Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Regarding Seep point motors........................

 

When Rob Davey and I installed the 90-odd in 2008, I was getting on for 62 (Rob's not that old). I was quite capable then of installing the motors underneath each point, then wiring them up. Now, 16 years later, I'm finding it not so easy - not installing the motors but unscrewing them and disconnecting the wires. Reconnecting the wires from the Peco surface-mounted motors to the power feeds is equally tricky - knees, thighs and back complaining loudly! At least installing the surface-mounted motors is a doddle once the under-board wiring is completed. 

 

Looking back at decisions I made in 2008, one I really regret is not paying the extra £1.50 for Peco point motors, thinking I was being prudent by saving some £150.00 in buying Seeps. Wrong! 

 

I don't think I'm alone as the years progress, realising (inevitably) that once-easy tasks become a bit of a drudge. 

[cctransuk]

6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't think I'm alone as the years progress, realising (inevitably) that once-easy tasks become a bit of a drudge. 

 

The very reason why all ten baseboards of my first and final opus hinge against the wall, and can be secured vertically for under-baseboard work!

 

CJI.

[Tony Wright]

15 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

The very reason why all ten baseboards of my first and final opus hinge against the wall, and can be secured vertically for under-baseboard work!

 

CJI.

Good evening John,

 

How big is your 'final opus'?

 

Making Bytham hinge against the walls would have been very tricky.............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, at its widest, Bytham's boards are in excess of 5', but the clearance to the rafters (from track level) is only just over 3'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[cctransuk]

16 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening John,

 

How big is your 'final opus'?

 

Making Bytham hinge against the walls would have been very tricky.............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, at its widest, Bytham's boards are in excess of 5', but the clearance to the rafters (from track level) is only just over 3'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Tony,

 

My 'final opus' is a mere 5 x 2.4 m. with a central operating area.

 

Ten operationally wholly independant baseboards, designed from the outset to hinge vertically, sitting clear of the wall-mounted storage cupboards above - which have the baseboard lighting mounted beneath them.

 

This gives excellent illumination of the boards when flat, or in their raised position for under-baseboard work.

 

CJI.

Edited March 26 by cctransuk

[60027Merlin]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding Seep point motors........................

 

When Rob Davey and I installed the 90-odd in 2008, I was getting on for 62 (Rob's not that old). I was quite capable then of installing the motors underneath each point, then wiring them up. Now, 16 years later, I'm finding it not so easy - not installing the motors but unscrewing them and disconnecting the wires. Reconnecting the wires from the Peco surface-mounted motors to the power feeds is equally tricky - knees, thighs and back complaining loudly! At least installing the surface-mounted motors is a doddle once the under-board wiring is completed. 

 

Looking back at decisions I made in 2008, one I really regret is not paying the extra £1.50 for Peco point motors, thinking I was being prudent by saving some £150.00 in buying Seeps. Wrong! 

 

I don't think I'm alone as the years progress, realising (inevitably) that once-easy tasks become a bit of a drudge. 

 

Tony,

 

Remember -  Don't stop when you get old. You get old when you stop!

 

Eric

 

[Tony Wright]

12 minutes ago, 60027Merlin said:

 

Tony,

 

Remember -  Don't stop when you get old. You get old when you stop!

 

Eric

 

Eric,

 

I'll tell that to my knees!

 

Tony. 

[DougN]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening John,

 

How big is your 'final opus'?

 

Making Bytham hinge against the walls would have been very tricky.............

 

Nahhh... just need a higher ceiling and a ladder...  

 

[bbishop]

After problems with ordinary Peco points (they didn't like being upside down) and then Seeps (hiding the Pecos in scenery to switch the frogs), I have now installed Peco Twistlock points.  No problems so far.

[number6]

Made the same mistake myself with both choice of point motor and their position in relation to my waning enthusiasm to lie under the baseboards. On the positive side the ECML had a history of big freight pileups so true to prototype there.

[stewartingram]

I've described the method elsewhere on RMWeb, but I fix my seeps to a plasticard base. The armature pin drives a pcb sleeper strip, with a new pin at the end. The other end of the sleeper strip has another pin, which operates a proper microswitch attached to the base. Lasty there are choc block connectors for wiring.

