47137

There must be something akin to madness to buy a brand new model, which is available with a decoder fitted, and proceed to take it to pieces. But thanks ever so much for posting the photo! - Richard.

It was still there yesterday! Unfortunately we were sitting near the back of the train coming home (a 360 Desiro). I tried the shot with my phone as we pulled away but we were going too fast by the time we went passed it. - Richard.

I don't have a J15, but the photos online suggest its wheel tyres are thinner (and the plastic inserts correspondingly larger) so I suppose the shininess of the sides of the tyres is less obvious. Perhaps a chemical blackening process would help on the Heljan tyres. I'm looking at DIY cold blackening: Blackening uses a chemical compound that clings to the surface of machined metal (in all the nooks and crannies). It creates a porous base that bonds chemically with the workpiece surface. In cold blackening, that chemical compound is copper/selenium (CuSe). A while ago I had some Tillig flexi track which was chemically coloured (I don't know the process), a dark brown colour. This was nickel-silver rail. The coating was electrically conductive but you could not solder to it. I restored the shininess of the running surfaces with very fine wet and dry paper, used wet. It's work remembering, shunter wheels can get shiny from oil deposits, but the low speeds won't allow the built up of the bulk brake dust seen on main line diesels. So some semi-gloss, very dark grey paint may give a suitable effect. To be honest, I'm happy with the wheels and indeed the whole model - I just found all the sand pipes. Edit: Carr's do a range of metal blacking products. - Richard.

Sorry you've lost me here! The wheels look like they were moulded specially for his model and they look much like the real ones to me. If this was a kit for the same money.most likely it wouldn't have any wheels at all - I think its cheering how prices are still this low compared to Continental models. Now to get mine run in :-) - Richard.

Mine arrived in the post today and exceeds expectations. My layout is 'down' for more construction so the loco has only run in the fiddle yard and on a rolling road today, but it seems well made and a lot of character. The wheels seem commendably fine which is good because they are quite prominent on this design, and the cab lifts off if you want to put in a driver, which seems worthwhile with so much glazing. My opinion of Heljan really is a whole lot better than a few years ago (I sold off my railbus on eBay) - the 05 is another very good model. Edit: mine is a blue one from Hattons, who reported nine of these in stock on Wednesday and now seem to have sold out. Popular. - Richard.

I've noticed Hattons are already showing one of the versions as "limited stocks" - I've got my order in! - Richard.

Andy, I've never met Arthur, but we have exchanged a few PMs and it does seem we are equally cheesed off by the same thing. If you will excuse me replying on my own (without asking Arthur) I think straight away of this topic: Minimum radius for industrial sidings in 00-SF. A chap asked an innocent if possibly slightly naive question, and you waded in with the second reply: Since 00-SF automatically causes a greater minimum radius restriction, why not use plain 00. Tight radii with RTR is one of it's main features. If the section is going to part of a larger layout, you are bound to get larger engines entering the section occasionally. So trial and error has to include those size locos as well. No one in their right mind builds 00-SF plain track, but you launched your offensive with the most confusing reply you could manage ("a greater minimum" and "why not use plain 00") at the earliest opportunity. By the end of the whole topic, you had managed to move on to self-guarded frogs - as if a first-time track builder would want to try such a thing! I don't want to come across as a prig, but I do try to post constructive posts which might help other modellers. I've stopped posting in the hand-built track forum (except here) because I am totally fed up with being trolled, ridiculed and put down by ignorant, uniformed, twisted and deceptive posts made by a couple of people who never offer examples of their own work, but would rather come across as competing members of a faux standards board. Is that enough for you? - Richard. Edit: Addendum: Perhaps the worst thing is that by 11:30 today, two people (not including Arthur) have found themselves voting this post as a "like". That's a pretty poor thing to happen for a post which no-one (including me) should feel the need to write in the first place. - Richard.

So I suppose it's reassuring to conclude, your repeated bad-mouthing of 00-SF is founded on ignorance and prejudice? - Richard.

I do want one of these - but I hope the mechanism is more "128" (to be honest, near perfection) than "14" (too much sideplay) or railbus (heavily over lubricated) ... the selfish question is whether to order it now, and post the pictures of it as a public service, or wait for someone else to do the same. - Richard.

OK thanks for this. I was wondering, if the crossing was made from steel, it could have some locating pegs to protrude downwards into the sleeper base, and a neodymium magnet buried into the base to hold it down. I would not have a use for 00-P, but the technology might allow an upgrade of Setrack points to 00-BF. - Richard.

How will this system fix the replacement crossings onto a commercial track base like Peco, which is rigid polythene? - Richard.

There's nothing wrong with demonstrating anything, but expecting a buy-in for a demonstration as a new standard is a completely different matter. As far as I can see, 00-P would suit a finescale modeller of the Middleton Railway or the Penydarren Tramway, but such a modeller will be building their track from scratch to preserve the look of the original railway. I suppose they could set up an oval of Peco track to use to run in their models. Apart from this, 00-P it would suit a modeller with a P-87 or similar layout who fancies running some modern 00 RTR. Nothing wrong with this, probably a bit oddball in some people's eyes, but not the basis for a new standard. - Richard.

