Izzy

Everyone I think seems to build things up differently, and so long as it works in the end that's all that really matters. Personally I have to say that I would complete the middle crossing next, as I always prefer to work from the crossings out on the basis that if they are centered where they should be then the other rails can be adjusted to fit. Then I would use middle and ** 1 to gauge/lay the lower stock rail followed by the lower blades on both routes, (checking the blade movement clearance at this stage as the upper closure rail could be adjusted to suit - which would of course affect the actual position of it's matching stock rail), so they could all be used to set the middle closure and upper stock rails since these will probably be the easiest to finesse to fit. Izzy **edited to correct crossing No from 2 to 1 ** - sorry

Been playing around with bits of card to make the first section of my Priory Road station buildings while trying to decide exactly how and where I want them as I am not at all sure what looks best or right. Izzy

Just thought I would add the details of the template I posted, which are in the templot dialog as it's generated. I just clicked and didn't look as properly as I should have. These bring up the fact that the crossing angles all vary, the two diverging routes don't have the same one, which I assumed they did. I will also add these details to my post with the template, for general information. So; Ram Middle crossing 1: 4.34 Left crossing 1:7 Right crossing 1:5.99. Curvature LH 33.2" RH 24.4" Both switches 'A' blades. Izzy

Ian, Just a few bits regarding the drawing. The 'make' 3-ways option in templot uses, I believe, 7 partial templates (It's very clever stuff ), and so the two checkrails in the top of this shot would I think probably just be one covering the length. I have circled the wing rail that will need trimming for the same reason. I would suggest you also check the toe of the blade clearance on switch 2. I have re-drawn this open just to see, and it's looks okay, but having had problems recently with this aspect in a single-slip it is I feel worth making sure. I use a 1mm gap here - at the switch toes - and as my under-turnout tie-bar system uses 0.5mm brass wire soldered to the blades I find the gap between the stock and closure rails needs to be at least 2mm to give enough movement room. This is why I generated it using an A7 as the base template, to give the greatest possible deflection and widest distance between the rails here. regards, Izzy

Hi Ian, As I used A7 for the base template to generate the 3-way, to match your original template, I would have thought it to be about 1-3.5 curviform, and measuring a printed copy appears to confirm that it's roughly that angle. I'm afraid I never think much about this aspect because I only ever used simple card jigs to generate V's. One aspect perhaps worth mentioning is that there will be the need to trim the inner ( top as it is currently viewed) wing rail of this crossing to provide check-rail sized flange clearance for wheels. Because long timbers were expensive companies didn't use any more than was necessary, so as soon as standard size/length/width timbers could be used, they were, commensurate with the rail support needed. As Don has said, whatever you feel is best and looks okay will probably be right. Looking forward to seeing it being constructed. Izzy

I think it's most useful to download the pointwork pdf's from the Peco website and have paper printed copies laid down on the baseboard. Gives a better sense of what looks best and works in the space available. Izzy

Hi Ian, Here is a copy of your turnout which I have generated in Templot - make tandem - with the middle crossing included and the timbers shoved, and isolation cuts marked along with a wiring dia. The latter bits being added by import/export through Photoshop so it's a jpg file rather than PDF, but should print out to the same size. I hope it will be of use to you. details; Ram Middle crossing 1: 4.34 Left crossing 1:7 Right crossing 1:5.99. Curvature LH 33.2" RH 24.4" Both switches 'A' blades. I have watched your track construction thread with interest and admiration, not giving up and getting them just right, and did rather wonder when I did the Templot file whether I was actually teaching my grandmother to suck eggs...... I feel certain showing what you are doing is encouraging others to have a go. regards Izzy

I’m afraid it was said purely as jest. A thought that such a service might arise at some point (!) in time given the reaction to this change. Izzy

Strikes me there is developing a need for a Peco point re-wiring service............. roll-up, roll-up, get your re-worked Peco self-isolating points here.........Ahem.

Perhaps it was a combination of wanting to allow larger dia standard EM wheels of the time to easily negotiate the curved route (the angle at which the leading edge of the rear of the flange would meet the check rail), and maybe the checkrail clearance varied according to the curvature? Intriguing. Izzy

Just picked up a copy in Tesco's during the main weekly shop. Quite surprised since it's usually thursdays when most mags seem to appear around here (North Essex). Another really good issue with plenty for practical modellers to think about in respect of lighting/presentation either for simple home use or at exhibitions. Liked seeing Morfa Mawr, lovely shots, but had to look here to work out the track plan;- http://emgauge70s.co.uk/layout_aberath.html but having looked at the online shots several times in the past the article helped give a better understanding of it in overall terms. Izzy