All thin takes 10-15 mins to assemble , all from scrap items, lying around except for the siwtches, which cost pence on ebay.

Advantages:

1) Easier fitting - the new pin locates easier into the tiebar. Basically it starts off as a long btass wire, snipped to length after fitting.

2) Inbuilt seep switches are useless, requiring very accurate fitting of the seep., otherwise will not work properly.. This baseplate makes that much easier, and the frog switches are now reliable.

No soldering, on your back, undereath the layout. Choc blocks are simple screw connectors.

3) A couple of small simple jigs (if you can call them that) align both seep armature, and tiebar, to centre position for fitting, along with a simple mark under the board. 

If a unit goes faulty, it is easy to remove and repair on the bench. I've had odd failures, but never thrown one away. Just dry joints needing soldering.

I really will have to take a couple of pics of my sample build and post on here.

[Tony Wright]

58 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

I've described the method elsewhere on RMWeb, but I fix my seeps to a plasticard base. The armature pin drives a pcb sleeper strip, with a new pin at the end. The other end of the sleeper strip has another pin, which operates a proper microswitch attached to the base. Lasty there are choc block connectors for wiring.

All thin takes 10-15 mins to assemble , all from scrap items, lying around except for the siwtches, which cost pence on ebay.

Advantages:

1) Easier fitting - the new pin locates easier into the tiebar. Basically it starts off as a long btass wire, snipped to length after fitting.

2) Inbuilt seep switches are useless, requiring very accurate fitting of the seep., otherwise will not work properly.. This baseplate makes that much easier, and the frog switches are now reliable.

No soldering, on your back, undereath the layout. Choc blocks are simple screw connectors.

3) A couple of small simple jigs (if you can call them that) align both seep armature, and tiebar, to centre position for fitting, along with a simple mark under the board. 

If a unit goes faulty, it is easy to remove and repair on the bench. I've had odd failures, but never thrown one away. Just dry joints needing soldering.

I really will have to take a couple of pics of my sample build and post on here.

Good afternoon Stewart, 

 

The problem is not the fixing of the Seeps to the underside of the board (it was a doddle when I was only 61), it's the horrendous failure rate of the awful things. 

 

I certainly never used Seep's (hopeless) switching mechanism, employing a microswitch worked off the end of the point's tiebar to change polarity. I also use choc-block connectors. 

 

Never throw one away? I have, loads. It's nothing to do with dry joints; the problem is always the same - one coil has failed completely - deep inside by the look. 

 

I'll be delighted to see shots of how you've installed them, but the problem for me is always going to be the same; Seep's failure rate is way, way too high. 

 

As a comparison, Stoke Summit's fiddle yard points were operated by Peco point motors. In nearly 80 (yes 80!) shows, requiring full-on operation for hours on end, not one Peco point motor failed (out of 40+). On Charwelton there were even more, and how many failed during the time WMRC operated it? None! 

 

I hate potentially 'doing a product down', but in my opinion, based on my Bytham experience, Seeps are not worth it. There is nothing unusual in their installation and operation - two screws (diagonally-opposite), not too tight so as to obviate distortion yet more than enough for security, and operation through a standard CDU.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[t-b-g]

A couple of my friends, one in his 50s and another in his early 70s, have both decided that the point motors on their layouts will be mounted along the front edge of the baseboard with a wire in tube going to the point itself. They both decided to ensure ease of access for repairs or replacements at the building stage as insurance for when they are less nimble. Neither layout is easily portable.

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

22 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

An excellent day's running on Bytham with two chums.

 

All was going well until an A4 at a fair speed ran into the back of a goods train in the fiddle yard, scattering hapless wagons asunder! 'Operator error' I exclaimed, 'just my incompetence'. Except it wasn't. Yet another Seep point solenoid had failed. Even by my dubious maths, that's a 20% failure rate in these wretched things since 2008. 90 installed, and far too many gone west! I think a complete programme of replacement is called for, using Peco surface-mounted units.

