Ray H

I've finally made a start on the alteration.

The previous printed backscene might be re-usable somewhere but not here because of the way it had been re-modelled (i.e. cut) to suit what was there before.

I got this far and then had to start demolishing the old/original hinged access flap to recover plywood of a suitable size to go in the corner. At close of play today I'd managed to lift the track. Virtually all that remains on the flap that isn't plywood (or screws) will be binned.

I also need to raise  a couple of surface mounted mains sockets and their pattresses on the wall to the right in the above image. This is in an effort to keep all the backscene sheets to the same depth rather than having to cut out pieces at the top of the sheets to suit the miscellaneous odds and ends that were previously screwed to the wall - some of which can be seen in the picture in the previous post.

Didn't the Duette come with in built thermal fuses?

I've heard it said that using the Momentum button on a PowerCab can upset even the best set CV values with the general advice being to never use it.

I'd suggest resetting the decoder - CV8 = 8 is the normal way - and trying again if you have used the Momentum button.

Peak hour services (only) set to resume between Bletchley & Bedford on 20 November by all accounts with full service restored early in the new year. I wonder what their definition of early is?

Buses will continue during off-peak periods for the time being.

But I bet the signal didn't change 😀

Could the loco shed stay as the base for numerous locos which would arrive and depart light engine whilst serving other local areas?

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

There was definitely one depot that I went to for some reason that had points and signals within the depot controlled from a panel in the shunting cabin, I’ve got a clear picture of it my head, but can I remember which depot ……. Nope!

Upminster Depot?

Is the LED on the front of the PCP illuminated?

Could the decoder be inserted the wrong way round?

The only signal that I think would be appropriate would be one located at the toe of the point leading off the layout towards the fiddle yard.

A double disc - one above the other - should suffice with the top disc clearing for trains towards the fiddle yard and the other disc being clear at all other times.

Another option would be two arms on a post with either both being short/shunt arms or, perhaps, with the upper one being of a more conventional size and the lower one a shorter/shunt arm. Again, the upper arm would clear for the link to the fiddle yard, the lower arm left clear at all other times, possibly with the exception, of when a train is arriving from the fiddle yard.

You wouldn't necessarily need any signals if the area is freight only.

The possible exception could be the link to the main line and that would depend on how close the main line is to the area modelled.

19 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

???

What is that all about?

I never mentioned single or double track, or indeed any proposals.

I simply made a statement about how much more land is required by a modern railway than was required by the original.

Bernard

Is Varsityjim possibly unaware of the single track sections at each end of the line between Bletchley and Bedford?

Take a look here - dcc controlled Peco turntable project - which uses a stepper motor.

14 hours ago, melmerby said:

Why four platforms?

Why not just do what the GWR did on several of it's double track mainlines and put the platforms on a loop?

Fast trains sailed through, stoppers at the platform.

With suitable planning the services could be timed so that the fasts can overtake the stoppers at these stations.

That would work even better as far as tph is concerned, adding the extra two platforms could provide a faster journey for some locals though.

20 hours ago, Ray H said:

We shouldn't forget freight capacity - OK overnight but there'll be a need for day time paths as well. 

 

Is it worth looking at 2 trains per hour instead of every 30 minutes - say a 20 + 40 minute interval?

Another idea could be to re-model one of the intermediate stations between Bletchley and Bedford so that it has four platforms. All trains would call with the fast overtaking the slow. It is difficult to plot this out without knowing the run times of the fast trains but I think it would have the effect of increasing the TPH figure, probably enough to facilitate at least one freight path per cycle.

Skip stopping is another idea to effectively increase line capacity but it does mean that travel between some adjacent stations (if there is any) might not possible but that could possibly be overcome by having a different skip pattern in each direction such that people could get to the station they want by a change of direction at specific stations - skip stopping doesn't necessarily mean missing out alternate stations.

I wonder how long it will be before the single line sections between Bedford and Bletchley start to affect the maximum service level/punctuality?

44 minutes ago, Welchester said:

 

Wasn't that a type of hat favoured by the Victorians?

A thesaurus or a stove . . . . ?

Hat, coat, gone.

We shouldn't forget freight capacity - OK overnight but there'll be a need for day time paths as well.

Is it worth looking at 2 trains per hour instead of every 30 minutes - say a 20 + 40 minute interval?

I see from the TV news that the National Audit Office are going to investigate the scheme funding.

Here's the backscene mismatch referred to above:-

I hadn't realised how minimal the greenery had become relative to the inclined trackbed on the right hand backscene sheet. However, it does look as though the two sheets should be adjacent to each other.

All the sheets are mounted horizontally so I'm wondering whether I can play around with the joins on previous sheets (to the right) to artificially lift the top of the greenery to match the lefthand sheet. There would be consequent mismatches further down but nowhere near as much as there is now and because it would be lower down the sheet it should be easier to disguise.

We've just got home following a cruise to Canada and back - said cruise being part of the reason the thread's been a bit quiet of late.

I found one railway station - definitely an open plan type, with little other than track and a few platform lights - where the only platforms that I could find were numbered 4 & 5 ! Apparently their train service was decimated following Covid and they now only have one train a week!

At least that's better than another place we visited where we found a 4 car EMU berthed on a bit of track.

Upon enquiring of one of the locals I was informed that their last train was about 10 years ago and the next isn't expected for another 3 years ! There was a mega storm all those years ago that cause havoc to the railway - including numerous washouts - which the Canadian government were unhappy to fund the repairs. Sounds like they've now changed their minds about the repairs - which must have been major if it'll take 3 years to fix.

Meanwhile, back at home . . . . . .   I've been thinking too much whilst I was away 🙄.

