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.

Having struggled with this aspect of the rod sizes I would personally welcome a re-run of these if produced exactly as they are now but perhaps with smaller crankpin holes at the now standard 0.5mm size. These can always been enlarged if needed and the rods thinned down to suit. The multiple OS cranks are particularly useful for someone as cack-handed as I am who often needs several attempts at things to get them right. I envy those who can use the correctly sized rods - it's not through lack of trying - but it just seems beyond me. best regards, Izzy

I think that Bill B would have worked it all out before he started laying the timbers. That if you use 10mm as the rough datum lines for rail position, 5mm both sides of the drawn centre lines I can see, I am sure you will find that where they cross will be the crossing nose at the front edge of an appropriate timber. Given that the track design has already been drafted out by Bill I think you do need to establish these first, and. then kind of ‘join up the dots’. This would save all the effort of having to lift all the timbering. Using Templot as suggested would be another way but you might find that while it is great for generating odd angle obtuse crossings - and there are three in this formation - none of the timbering might line up anywhere. I have found you have to be a bit careful when using it for complex track work. Recently I had to replace a templot generated 1-6 single slip with the 2mm SA version (drawn by Keith Armes) because the former just didn’t have sufficient allowance for using 2FS clearance standard switches along with the necessary rail isolation cuts. Izzy ps. I can’t see a slip anywhere in the photos of this formation, am I missing something? ( there are a couple in the actual station area).

I have recently completed a D120 4-wheel brake and hope it's okay to post some shots of the construction in case they may be of interest. The sides/ends are the etched ones from Comet, buffers and torpedo vents Markits, couplings Smiths, while the wheels are Romfords altered a bit on my lathe to run on P4. The rest is mostly plasticard. and it seems to have turned out looking quite reasonable and runs okay. I am particularly grateful to Scott for starting this thread and giving me the impetus to undertake it based on seeing what he made completely from scratch. Great stuff. I had to fit dividers to keep the sides from bowing inwards along with 0.9mm brass rod at the inside top. The way the ends fit into the sides with the fold-up floor end and locations for the solebars is very helpful. Seemed strange making up the springs/axleboxes with the springs on the other side to the front of the boxes. The roof needed inside strips to keep things as square as possible but I couldn't get the top very smooth, so I took some of the tissue paper the etches came wrapped in and flooded it onto it with Mek. Gives quite a good canvas type look. I had to add another bit to the underside of the roof so it could be held in place with a 8ba bolt from underneath as it wouldn't sit down properly without it. The inside axle frames I made in plasticard rather than brass as in the past. For a small shunting type layout it runs quite okay. Too free running can sometimes be a drawback on less than totally level small layouts where the stock may be shunted about and not run in a fixed rake. I had fun adding a few small squares as rivets. Oversize but is okay from a distance! It all looks much better in primer. And then painted.....Halfords cans for the primer/top coat on the body, with the underframe/ends brush painted in matt black. A few HMRS methfix decals. regards, Izzy

A 3v coin battery such as a 2032 is good for testing 3/5v LEDs and you don't need a resistor. Izzy

David, When I removed the gearbox parts I added another layer inside on both sides to give a bit of extra strength around the gear shaft areas. As Chris is now producing chassis etched with two layers this won't be needed, but I don't know whether all chassis are like this now, or just new types. But I have more original 04/08 chassis to build as I am also doing both green and blue versions. My blue 04 will be the next to get a tantalum stay-alive. As even with the etched 2mm chassis and 7mm coreless there is so little spare room in the bonnet it does seem likely the cab floor will be where it goes, hopefully beneath the level of the cab windows. Watch this space...... If you use a solid piece of pcb you will have to allow for keeping all the individual parts isolated from each other which is why I went for just strips along the outside frames as the slightly easier option because you will need the thin footplate layer on top whatever to achieve the right base height for the buffer beams and front steps. Bob

Yes, might have been ran as required or once/twice/thrice weekly or a mix of them. Certainly plenty of demand at certain times, sugar beet etc and enough to keep some lines open/mothballed/truncated for these when the traffic was there, Cockfield, Snape etc. Izzy