I've got several sets of shelves in two rooms using this type of shelf support, mostly for books but also for more general storage. They have proved to be much stronger than other supports used in the distant past - thinner aluminium ones - but they are used with solid plank shelves screwed to the brackets with a maximum depth of 12" and length of 4ft ( three uprights to support this length and the weight that could be imposed). I do wonder whether some of the points raised re datum levels and vertical walls might cause a few problems when trying to go right around a room or having the baseboard 'shelves' too far out from the wall (more than 15/18") with the attendant risk of too much weight/pressure being applied at this outer edge for the brackets to absorb. Books etc are sometimes quite heavy but the weight is spread across the depth of the shelf from front to back. Most of these shelving systems rely on a good proportion of the imposed weight bearing down at the rear vertically on the wall uprights to prevent the fixings pulling out of the wall. Izzy

I know it's OT but considering all the faffing around needed with cabling it does make you wonder whether this option is easier/better for those that don't mind using phones/tablets as simple throttles and can afford it. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/128050-prodigy-wifi-smartphone-and-tablet-throttles/ I had already acquired a (more expensive!) wi-fi handset conversion before this appeared but the ease of use, not tripping over cables etc, made that worth getting as it works with whatever layout the system is powering as would the above. Just waiting to hear how Eltel has found it in real life use. Izzy

I don't know how many modellers are like me, thinking that the N7's were just used on passenger/empty stock workings, but browsing through John Mann's East Anglian Steam Gallery series of albums today on another matter I found one plate towards the back of part One showing 69713 on freight shunting duties at Bishop's Stortford on the 19th June 1959 - which may have just been between passenger duties but the single righthand lamp indicates freight work - and another in part Two with 69674 shunting wagons at Standon on 13th June 1958, which must have been as part of a freight working yet the single top disc fitted would indicate a passenger/mixed branch train. Whatever the particular cases it would seem to suggest a bit more leeway on using these locos in their later years for anyone considering getting one of the BR versions. It's certainly made me re-consider whether to get one, the main concern being whether there is enough room under the footplate for P4 wheelsets as I don't really want a re-run of the work the Hornby J15 entailed, or the Heljan W&M railbus come to that..... Izzy

I believe any standard cat5/6 cable/plugs will work. That is what I have used when needed. Izzy

Hate to say it but I don't think you are meant to trim the chairs off. The smaller Peco BH joiners fit between the sleepers as with prototype track. There is a thread here about the new track, and a debate over rail joiners! http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134764-practical-peco-bullhead-trackwork/ Perhaps you could use the new joiners and glue (cryno probably) some half chairs around the rails where you have removed them to add back a bit of strength. Izzy

Thanks to the heads up from Zero Gravitas yesterday I picked up the bagged offer from Tesco's. Thought the layout book/mag looked rather familiar - then realised I had picked it up in Heathrow in early Decemeber to read on the long flight to Sydney........doh! Have to say though that for anyone that hasn't seen it the layouts Volume 3 is well worth getting. Loads of interest and inspiration, as is usually the case with Paul Lunn's designs as is evident in the actual months magazine. Izzy

Just got my first exGE area LNER type searchlight signal built and installed for my new layout Priory Road. A bit more here for anyone interested. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134232-priory-road-signalling-advice-please/ Izzy

I thought an update dealing with the fitting of a tantalum based stay-alive for the Jinty might be of some interest following a post with a shot of it posted on the workbench thread. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65499-whats-on-your-2mm-work-bench/page-81 post#2022 Unlike the 4F with its 12 wheel current collection the Jinty has been prone to stalling now and then when the track or wheel treads were less than really clean. So thoughts were directed to fitting a stay-alive to give it a bit of help. The unit was based around those developed by Nigel Cliffe : http://www.2mm.org.uk/articles/DCC%20Stay%20Alive/index.html and using the (e-bay) links provided by Nick Mitchell to source the parts needed: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65499-whats-on-your-2mm-work-bench/page-81 I had to substitute flat SMD 100R resistors because the 100R mini-MELFS weren't available. In order to fit the tantalum pack beneath the cab opening level I had to remove the plasticard fitting originally used to sit the decoder on and make a new one using thinner sheet so that a open box arrangement could house the decoder underneath the tantalums and still give the decoder a little room to breathe. I know some decoders are wrapped and I may be being over-cautious here but I like to ensure they have one exposed surface to aid cooling, however minimal that might be. Three of the tantalums was all I could fit within the cab space but that has proved quite enough to give the Jinty all the help it seems to need. I found I was able to replace the loco crew where they were before and the pack isn't visible. What is really clear is that I need to attend to the chimney (now done since the shots were taken), and give the body a decent finish i.e. a work-a-day weathering job. This is awaiting it's turn in the queue....... cheers, Izzy