I suggest 00-P is a farce, dreamt up to make a cover for a faked misunderstanding of 00-SF which has finally fallen into public view. - Richard.

What would be a sensible length for a cassette, to hold the 4-coach model plus 12 mm foam at each end? No back seat in the Mazda but there is a parcel shelf and a boot. - Richard.

I realise this is an international forum, and some modellers outside the UK may have very specific objectives. The present options of 00, EM and P4 give us some choice between interoperability, ease of construction and realism, but 00-P doesn't seem to have much of any of these. So in the UK, 00-P seems like DAB radio - a solution to a problem which doesn't exist. - Richard.

I have probably done everything that I can with the TinySine relay board. I have one of the eight relays unused at the moment, but I have ideas for an extension to the layout, this will usefully have one turnout and will use up the spare capacity. The range of the Bluetooth module (plugged into the relay board) lets me sit in the living room below the room with the layout, switch all the motors simultaneously and listen to the noise they make. So I can do a sort of manual soak test of the motor linkages sitting in front of the TV. The RF link drops out if I take the phone into the garden, or indeed go out(!) but the relay board holds its settings and when you tell the app to recreate the link it interrogates the relay board for its present settings and retrieves them. Ergonomically the arrangement is not at all bad. It's a lot better than pacing up and down some scale-length 00 station at an exhibition, hunting for wire-in-tube levers. I would prefer tactile switches instead of an Android screen (momentary push buttons would be fine) and I would like some kind of "route clearing" functionality whereby setting a turnout clears down the last route to the default power-on state. I'd like to keep control of "traffic" separate from "traction", even tho' I operate the layout on my own. I have memorised the seven (or eight) buttons so it's hard to justify a "soft" mimic diagram for control, even tho' I fancy trying to code one. It would be better to have mechanical push buttons on a physical panel. It would be extremely easy to hard-wire the Tortoise motors to a physical mimic diagram. I am running the motors from a split supply (+12 / 0 / -12 V), so two LEDs connected in anti-phase in the common wire to the motor will show the state of the motor. The motor winding provides the dropping resistance! The LEDs could be the "LED lighting strips" you buy by the roll nowadays. The mimic diagram could be hung on the wall behind the layout, while you sit in the armchair with the phone in your hand. - - There are two ways to control a model railway layout. On my last layout "Castell y Bwrdd" I had an interlocked lever frame and an arrangement very close to the real thing. This was a very simple track plan. It satisfied me to build it and to show it to visitors at exhibitions, but I want something more model-orientated for my new layout. I'm not too keen on the JMRI at the moment ... it looks like hard work to get working :-) - Richard.

Here is a photo of the relay board wired up, I took this yesterday just before I fixed the rear profile panels onto the baseboard: The foam board is quite good for cable management. - - When you have the TinySine USB adaptor (my last post), you can change the factory configuration of the Bluetooth module. You have to take the module out of the relay board and put it into the USB adaptor. Move two DIP switches on the module. Connect the adaptor to a PC USB port and run up the utility software from TinySine. Make the config changes. Power down the module, reset the switches and return it to the relay board. This is very easy to do but you do need the USB adaptor, you cannot do this with the module installed in the relay board. You can change the device ID string, password and baud rate. I set the device ID to the name of the layout and kept the default 9,600 baud. So when the freebie Android app is connected to the layout, the screen now looks like this: After you have made one successful connection, the Bluetooth module appears in the app's list of its previous pairings: And, if you look around before pairing, your other Bluetooth devices can find it: I am sure some members will see all this as intellectual m*st*rbtn, but it's not much different to putting the name of the layout onto a control panel with a bit of Dymo tape. I'll wait and see who hacks the layout at its first show. - Richard.

The USB adaptor arrived from China today, 12 days after placing the order - seems good service to me, especially for only £3.40 P&P. The board has header sockets for the Bluetooth module, a USB socket, and five solder pads: 5V Gnd Rst Tx Rx so it looks as though you could use this board (with the module) to turn an existing RS232 device into a Bluetooth client. Hmm. Edit: or a host. Either is possible. - Richard.

I guess I have fallen on my feet here because I am running the layout (including the relay board) from the UPS I use for the computer in the office. To be fair, a Tortoise motor stays in its requested state if the power fails. So the problem with stock fouling point blades will happen when the power is restored, all the relay contacts are in the off position, and all the points move to their normal routes. In fairness, I think we could expect some diversity of point positions. I hope so because this will even out the load on the split rail DC supply to the motors. Analytically, during "normal operation" (meaning, running one train at a time and with a purpose, and not trying out every turnout), the largest number of turnouts which need to be reversed for any single movement is three. This is one of the routes from from end to end along the front of the layout. For me, the longest imaginable train can only bridge two of these sets of point blades. However, this argument is very much tailored to my own layout. Momentary power failures will be a headache, longer-term ones will be easier to deal with. The simplest solution for an exhibition might be to take along a small UPS. - Richard.

