Wright writes.....

[Tony Teague]

Bachmann O4's have a permanent Loco/Tender set up. Luckily this can be disconnected by simply bridging the chassis connections on the Loco chassis with brass wire ( Thanks Graeme King) .

As to DCC far too expensive to consider for me to consider. Sound?, I find  to be the most annoying thing ever !! just "sounds" totally unrealistic to me !! 

I too am not a fan of DCC - and sound in particular; certainly in 4mm it generally sounds very thin, squeaky and repetitive. My chief objection, however, is that unless you are going for total automation, it is very difficult for the human brain to cope with more than 3 or possibly 4 locos running at once - and that is relatively easy to achieve with DC. Having a large and fairly complex layout means that using DCC for points and accessories would just make any keyboard a bottleneck. I am not especially a Luddite - I was an early adopter of "Zero 1" and whilst I know that things have moved on since those early days, I just see DCC as an over-promoted solution looking for a non-existent problem. Finally, I do not see any wiring advantage with DCC; I work on in DC the "two wire" principle - two wires to each and everything - but this simplicity means that I still understand and can fix any circuit should a problem arise.

Tony

[45568]

Tony, 

          I cannot find the O2 chimney on the Markits website. Alan Gibson can provide an LNER B12 or B1, are either of these close to correct?

 247 developments do not offer anything either. Bearing in mind the difficulty of obtaining small items from Australia, can you or anyone else offer an alternative source?

Regards,

Peter C.

[t-b-g]

Are we going to have yet another pro/anti DCC/DC sound/no sound discussion?

 

By now we should probably all be aware that some people like it and some people don't.

 

Can't we just leave it at that?

Edited April 22, 2016 by t-b-g

[Tony Wright]

I too am not a fan of DCC - and sound in particular; certainly in 4mm it generally sounds very thin, squeaky and repetitive. My chief objection, however, is that unless you are going for total automation, it is very difficult for the human brain to cope with more than 3 or possibly 4 locos running at once - and that is relatively easy to achieve with DC. Having a large and fairly complex layout means that using DCC for points and accessories would just make any keyboard a bottleneck. I am not especially a Luddite - I was an early adopter of "Zero 1" and whilst I know that things have moved on since those early days, I just see DCC as an over-promoted solution looking for a non-existent problem. Finally, I do not see any wiring advantage with DCC; I work on in DC the "two wire" principle - two wires to each and everything - but this simplicity means that I still understand and can fix any circuit should a problem arise.

Tony

Tony,

 

Very well put. 

 

I'm particularly in agreement with regard to how much can be assimilated by the human brain. I've seen DCC systems where everything is controlled from one tablet - points, routes, signals, locos. What a recipe for chaos in my view! 

 

When my analogue railway is operated, it's at its best with a minimum of four operators. These comprise Up driver, Down driver, signalman and fiddle yard operator (this doesn't include the M&GNR which needs just one, but that is entirely independent). It's just about possible to operate it with two, though it's not so enjoyable. In fairness, four could operate it with DCC, but the signalling and fiddle yard operations would still be independent. In fact, for a day, one road on LB was DCC-d for a Bachmann Dynamis presentation, and it worked fine, but it was only the locos which were DCC. 

 

I realise that many operate their layouts by themselves; is DCC better for that? On layouts which depict a shed scene it has an advantage where any loco can be parked anywhere, irrespective of isolation sections and their lengths. However, in conversation with a friend the other day, one he operates has difficulties with locos inside a shed and out of sight. Unless a meticulous record is kept of what's gone inside, the roof has to be lifted to see what's where! With analogue (as I've operated on Grantham), a switch is flicked, a knob turns and out comes a loco. Though it's good to know its number (and a meticulous sheet is kept by others), it works anyway. 