Just a bit more on the searchlights with regard to LED brightness. I have always found LED based colour light signals to be a bit bright/glary. The recommendations generally seem to be that they are powered from a 12v supply and used with a 1Kohm resistor. This seems to be whether the LEDS are 3v or 5v. As I use a Prodigy PA2 DCC system (3.5amp @15v) I decided to take a feed from it for lighting via an adjustable voltage regulator which can take AC or DC input and output at any set voltage. Originally I set the output @12v but though various tests aimed at reducing the brightness to one that looked better and was easier on the eyes I ended up at 6v and with two resistors in series, a 1K plus a 1K5. This seemed fine on the workbench but still proved rather too bright once the signal was installed on the layout. What to do? A bit more experimentation indicated that fitting some kind of screen to the LEDS was the answer, to act as diffusion, and three circular layers of some hard tissue paper (originally used for wrapping some etches) fitted into the head aperture proved enough. These were fixed into place with a wash of Mek-Pak. I would guess tracing paper might work as well. Here are some before/after comparison shots. Not brilliant but they show the difference. The green is of course a bit more subdued than the red. Izzy

Just thought I would post a few shots now that I know what should go where. The point rodding has been added along with some LNER economical FPL's. Very basic in respect of details but doesn't look too bad. I am hoping that when it's all finally painted, ballasted, and weathered it will look reasonable. The first searchlight has also been made, using a SMD bi-colour LED, with a position light beneath. I am afraid the latter is non-working. Another similar signal is needed for the B platform, while a third for platform A will also have a theatre indicator, which I hope will work and be lit simply using some very small (tiny!) white SMD LED's I have obtained. Just to give an idea of the size.. Izzy

Thanks Justin, it doesn't look too bad and I'm happy with the compromise re looks. Re 'frog juicers' I think the simple ones from Gaugemaster would be ideal here. I did think about using them but tried to find an alternative way as although the layout is wired for DCC, (so no sections except the catch points cut off power to the sidings as well as doing the obtuse crossings), I can plug in a DC controller for loco testing purposes if I want, and non of these 'juicer' things is compatible with DC - I think it fries them if they are wired up to it. I did enquire via GM and they said no, along with the reason why, but I'm afraid I can't remember at the moment. So that is just something to bear in mind. Had I not found another way I would have used them and shelved running DC for testing. The GM ones seems good value against others. I admire you for taking on Bill's layout. It's never easy taking on anything made by someone else, and especially when it's a project in progress, for everyone has there own preferences and ways of doing things. Just keep asking questions. I am sure everybody is only too willing and pleased to be able to offer any help and advice they can. regards, Izzy

Yes, the heavy lines are FPL's. Where possible companies used as few as possible due to the added complexity, and directional rather than bi-directional running helped in this respect. I have only used versaline chairplates, and here is my latest attempt at a layout where I have reverted to soldered track using them and am just in the process of fitting the LNER style of economical FPL's. As it features both a single slip and obtuse crossing between plain turnouts and catch points I felt it was more than I could have managed with easitrac, although it would have probably looked a bit better. Hopefully when it finally gets ballasted it won't be too bad. At least it works ok, which is the main thing. Going back to the track layout your working on and the obtuse crossings I do wonder how you will switch the crossings for polarity. Could be an interesting challenge. As working my points has also reverted to purely mechanical means - simple Expo Tools DPDT slider switches working 0.9mm rod to tie-bars buried under the switches - I have used the catch point DPDT's to do this. As I keep reminding myself, and you seem to be finding out, it's all good fun........ regards, Izzy

I realise that 3-205 duplicates the complete etched chassis kits, 57xx, J94, 08, 4F, Jinty, (not sure what 1109 is - the generic tank?) but they are a good backstop for anyone that might muck-up the rods with the kits (like me) or wants slightly beefier alternatives. I think the design of them is such that any of the rods can be produced fluted or plain. Just reverse the way the pairs are backed together. Izzy

Very sorry Justin, I do think you are reading it wrong. The O/s might be very early as it doesn't correspond with the diagrams on Signalbox.org. If you look at the Long Melford 1912 dia : https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=1064 you will see that Bill has reproduced the actual parting of the two branches to Glemsford and Laveham as per the diagram. Just plain turnouts coupled with three obtuse (diamond) crossings. There are no slips at all. Both sidings come off the Up lines. I believe the (very) long term aim Bill had was to (eventually) build the station area as it was, and the arrrangement being built was to get it up and running in a simpler/condensed form, and why it was called 'Short Melford'. Another board with the station would just replace the middle board with the long siding. Hopefully I have it right. Obviously once you know how the track was supposed to be then what is already down will make sense and it might all then fall into place. The track was soldered with Bill's own etched chaiplates I believe, that used to be available through shop 1. I do think that perhaps you will have to make it using etched plates of some kind to get it to all line up height wise. Either the versaline ones of perhaps the new ones from Lawrie Adams. Not tried them yet. Izzy edit - sorry, meant to add that the routes are very much up/down lines, not bi-directional, the FPL's on the bit you are dealing with show that.