I find myself oddly reminded of the Abbots Ripton disaster.  I wonder, how did the rolling stock fair in what must have been a violent crash?  I remember once ripping the front end off of a Hornby A4 when a point mechanism failed.  The point was of poor quality anyways, with flimsy parts, along with wing and guard rails that had miles of space.  I fixed these issues and increased the back to back of leading wheels, and now have a decently reliable, if still hideous point.

[Michael Edge]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Stewart, 

 

The problem is not the fixing of the Seeps to the underside of the board (it was a doddle when I was only 61), it's the horrendous failure rate of the awful things. 

 

I certainly never used Seep's (hopeless) switching mechanism, employing a microswitch worked off the end of the point's tiebar to change polarity. I also use choc-block connectors. 

 

Never throw one away? I have, loads. It's nothing to do with dry joints; the problem is always the same - one coil has failed completely - deep inside by the look. 

 

I'll be delighted to see shots of how you've installed them, but the problem for me is always going to be the same; Seep's failure rate is way, way too high. 

 

As a comparison, Stoke Summit's fiddle yard points were operated by Peco point motors. In nearly 80 (yes 80!) shows, requiring full-on operation for hours on end, not one Peco point motor failed (out of 40+). On Charwelton there were even more, and how many failed during the time WMRC operated it? None! 

 

I hate potentially 'doing a product down', but in my opinion, based on my Bytham experience, Seeps are not worth it. There is nothing unusual in their installation and operation - two screws (diagonally-opposite), not too tight so as to obviate distortion yet more than enough for security, and operation through a standard CDU.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

There are two main faults with the Seep, both related. The wire fastening from the coil to the plate is often far too tight, should really have a bit of slack in it and the crude fitting of the coils into the baseplate often fails, early ones are much more prone to this. I now fasten a wire round the coil and the baseplate, tightened by twisting, this prevents the coil from dropping off even if the melted plastic fastening fails. I have found the the frog switch can work fairly reliably (at least in a warm dry room) and can be improved with application of electrolube.

I went through most of the process Stewart describes and then got rid of the problem by using Tortoise motors for my fiddle yard and new layout.

[MikeParkin65]

All of my points are digitally controlled. No problems so far 😂

[Obadiah]

20 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening John,

 

How big is your 'final opus'?

 

Making Bytham hinge against the walls would have been very tricky.............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, at its widest, Bytham's boards are in excess of 5', but the clearance to the rafters (from track level) is only just over 3'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Tony.

 

Surely it would be easier to hinge the entire shed!  Sorry the Goon Show side of my couldn't resist.

 

Ian.

[Tony Wright]

47 minutes ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

I find myself oddly reminded of the Abbots Ripton disaster.  I wonder, how did the rolling stock fair in what must have been a violent crash?  I remember once ripping the front end off of a Hornby A4 when a point mechanism failed.  The point was of poor quality anyways, with flimsy parts, along with wing and guard rails that had miles of space.  I fixed these issues and increased the back to back of leading wheels, and now have a decently reliable, if still hideous point.

Good afternoon,

 

Given the kinetics of the crash, the rolling stock faired reasonably well (the only 'casualty' noted this morning was a snapped-off buffer, which I've yet to find).

 

In fairness, there was no fairness in the collision. The A4 was made from a South Eastern Finecast kit, packed with ballast, hauling 11 heavy Pullman cars. It ran into the back of a fitted goods train, mainly made-up from plastic kits (unlike the 'Yorkshire Pullman', not my work). There was the inevitable 'domino' effect with the 'victim' train. The wagons went upwards and sideways, knocking over some wagons in an adjacent road on one side, and bouncing off some passenger stock in the one the other side. No real damage was done - it's a trainset, after all. In fact, though I don't deliberately try to damage things, years of rigorous exhibition running have convinced me that one cannot be too 'precious' about locos/trains I've made. I can't imagine one of my SEF A4s having its front end ripped off by a 'hideous' point; more likely, the point would be 'ripped-up'!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon,

 

Given the kinetics of the crash, the rolling stock faired reasonably well (the only 'casualty' noted this morning was a snapped-off buffer, which I've yet to find).