 

As for the myth of only 'two wires' being needed for DCC, good wiring practice is just that - good wiring practice. Every section of rail on LB, no matter how short, has its own feed to its appropriate bus (or is it buzz?) bar. Discreet feeds, too, made of fine copper wire, not the great fat wires I've seen on some DCC systems soldered to the edge of the rails. I've been told this is necessary because of the greater current flow. Are they? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Tony, 

          I cannot find the O2 chimney on the Markits website. Alan Gibson can provide an LNER B12 or B1, are either of these close to correct?

 247 developments do not offer anything either. Bearing in mind the difficulty of obtaining small items from Australia, can you or anyone else offer an alternative source?

Regards,

Peter C.

Peter,

 

The guy who used to turn the chimneys for Markits suffered a major stroke some little time ago and is now incapacitated. I've been told that finding an alternative source has proved difficult so far. 

 

If you phone 01923 249711, Mark Arscott might just have one in stock (he used to do two - one tall and one short - you need the shorter one). A B1 chimney is very close, so could be used. 

 

I hope this helps,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Just a few more of John Houlden's locos.........................

 

 

Though Bachmann produces a J11, it's not this sort - the J11/3, rebuilt by Thompson with piston valves and raised boiler. Built from a Little Engines kit, it's got a DS10 motor. It runs well, but won't be that expensive for anyone interested. 

 

 

Another Little Engines kit, this time an O4/7. Portescap-powered, it's a very smooth runner.

 

 

Equally good at running is this O4/8, another Portescap-powered Little Engines kit. 

 

Thus far, kit or scratch-building seems to be the only way to get locos like this. I have seen Bachmann conversions into an O4/8 using (I think) either a Bill Bedford boiler or one of Mr. King's amazing pieces of work. 

 

What does a current 2-8-0 RTR cost these days? Obviously Heljan's O2 is the most expensive, but what are the others? Granted, a Little Engines O4/1 or O4/3 is not going to get much with the Bachmann RTR equivalent about, but these 'rebuilds' are really interesting to me. They look just how I remember them - heroically filthy! I have an O4/7, built from the same kit and also an O4/8 built at my modelling dawn of time using a K's ROD chassis, footplate and tender (but not the firm's wheels and motor) to which I added a scratch-built boiler and cab. Thus, though tempting, I need no more locos like these? Anyone interested? 

 

 

 

Also heroically filthy is this pair of Crownline V2s. Though the RTR model now has a decent chassis, the body is not up to much (it is being improved). Both these have Portescaps in them and they go extremely well indeed. Again, having already got V2s into the teens, I can't justify 'grabbing' these, though I love the work-a-day appearance of them. Do heavily-weathered locos put folk off? Even if they're far more natural than shiny ones? 

 

 

These certainly aren't shiny (well, not much). They're the property of a friend and I've lined/lettered/numbered them for him (I didn't put the numbers and BR device on the Stanier 2-6-0, just lined it; in hindsight, I should have done, because they're not centred). We've horse-traded. This ancient bartering system is far more interesting to me than just handing over cash. All that means is that you've earned the money to be able to do it (or nicked it!). When I needed some LMS bogie kits, there they were. Or books I didn't have. Or a whole range of buffers, W-irons, bits and pieces (gone to the Grantham boys) - all great stuff. Why don't you try it sometime? 

Edited April 23, 2016 by Tony Wright

[46256]

Perhaps not surprisingly, love the turbo motive, Tony...the ks kit I assume?....I confess given my midland preferences to having a real liking for the j11...I will however resist ....for now...best wishes Brian

[Focalplane]

Are we going to have yet another pro/anti DCC/DC sound/no sound discussion?

 

By now we should probably all be aware that some people like it and some people don't.

 

Can't we just leave it at that?

Why are you always so negative about change? Read my post and you will see that I understand both sides of the discussion. Tony raised the subject, I answered in a way that was reasonable and added some information/education. Your comments in the past have raised the question to me as to why I even bother with RMWeb and I notice that several others are no longer contributors to this excellent thread, perhaps for the same reason. Perhaps your attitude is something that needs to be adjusted. And if not then I will be happy to say adieu.