Lovely construction David, I wish I could make mine half as neatly. If I have it right, when running in reverse the gearing force on the motor in the 03 would be pulling the worm away from the motor, so my original thought doesn't have legs. I do notice however that I added inner strengthening layers to the chassis around the gear layshaft areas on both the 04/08 chassis to beef them up a bit and this may well help absorb some produced vibration noise. Strangly I have found that these Chinese 7mm coreless motors run nicely 'out-of-the-box' with the default settings on the DCX 76's whereas the Farish & Nigel Lawton coreless types both need some tweaking with CV's to get the best out of them. Will you be fitting stay-alives? Having now experienced the advanatge they produce even with good running locos like the 08, all my shunters will get them, and especially as I have also struggled to get really decent reliably running 03/04's. In respect to the outside frames on the 08 I made a replacement footplate from thin brass shim sheet ( K&S sell very useful packs of it with a range of differing sizes), and then used point timbering strips glued to it with the OF's then soldered to them. The frames of course need isolating from the footplate, and the front/rear beams, so gaps were left. The front beams were made as a 'wrap-around' unit with the front steps and keeping a gap between the steps and frames proved 'interesting'. Plasticard between the frames then isolates the chassis from the footplate when it's all screwed together. I did post some shots on the yahoo VAG in the distant past but not sure if they are still around on the new IO VAG so have added a few here in case they may help anyone. regards, Bob

Many thanks. That's an idea I will experiment with. It has made me think of whether T shaped pins could be used, pushed in and then rotated under both rail bottoms so they could be soldered onto them. Keeping heat/soldering iron well away from the plastic easitrac base has been my concern/problems and doing this between the sleepers while not being visible would be a neat solution. Izzy

The problem is that all the Easitrac/Finetrax pointwork building parts are for Bullhead formations whereas as I understand it you want FB on concrete. This also applies to filing jigs, cast/milled frogs/crossings etc, ( the Finetrax are cast, the Easitrac are milled). Making FB pointwork is slightly different to BH in that the stock rails inner foot needs filing back to accomodate the blades which can't be filed up using the BH jigs and also need more work to do. Not impossible by any means - I made my first handbuilt FB track in N back in 1973 so simple tools are all you need - but it does all take time. During your timescale I have read that on the Western Region FB on timber and also BH on both concrete and timber were still much in evidence, with the latter often found on secondary lines and in sidings so there is plently of scope to mix and match the various combinations. Izzy

I think the problem with an issue like this is that there are so many variables that it’s often difficult to pin down. My 04/08 for example have these Chinese 7mm motors, but whether they are the same production as David’s or just similar spec...... Mine are also fitted onto the chassis with a plasticard ‘box’ around them as well as axles moving in slots. All of this could affect how resonance vibrations are transmitted through the chassis/body. To restrict shaft movement I push the worm on as far as it will go. So when the end hits the motor body it acts like a limit stop. Very crude but it works okay. I still have stocks of the older, longer, black version worms with 1mm bores and I don’t know if this would work with the newer white type. Otherwise you could use the shouldered 1mm-1.5mm adapter sleeve but this isn’t a firm push fit on the shaft. Bob

Hi David, Is there much shaft end float? Just wondering if in the 'coffee grinder' direction it's the commutator bottoming on the back plate through force from the gears. With these motor types there is of course no end bearing so care needs to be taken to ensure they have little or no end float/pressure to stop them doing this or chewing up the brush 'fingers' by excess pressure. regards, Bob

Yes, many thanks Jim, you are of course spot on. What I failed to explain (the brain thought it but didn't act), was that I was specifically thinking about plain line Easitrac since that is the main type under consideration. Adding a check rail is of course quite easy with soldered stuff but I haven't worked out a way with BH Easitrac without making a total mess of it. How it could be done with FB Easitrac I wouldn't have a clue, never having used it. Perhaps I'm just not looking at it the right way and missing something really simple and obvious. It would not be unknown... cheers, Izzy