I seem to be happy with the idea of dressing the Drop In Sections as "bridges" like those in Jim's post above. The question is whether to make the adornments using the 3D printer (for which I still need to spend numerous hours coming to terms with the software) or to wake up the Silhouette from its long term slumbers (and try to remember how its software work) and use that instead - the reason for needing one or the other is to create the voussoir/keystone of the arches.

And another thing!

Jim and I had previously discussed making some minor changes to the top end of the inclined track (near where our domestic gas pipe is located). I ran out of printed backscene sheets in this area and used what I had to hand with the result that there is a mismatch between the two sheets used here. Jim's suggestion was to move the track sufficiently far enough away from the garage wall to plant a tree that would disguise the mismatched backscene sheet join.

I haven't totally ruled Jim's idea out but I'm also wondering whether to replace the couple of infill sheets - there's another mismatch behind the as yet unfinished factory at Mixbury - with newly purchased sheets that overcome the present mismatch. I could then push the back board further into the corner - relocating the nest of small drawers that cause the back board to be cut down a bit - to add a bit of scenery (or another private siding) between track edge and backscene - rather than have the backscene right up to the track edge all the way along the incline. The aforementioned factory would still be need to hide a mismatch at the other end of the sheets.

And as if that wasn't enough . . . . 

I seem to have talked myself into replacing the NCE Mini-Panel and to few accessory decoders installed many years ago with Arduino based kit on the club layout. This will involve persuading the Arduino to generate a few dcc commands - with more learning for me to do - that will be required to set-up a few locos on the layout that operate almost automatically over a section of the layout. This was something else that I ended up thinking about whilst away!

Perhaps I'll give up going on holiday if all this extra work or similar is the result.

Have you put the blanking plate back on the right way up?

My dcc controlled O gauge layout represents a fictious Light Railway primarily because of the relatively small radii needed to fit it into the garage. I've invested in a few 0-6-0Ts in the hope that they might not be too picky about power collection where the track takes a bit more effort to reach/clean.

Two of the locos are Dapol Terriers, one - Bodiam - in blue (and numbered 3), the other - Portishead - is in green. I also have an unnamed Manning Wardle also in blue.

I'm minded to retain the blue locos as they are, and adopt a similar shade (of one or other) as part of the railway's colour scheme.

My question relates to the green loco (and any other non-blue ones that I may get).

Is there likely to be a significant impact on the value of an R-T-R loco that has its colour (and optionally number and/or name) changed assuming there's been a good quality (re)paint job?

The two Drop-In-Sections (DIS) have now been ballasted. However, I managed to miss a few areas and had to apply some more ballast (and adhesive) in a several places.

The smaller (Light Railway) DIS was ballasted several days ago and had been test fitted in place a few days later, only requiring minimal “cutting back” where some of the ballast had managed to project slightly over the ends of both the DIS and where the track ends on the fixed boards.

The larger DIS was only ballasted at the beginning of this week and still wasn’t completely dry 3 days later. This DIS (and the part of the fixed boards where it aligns) had also suffered a bit of ballast creep that I think I’ve now attended to but it’ll take a few train movements over it (and a few insertions and removals) before I can be sure.

Readers may recall that I added some blocks to the underside of the DISs which aligned with the track on the fixed part of the layout on which the DIS rest stand when the layout’s not in use - said blocks are just visible in the above pictures.

It appears that I didn’t check that the blocks on the larger DIS (whilst aligning nicely with the track they’ll stand on) were actually clear of the fixed parts of the baseboards when in position for trains to run over ☹. Fortunately, I only fixed each block with a single screw so I was able to “unscrew” the errant block, drill a new hole and insert the fixing screw through the DIS before screwing the block back on where it is clear of the fixed baseboard..

I’d been thinking about 3D printing on and off for a while, more recently for its use for making the windows in the factory at Mixbury. A few other ideas surfaced from time to time but the trump card so to speak was to be its use for printing the girder parts for the sides of the DISs (once I’d experimented with using it (and coming to terms with the 3D software) for some easier things).

Regular readers of these pages will know that the LR “bridge” over the lower-level tracks at the far end of the garage had utilised the Scalescenes prints enlarged to size suitable for O gauge.

Once I’d worked out how to print them, I’d use the components for the DISs and to replace the paper ones on the existing bridge. I’d even worked out roughly how the printed parts would fit together.

Browsing through my copy of “Bridges for Modellers” by L. V. Wood to see what I might need to print; I came upon this picture of the flyover at Rugby which got me thinking.

A girder bridge (without intermediate supports), the length of the DISs, especially the longer one, might look better than the plywood sides of the DIS, but would probably be beyond the realms of even modern-day technology. However, here is pictorial evidence of multiple short span arches used to support a bridge that could be of any length.

I could limit the height (between ground level and the underside of the DIS) to match the height of the aforementioned blocks (that support the DIS when not in use) and have a false ground level on which the arches stand that probably need only be unkempt ground. What’s not clear from the picture of Rugby is whether the arches pass right through to the other side of the structure or whether the openings are fairly shallow. Does anyone know?

Sorry, my reference to 11 pins should have read 11 wires.

Could 11 pins be the usual 8 plus 2 for the speaker (or stay alive) and the brown wire whish is often longer than all the others?

The next task has ended up being the ballasting of the longer but narrower of the two DISs. I also took the opportunity to repopulate the areas of missing ballast in and around the area that plays host to said DIS (and the LR tracks).

The lifting access flap has still to be dismantled as I seem to  have found numerous other things to keep me out of the garage recently.

I am hoping to ballast the other DIS tomorrow, once today's effort is dry. I hope to do it without tipping over the jar containing the diluted PVA like I did today 😒