[46256]

Just reflecting on the topic of disposal of my collection of models both rolling stock.and scratch built infrastructure.....whilst always wishing for rhe best for my loved ones in terms of collateral...fortunately they will be well provided for..my main aim therefore is that my models will one day belong to fellow enthusiasts who appreciate the model.and not just for its monetary worth. I have disposed of collections previously ...when I went from OO to EM back in the late eighties....including kitbuild and any number of if crownliinre RTR.....Sold to a dealer ..quick sale rather than a considered one....such was my eagerness to start afresh..Then back to OO...don't ask......I therefore have learnt all I really want, my models to be appreciated by their new owners when the time arrives....not just yet though........

[New Haven Neil]

Oh heck, that J11.......  

[micklner]

What looks like a 8F 8647 towing a Austerity Tender , did such a combination ever exist ?

[46256]

I've seen pictures of stanier locos.class 5 and 8 s with self weighing tenders..similiar in outline

[46256]

The 2f however is firmly a ks classic...round top firebox...mine bought for me as a Xmas present back in the eighties....comet chassis ...first em then back to OO..in real life a class 2 f or 3f used to run tender first most afternoons out of water Orton yards with a brake van...travel down the slow lines towards leicester...just past the jct of the fast lines to derby.....then wait just past the crossover.....then the clank of the points changing..the semaphores lifting....and back through water Orton station towards Saltley sheds or washwood Heath yards. I have seen photos I didn't see the 2f but I did see any number of other steam and diesel locos do this both in the sixties and now on my layout...magic

[t-b-g]

Why are you always so negative about change? Read my post and you will see that I understand both sides of the discussion. Tony raised the subject, I answered in a way that was reasonable and added some information/education. Your comments in the past have raised the question to me as to why I even bother with RMWeb and I notice that several others are no longer contributors to this excellent thread, perhaps for the same reason. Perhaps your attitude is something that needs to be adjusted. And if not then I will be happy to say adieu.

 

I am not negative to change at all and if I came across that way then I apologise. The last thing I would want to do is to contribute to anybody deciding to leave RMWeb. There have been some excellent discussions about DCC compared with DC. My only concern was that it has already been covered in great detail on this thread and several others. The pro DCC folk telling us how good they think it is and the pro DC lobby telling us that DC is best. No conclusion is or can be reached as different people like different things.

 

So I just thought that it had been covered as much as it needs to be but that is just my personal view. If people want to have the discussion again, then it should be me who avoids it rather than you and I will be happy to dip out of the discussion gracefully.

 

As one of the first volunteers to stand in front of Alan Buttler's figure scanning gizmo and in my enthusiasm for his superb 3D printing ventures, I reckon that I am pretty much at the cutting edge of technology. I have just ordered some 3D printed items from Shapeways and I have a couple of friends who have laser cutters and such like should I wish to indulge in that sort of thing, which I may well do at some stage.

 

But in the main, I find that most of my modelling needs can be met to my satisfaction by more traditional methods.

 

The fact that I prefer to sit at a workbench and make my models using more traditional methods shouldn't really be any reason for anybody to leave RMWeb. I hope not anyway.

Edited April 22, 2016 by t-b-g

[bbishop]

Analogue v DCC.  It's got to be horses for courses.  In general I'm a DCC enthusiast - four busbars connected the length of the layout with banana plugs and the control panel plugged into the XpressNet. Simples!

 

But I do operate analogue layouts, in particular Southwark Bridge, which could never be operated by DCC.

 

I really think we should all accept that there are alterative methodologies, and stop attacking each other. 

 

Bill

[Flood]

I agree with Bill above.

 

Aberdeen Kirkhill is basically a 28 ft long shunting plank with enough room for mainline locos to bring in stock while an 08 is shunting another rake (or a mainline loco is running light engine to the stabling road). It could be run as analogue but the number of section switches would be horrendous. DCC (with clean track, clean wheels and a feed to every piece of rail) makes the whole layout considerably easier to run.

 

Edit: One of the really useful things we can do is to have a released loco following its train out, at a discrete distance, from the buffer stop end. Obviously to perform two tasks at once requires two operators (or very careful driving if using two slow 08s).

