem to have the latter style. As always, have an image or two of the model painted number that you intend to build!

 

It is possible, indeed likely, that this component, being interchangeable, will complicate matters as locomotives were overhauled.

 

The good thing is if you are modelling a "skirted" A4 it doesn't matter.....

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[thegreenhowards]

14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Andy

 

It was an expensive way of proving the 'fail-safe' system on LB - that which means that a (very) heavy train, travelling fast, cannot reach a hand-made point set the wrong way. Either there's a short circuit or no feed. Thus, no damage can be done to a (more-fragile) point, though it certainly damaged your engine's, Portescap!

 

Oddly, though I've cocked-up in the same way many times, it's never damaged any of my motors.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Good Morning `Tony,

 

I dont think it would upset locos not fitted with a chip. I think it must have been a combination of the short and the chip which sent a rogue signal to the Portescap. I suspect your high power controllers may have exacerbated the situation but I have blown up a chip on another DC layout and a chip on yours on a separate occasion (last Summer when we did the photos for BRM although I didn’t realise what the problem was at the time and it was only a £10 chinese one). I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that DC and DCC don’t mix and I no longer run my DCC locos on DC layouts except in very carefully controlled ways.

 

I do sometimes convert layouts (mine and other peoples) between the two to allow all locos to run. It’s much safer that way.

 

Andy

 

 

[Bucoops]

7 hours ago, nzpaul said:

Hello Tony, and readers of WW.

I've followed WW for some time but until now didn't believe that I had anything useful to contribute to the conversation. After consultation with a couple of LNER forum collogues, I've been assured that I'm doing the right thing in bringing this to your attention. The Proscale A4 with Comet chassis from a few pages back has valve guide crossheads of the type found on A3s.  I think the type fitted should be the later, less elegant type common on V2s. A small detail but older type  do  look a little odd on an A4.

I sincerely hope I haven't ruined your day, and apologies if this has already been covered or rectified.

 

Paul

 

Good morning Paul, an interesting post - I believe this is the later less elegant type?

 

 

I don't have any pictures of the early type except this:

 

 

If that's what you mean I would be very interested in learning when it started to be used on the A4s.

[2750Papyrus]

9 hours ago, Ian Rathbone said:

I have a 7mm Jersey Lilly that has a live body with dcc. It has Allan Harris wheels which are only insulated one side so it’s loco one side and tender the other. Additionally it has wiper pickups on the insulated drivers so that the loco can be run on its own; the wipers being mounted on double sided copperclad soldered to the chassis. The tender chassis is insulated from the body with insulating tape and a couple of bits of plasticard. It was fine while dc but on conversion to dcc it started shorting. The short was traced to the copperclad but there was no obvious visible cause, such as solder bridging the insulation. The problem was solved by substituting single sided copperclad glued to the frame. The cause of shorting is still a mystery but it runs fine now. So you can have live bodies and dcc, it just needs a little extra care on insulation and clearances.

 

 

Ian R

 

 

What a beauty!

 

[30368]

3 hours ago, Bucoops said:

If that's what you mean I would be very interested in learning when it started to be used on the A4s.

Paul/Bucoops,

 

I have looked through Peter J Coster's excellent "Book of the A4 Pacifics" for some evidence of if/when the original guides were fitted. This is problematic since with skirting fitted we really have no idea of which type is fitted.

 

Coster's book would suggest that the early A4's, rather like the V2's, had the early design fitted, i.e. the Silver loco's, although not these exclusively. P165 of Coster has two images of Silver Link the top image dated August 1958 with the original design and the lower, dated June 1956 with the later design fitted. So perhaps it would seem that the designs were interchangeable and what was fitted when was determined by what was available for fitting during overhaul.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by 30368