Don't know if it will be of interest but looking through Diesels in East Anglia (Dr Ian Allen) reveals captions stating the Norwich - Wells branch was the first in East Anglia to use DMU's, in 1955, while the Heacham line closed to passengers after the 1953 floods but freight lasted till 1964. There is a shot of a freight at Burnham Market and the way the caption is phrased suggests it may have come from the Wells direction. So perhaps either two separate freights from both branches visited Wells, Heacham-Wells/Dereham-Wells, or started at one (Dereham?) and finished at the other (Heacham?), reversing at Wells. Perhaps this is covered in the line histories mentioned, which I do not have, but I thought it worth mentioning. regards, Izzy

I have built a few small circular 2FS layouts in recent years that have used radius down to 12" as part of a parabolic curve ( the 12" portion being around 75 - 90 degrees). These curves have been laid using both Easitrac BH and soldered type (incorporating gauge widening). A simple test track I have uses just Easitrac glued down onto a sheet of 3'X2' hardboard and here the 180degree end curved inner radius is about 11" as you might expect to get within the 24". All of the stock I have, mostly diesel era up to 66's/156dmu's/freightliner flats apart from the 3F jinty/4F featured in a thread here, whether using 2mm 2FS or converted (re-machined) N wheels, has generally run around them without problem. This includes the odd few bits that still have standard N couplings I have not yet replaced - most use DG's. However... there are a few caveats to this. Rail joints through such a tight radius are not to be reccomended. Because of their tyre profile with small root radius 2FS wheels will 'find' the slightest kink/mis-aligned joint and de-rail as the flanges can ride right up against the inner rail face. With their much larger root radius (of the NMRA RP25 type now commonly used) N profile wheels cope better in this respect since the flanges generally run slightly away from the rail face. And I very much doubt whether most 2FS steam locos could cope with radius much below 18" as an absolute minimum. The 3F/4F were aquired/converted simply to see how small a radius a simple 6-coupled loco could manage compared to diesels. They can just make it with their N gauge chassis and plenty of sideplay. But lets be realistic, radii this small make stock running around them look, well, a bit silly. Okay for hidden curves where there is no other choice but otherwise........ So the general advice to keep the minimum radius around 600mm is based on the good practice of minimal grief with things not working out. That some of us choose to push the boundries to see what is possible is usually done based on past experience and the knowledge that it might not work out. I well remember reading an account of one of the late Andy Calvert's layouts - sorry can't remember which one now - where he much regretted using 15" radius curves at the ends, feeling them far too small and spoiling the whole 'look' of the layout, the illusion of the sweeping nature of the rest of it. In repect to the OP's very ambitious layout, and quite before there is any thought of the track construction and standards to use I have a more basic question. How is the layout to be operated? As I understand it the premise is to locate it up against a wall. Is this correct? (apologies if I have this wrong). If so how will the huge fiddle yard be used? Stock placed/removed from it? Simply by leaning over the rest of the layout? Not a very good idea to my mind. Usually the reason for gentle curves is to allow a central operating well, the room for a person to be between layout and fiddle yard and move around and I would think this is why Welton Down has them. It is really a basic part of circular layout design - whatever the scale used - as my experiments have shown to me......... My latest 2FS layout has reverted back to a 'straight' terminus/fiddle type! regards, Izzy

I have often used tbc with both fixed and downward floating outer axles. Either works well. Let’s face It, apart from probably P4/S7, or unless you have appallingly laid track, it’s as much about improving electrical pickup as it is road holding. If space for hornblocks, beams etc is at a premium then why not just slot the frames downwards for a bit of axle movement. A little is all you need. All too easy to get hung up over theory and lose sight of simple ways given the myriad options around. Izzy

You could always use some Neodymium magnets of a size that will fit between the sleepers and bury them at the required depth. They are available in a wide range of sizes/thickness quite cheaply. Not sure whether just two straddling one sleeper would stretch far enough or if three between two sleepers would be required. I presume it's for 4mm? Izzy

Unless the chassis etch has been re-done since I made a few of these the problem is that it's has cut-outs to take the 'standard fitment' X04 type motor common when the kit was first produced and this weakens it at it's narrowest point near the bogie. I would second the advice to replace it with another as I would to use all-insulated wheels. Saves all the hassle with insulating the chassis from the body since you are dealing with all-metal parts. I would also suggest you consider fixing the bogie pivot point/ride height to prevent the chassis being 'rear-end heavy' as is common with some 0-4-2/0-4-4 models. It might be the replacement chassis suggested does this. I also fitted split-axle current collection to the bogies on my ones, but as you are going to use DCC I would say fitting a stay-alive unit should be considered as part of the basic package to aid reliable running. Izzy