 

A mainline layout such as Duffield at my local club and, I am guessing, Stoke Summit or Little Bytham has considerably less need for DCC as the section switches run in a logical sequence along the fiddle yard roads and main lines.

 

Both Kirkhill and Duffield are very interesting layouts to operate for very different reasons.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Flood

[t-b-g]

I have always been most careful on RMWeb to express my personal opinions but in a way that is, I hope, not detrimental towards the views of anybody else.

 

As far as I know, I have never tried to tell anybody else how they should or should not construct their own models railways. All I will say is how I have done mine and why I did it that way.

 

So if anybody wants to try to stoke up a bit of a row over DCC vs. DC, please count me out. I prefer DC. I have played with DCC and don't like it and I am very happy for those who do like DCC to carry on using it.

 

Incidentally, both Buckingham and Narrow Road have facilities for following a departing train up the platform by the simple press of a push button to detach the main controller as soon as the train loco has gone beyond the platform end and to connect a second one to allow the "trapped" loco to follow it. Dead easy. It was one of those aspects of model railways that pioneers like Peter Denny got the better of many years ago, with not a microchip in sight.

[grahame]

Analogue v DCC.  It's got to be horses for courses.  In general I'm a DCC enthusiast - four busbars connected the length of the layout with banana plugs and the control panel plugged into the XpressNet. Simples!

Gosh, 'busbars' and 'XpressNet' unfortunately doesn't sound so simple to my simple brain. Can anyone explain this jargon so that I can understand? But in simple terms please.

 

G.

 

[grob1234]

Dear Tony and Friends,

 

Sorry for the brief 'segway' from DCC vs DC, I was just wondering if I could ask a little advice please?

 

I'm very happy with how my C12 chassis runs, however due to the short wheel base I would like to improve pick up by adding pick ups to the bogie. As the chassis is fully insulated, pickups would need to be fitted either side. Do you know of a smart way to fit pick ups here without them being too obtrusive? As you can see, there is not a great deal of space.... Any help/tips greatly appreciated. Oh yes, the comments re the correct number of spokes have been noted, I will replace them when I next place an order with Mark Ascot. Looking on the Markits website, I can see BR15BS, a 3' 9" MR 10 spoke bogie set, would these be suitable?

 

Edited April 23, 2016 by grob1234

[Flood]

The busbar is merely the main electrical connection to the points and rails.

 

 

As every section of rail runs at 16V AC from one source (no section switches at all) then a reasonably tidy arrangement for the wiring can be achieved. I say "reasonable" because by the time you have added point motors and their wiring and, in our case, electro-magnets with wiring then it gets very "busy" under the baseboard.

 

I don't use Xpressnet but I think it is a device which allows a laptop/p.c to talk to the dcc controller. We have such a device on Kirkhill and we are able to use smart phones to drive trains. A bit of a gimmick some might say but it is useful to walk around the front of the layout to position stock without needing additional controller plug-in points.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Flood

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The O4/8 does it for me, and the freight loco grot* just redoubles the appeal in my eyes. Were it not that I have all the bits and pieces in hand for a DIY job to occupy some future winter evenings...

 

* I have a little debate going on over just which of the heavy freight types is going to represent the recently ex-works specimen. I remember this as quite startling, you saw the machine in an entirely new light. Waiting until the O2/2 is seen before making the decision, suspect it wll be the O2/2, a final blaze of glory for the old carthorse.

 

What looks like a 8F 8647 towing a Austerity Tender , did such a combination ever exist ?

 Brian Haresnape obliges with a picture of 8602M with an Austerity tender at Euston in 1948, in the 'Stanier Locomotives' volume of his pictorial history survey.

[micklner]

The O4/8 does it for me, and the freight loco grot* just redoubles the appeal in my eyes. Were it not that I have all the bits and pieces in hand for a DIY job to occupy some future winter evenings...