You can save relays by working points in tandem. For example 2a and 2 (trap point) and 7a and 7 on my layout: If I was pushed, I could work 3 and 4 from one relay, and even 6 with 7 and 7a. As it stands, I have one spare relay (number .8.) which will work one point on a leftwards extension. If the extension had a run-round loop or a kick-back siding the two points could be worked in tandem. Point x is only for use at exhibitions and doesn't need a motor, and the one point on the fiddle yard is worked by a reed switch tripped by the turntable there. So all in all, I can have 12 points on the whole layout and be happy with 8 relays. The approach using the relay board doesn't extend very easily. I think for more than 8 relays I would investigate some kind of bus-based system which addresses relays individually. I am not a great fan of bespoke electronic hardware because it makes maintainability and documentation difficult. As it stands, if the Bluetooth module fails one day I can use a USB connection, and if the relay board fails I can pull it out and rewire with 8 SPDT toggle switches. I forgot to mention, if you want to power the relay board from the layout power supplies, remember to budget for a +5V regulator. - Richard.

I bought the kit directly from the TinySine web site and the payment was just under £47 including the postage. I was impressed by the level of service - as though I would get the same treatment if I wanted 500 boards instead of just the one. I run AVG anti-virus free under Win 7, which has no problems here although it does detect the rmweb as a source of viruses from time to time! I haven't worked out whether the board is aimed at hobbyists or the OEM home automation market. It seems to be a "well rounded" sort of thing, it works and I can't think of anything to add without spoiling its universality. It would be nice if you could download the source for the freebie app but I did find something called "Jad v1.5.8e" which has returned 127 files in 27 folders. I installed the Android SDK under XP most of three years ago and it was so long-winded, and my lack of Java knowledge was so overwhelming, I produced a "hello world" app and vowed never again. However, if some of these 127 files can be tweaked - for example, to do add the route clearing functionality I have described - and put back together - solved. I still have the XP box stowed away! The control protocol does include a command to get relay states, this returns a byte where bit set = relay on. So it is possible for any app (or a Windows .exe for that matter) to initialise itself to match the relay board. - Richard.

The module has now been in service for two weeks and has performed faultlessly. When the board powers up, the Bluetooth link is always down and all of the relays are de-energised. So I have arranged the wiring from the board to the point motors so that in these circumstances, each turnout is set to its 'normal' route. Switching a relay 'on' then reverses the turnout. The Bluetooth link is always initiated from the control device. I am using my Android phone with the TinySine freebie app. If the link is broken (typically by taking the phone out of range) the link drops out (and must be remade manually) but the relay settings remain. During the link creation process, the board sends the state of each relay to the app. It is impossible for the controller and the board to get out of sync with each other. The only real drawback is the communications from app to board is unidirectional. Having wired the track for DCC, it has occurred to me I could use IR detectors to switch trailing turnouts to avoid a derailment. For this level of sophistication I would be looking towards some kind of bespoke solution to manage the relays and the IR detectors - which would take away all of the simplicity. I am using seven relays, not six as per my original post. I decided to motorise a turnout for a siding which I had intended to be a local lever. Using the freebie Android app, I memorised the seven point lever numbers straight away. So the idea of a mimic diagram is a bit of a luxury. I do fancy the idea of some kind of route-clearing functionality, whereby setting one turnout returns unrelated turnouts to their 'normal' position. This makes me look towards doing something in Java for the Android platform rather than a bespoke hardware control panel with an Arduino. The only real snag with the phone is losing the link when the phone rings and I wander away from the layout. Perhaps I should buy a small tablet. The Bluetooth module identifies itself as 'BluetoothBee' with a pre-set password. You need a USB adaptor to change these details and to change the baud rate. I've ordered up one of these boards, partly for engineering satisfaction but also so I can set the ID to match the name of the layout. Probably pure vanity I'm afraid, but it might start discussions at shows if anyone is scanning for Bluetooth devices. So there - a working wireless remote control system for a layout, independent of the track controller technology, with off-the-shelf hardware, no programming and even no soldering to the board! - Richard.

Hi Alan, This is the kit I bought: http://www.tinyosshop.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=141_144&product_id=371 The kit contains the relay board, the Bluetooth module (which you have to plug into the relay board), a mains power supply for the +5V to drive the board and a Bluetooth dongle to plug into a USB port. The power supply is auto-ranging for the mains voltage but has US prongs so you need a shaver adaptor for the UK. So I first tried out the module in the bathroom, before I found a plug adaptor in Poundland :-) I went for the budget USD $4 delivery service and the kit arrived in six days, packed in a sturdy box. The value was written on the package so no customs duty to pay. Sorry for this rather tardy response, I simply didn't notice this post 6 minutes before the post after it. - Richard.

Not really - the Met loading gauge is more generous than BR, and S stock is wider than main line stock. If these are true scale models, they will foul some "surface" model station platforms. Perhaps someone can post details of the routes used for delivery of the trains over Network Rail. - Richard.

Experience suggests it is best to just do things, and then ask for forgiveness afterwards - Richard.