"Those Stay Alive installations both look really neat jobs, Izzy. I'm relieved my "encouragement" hasn't cost you a blown up loco, and pleased you're getting such good results." Thanks Nick. I do think it's soldering the wires onto the decoder where the nerves really jangle. Probably I'm quite lucky here as my normal/standard iron these days is a 15watt antex with a 1mm tip - I often file an oblique flat on the very end of them - and the pads on the DCX76 are huge....in comparison with those on the DCX75, as you can see here. I believe those on the latter are about the size of the four small ones between the wires.......... I do like Nigel's assessment - use another decoder. Cor, your class 11 install really is what could be called 'nip & tuck' isn't it ? Good job it's the association job with the resin body. As mine is the Farish body on the etched chassis conversion I did rather go to town with the masking tape to make sure there were no shorts. A smaller motor was also a big help here. cheers, Izzy

I have just installed my second tantalum stay-alive unit and would like to thank Nigel Cliffe for the all pioneering hard work he did on them along with Nick Mitchell for his recent posts giving the e-bay links to the parts needed. Having had the privilege of seeing Nigel's 02 diesel shunter glide around a layout of mine some time back I knew the advantage they gave, but just didn't have the courage to attempt making one for myself until I read Nick's account of his coal tank adventures and the bits he used. It was the shove I needed to give it a go. My first pack went into the Farish Jinty that is the subject of another thread here, and uses 3x220uf tantalums in a flat formation above the CT DCX76 so the cab is clear, while the second pack of 4x220uf's as a squarish block are fitted into the nose of my BR blue 08 with 2mmSA chassis & e-bay coreless motor. The Jinty has a 1st version (red) DCX76 while the 08 has a (green) version 2. The solder pads for connection are however in exactly the same places. The improvement gained is immense, and would seem to be related to loco speed from what I can see. I had worried that just (!) three 220uf's wouldn't make much difference but this is what I have found. It is based around the use of coreless motors, and a third pack will be fitted when time permits into the BR blue 04 I have which is still not finished and again has a e-bay coreless motor so whether the advantage will be as much with ordinary non-coreless Farish type can motors I can't say. Using 28 speed steps, and when power is completely shut off, on steps 1 or 2 about a spoke of movement is made. At step 5 this becomes about a 1/5th of a wheel revolution and at step 10 almost 1/2. Above this speed it's like having a bit of a flywheel action. This is about the same for both locos, and I presume the extra 220uf with the 08 is offset with the higher gearing of 49-1 against the 40-1 in the Jinty. But going by these results even fitting just 220uf or 2 x 220uf would seem to be worthwhile if space is at a premium. Working out cost-wise at just a few pounds each they are definitely worth the effort. Here are a few shots, regards Izzy

Thanks. I was wondering if that would be a way to go, even if it wasn't really correct, so it's helpful to know it could be like that. Now the fun begins with obtaining small SMD bi-colour leds for the searchlights and white ones for theatre indicators. Someone kindly provided links a while back with which I will start..... Once again thanks to all, and especially Mr Stationmaster Mike, for all the helpful advice and suggestions. regards, Izzy

As it's rated as 12v-24v why not just test it with a 9v PP3 battery? This would show whether the controller is the problem. Izzy

You are of course completely right and I appreciate what you say. My aim is simply to understand how far it would be possible to push the operating envelope in respect of train types/sizes to give the widest possible variation potential to choose from, since I have more than enough stock that I can use, originally meant for a larger layout scenario that will now not be possible. But your reference to a GUV +BG for parcels does illustrate the dilemma I come upon regarding train length, platform B, and movement permission, since once the loco places them in the platform it will be placed forward of the starter. And I did have a thought that one/two possible moves were that a short parcels trip working could arrive via a type 1/2/3 (15/24/31), place the vehicles in B, then wait as another loco hauled 3-coach train arrived in A from say 1, couple up and haul it away to direction 2 while the train loco then took the parcels stock back via 1. All just thoughts and musings which raise questions I can't easily answer. regards, Izzy