 

* I have a little debate going on over just which of the heavy freight types is going to represent the recently ex-works specimen. I remember this as quite startling, you saw the machine in an entirely new light. Waiting until the O2/2 is seen before making the decision, suspect it wll be the O2/2, a final blaze of glory for the old carthorse.

 

 Brian Haresnape obliges with a picture of 8602M with an Austerity tender at Euston in 1948, in the 'Stanier Locomotives' volume of his pictorial history survey.

 

This Hornby Thompson O1 has just been renumbered with its sister.  A ebay bargain costing under £60 , now wonder Tony frets as to the future of kits , these are simply superb.

 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

This Hornby Thompson O1 has just been renumbered with its sister.  A ebay bargain costing under £60 , now wonder Tony frets as to the future of kits , these are simply superb.

 

 

IMG_0116.JPG

 

 

IMG_0121.JPG

 

IMG_0122.JPG

Excellent weathering Mick; my compliments. 

 

My question concerns the smokebox doors. I've seen very few pictures of O1s with the GNR-style smokebox door, and then only in later-BR days - that's the wider diameter, more bulbous and very small annular-lipped one - the sort shown in your pictures, as modelled by Hornby. It could well be the same as the one fitted to the same firm's B1. Has anyone altered Hornby's O1 smokebox door to the NER-type? 

 

 

I posted this picture some time ago when Hornby's O1 came out, showing the difference. Hornby's door is much more like the one on the left - a very rare sort on an O1. 

[Tony Wright]

Dear Tony and Friends,

 

Sorry for the brief 'segway' from DCC vs DC, I was just wondering if I could ask a little advice please?

 

I'm very happy with how my C12 chassis runs, however due to the short wheel base I would like to improve pick up by adding pick ups to the bogie. As the chassis is fully insulated, pickups would need to be fitted either side. Do you know of a smart way to fit pick ups here without them being too obtrusive? As you can see, there is not a great deal of space.... Any help/tips greatly appreciated. Oh yes, the comments re the correct number of spokes have been noted, I will replace them when I next place an order with Mark Ascot. Looking on the Markits website, I can see BR15BS, a 3' 9" MR 10 spoke bogie set, would these be suitable?

 

Tom,

 

I fitted bogie pick-ups to the C12 I built for Grantham. These consisted of .45mm nickel silver wipers behind the wheels, soldered to a small PCB pad at the side of the pivot (it's live chassis, and the bogie wheels were live on one side). I think the wheels you mention are entirely suitable. 

[Tony Wright]

Why are you always so negative about change? Read my post and you will see that I understand both sides of the discussion. Tony raised the subject, I answered in a way that was reasonable and added some information/education. Your comments in the past have raised the question to me as to why I even bother with RMWeb and I notice that several others are no longer contributors to this excellent thread, perhaps for the same reason. Perhaps your attitude is something that needs to be adjusted. And if not then I will be happy to say adieu.

Dear Paul,

 

Far be it from me to 'intervene' in a 'difference' of opinion, but I don't think Tony Gee is entirely negative about change. I'm presuming you don't know him personally, but if you did you'd quickly see that he's the least confrontational of any railway modeller I know. In fact, for him to be the reason for anyone leaving RMweb is as unlikely as my not being the reason for legions of observers doing just that! 

 

Tony has been a good friend of mine for many a long time and he doesn't need me to 'defend' him. We both share similar stances with regard to our model-making, namely preferring to make things ourselves using traditional methods/materials.  

 

As for DCC/DC, he's probably right in saying it's been discussed already at length, both here and elsewhere. If folk wish to carry a debate on, it's their prerogative. Not that I'd enter any debate on the matter. During my schooldays, my English teacher told me that one had to enter any debate with an open mind - he was a great fan of debating. That being the case, how could I possibly enter into a debate/discussion on the merits of DCC? 

 

Please don't stop posting - the personal work you show is inspirational. That's just it; personal - your work. Not the work of others, on which you're merely a reporter, nor the sum total of effort in being able to open an RTR box. Keep it coming, please. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.