 

In fairness, there was no fairness in the collision. The A4 was made from a South Eastern Finecast kit, packed with ballast, hauling 11 heavy Pullman cars. It ran into the back of a fitted goods train, mainly made-up from plastic kits (unlike the 'Yorkshire Pullman', not my work). There was the inevitable 'domino' effect with the 'victim' train. The wagons went upwards and sideways, knocking over some wagons in an adjacent road on one side, and bouncing off some passenger stock in the one the other side. No real damage was done - it's a trainset, after all. In fact, though I don't deliberately try to damage things, years of rigorous exhibition running have convinced me that one cannot be too 'precious' about locos/trains I've made. I can't imagine one of my SEF A4s having its front end ripped off by a 'hideous' point; more likely, the point would be 'ripped-up'!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Funny enough, that front end did go back on perfectly with a drop of super glue (my favourite stuff is black and rubber toughened, so it is shock resistant).  Glad to hear that nothing has been destroyed, as I have seen my younger brother sabotage a big diecast american locomotive (2-8-4) to run into a shunting operation at full speed.  The "car" as it was impacted, got its ends and bogies thorn up rather cinematically!  Looking back on it, I'm glad that he did that, as it wasn't that good of a wagon, we had a good laugh, and I was going to detail the whole thing anyways.  Its back in service showing no signs of attempted demolition!

[Tom F]

Evening everyone.

I was having an email chat with Tony earlier regarding my weathering business. Tony kindly suggested I share some of my recent work in here.

I began weathering professionally back in 2019. I am a peripatetic violin teacher in various schools by trade. Originally it was only ever meant to be a top up to income, but increasingly I've been beginning to rely on it more.

I've become very frustrated with the teaching, and with 400 miles being clocked up for 32 weeks of the year, I'm looking at a change. I'd like to make the weathering more full time, perhaps moving to twice a week, or potentially three times a week.

Anyhow enough of my rambling, here's some examples of my work of late.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 27 by Tom F

[john new]

1 hour ago, Tom F said:

Evening everyone.

I was having an email chat with Tony earlier regarding my weathering business. Tony kindly suggested I share some of my recent work in here.

I began weathering professionally back in 2019. I am a peripatetic violin teacher in various schools by trade. Originally it was only ever meant to be a top up to income, but increasingly I've been beginning to rely on it more.

I've become very frustrated with the teaching, and with 400 miles being clocked up for 32 weeks of the year, I'm looking at a change. I'd like to make the weathering more full time, perhaps moving to twice a week, or potentially three times a week.

Anyhow enough of my rambling, here's some examples of my work of late.

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent work, particularly like the O/h ES1

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

I have found the the frog switch can work fairly reliably

The big problem with the frog switch is that the amount of movement it needs to change polarity is almost the same as the blade throw, certainly on finer-scale points, so the blades might close fully before the switch operates. When I used to use them (before changing to Cobalts) I added a small loop to the tiebar to allow the armature to move further and change polarity reliably.

 

[Michael Edge]

I thought that was my idea....

[St Enodoc]

1 minute ago, Michael Edge said:

I thought that was my idea....

Possibly, Mike. It's all a long time ago. I still use a loop - a narrower one - with Cobalts, as drilling the tiebar weakens it significantly.

[Tom F]

11 hours ago, john new said:

Excellent work, particularly like the O/h ES1

Thanks John 

 

I love the variety that the work brings in. From standard to narrow gauge.

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

16 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

There are two main faults with the Seep, both related. The wire fastening from the coil to the plate is often far too tight, should really have a bit of slack in it and the crude fitting of the coils into the baseplate often fails, early ones are much more prone to this. I now fasten a wire round the coil and the baseplate, tightened by twisting, this prevents the coil from dropping off even if the melted plastic fastening fails. I have found the the frog switch can work fairly reliably (at least in a warm dry room) and can be improved with application of electrolube.

I went through most of the process Stewart describes and then got rid of the problem by using Tortoise motors for my fiddle yard and new layout.

Thanks for that info Mike,

 

Being lazy (and not really knowing how to find out from the interweb), what's the price of a brand new Tortoise point motor now, please? I've had some donated for sale on behalf of CRUK. I've never used the type (though I'm sure they're quieter that the Fulgurex ones I installed and Norman Solomon wired up for Bytham).

 

Regards,

 

Tony

Edited March 28 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point