H2O

Static electricity will easily kill semiconductor devices when they are on their own, but once soldered or plugged in to a pcb the risk is greatly reduced. Hence an EEPROM is vulnerable before being plugged into a socket but very much safer once inserted.

If handling electronics it is a good idea to 'ground' yourself before working on sensitive parts by touching something that is grounded but once a decoder is installed you should be ok.  A dcc decoder (installed or not) should be no more vulnerable than an Arduino or Raspberry micro board.

Even when correctly installed a dcc decoder is operating in a fairly harsh envirnment controlling a dc motor on what can be an intermittent power supply.  When a motor turns off it can generate high voltages.  These are normally handled by using protection diodes.

Semiconductor components not soldered in to a circuit could include a MOSFET which only has 3 leads.

11 minutes ago, tubs01 said:

I feel stupid typing this, but I was dissasembling a hatchette mk1 when the weight dropped out. It was a bit dull, but when I scratched it, it was shiny underneath which tells me that it is lead. I'm now really worried, and I'm gonna be fir the rest of the week. Now I don't want to do any model work because I'm scared that my tools are contaminated with lead (I used my scissors and a file to lift the weight up so I could use the scissors to put it in the bin). Any advice is appreciated. I kniw it's not a big deal but I'm really, really worried

Be careful but don't worry too much. Lead used to be very common (e.g. lead based solder) and AFAIK as long as you don't ingest it you should be ok. Unless you are using it all the time just make sure you wash your hands, as you should after using any glues or paints etc.

Also you should get it back out of the bin as by thowing it away like that you are going to poison someone or something else. Put it in a clear plastic bag and dispose of it according to your local council requirements.

Sadly perhaps coal fired steam loco's are living on borrowed time, however as they say, foreign coal has been used before so not the end. Also AFAIK many engines in BR service were used (at least for a short while) as oil burners. So is that an economic option once the cost of conversion has been paid for? As oil is a hydrocarbon (rather than coal which is mostly carbon) it should be a bit 'cleaner' burning?

A bit OT, it is annoying when steam loco's are deliberately poorly fired to produce black smoke - I saw this done for a filming company once who wanted 'more smoke', not a very good advert for steam :-(

4 hours ago, hayfield said:

... the CoBo which I started very low sold for about £150 and the EMU for over £300, I could not believe it, they were both very play worn ...

 

Sounds like a win win situation of fully enjoying the models when you were young and getting a good price when you had finished with them :-) well done.

18 minutes ago, Il Grifone said:

RA started out as axle loading, later modified when trials/service showed things like excessive 'track bashing'.

AFAIK wheel diameter has an influence on the loading too with larger wheels being kinder to the track.  If the Co-Bo had unusually small diameter wheels this would be another negative for the class.

Wikipedia has 3' 3.5" for the Co Bo and 3' 9" for class 25. The wear limits would reduce those a bit for in-service worse case.

The West Somerset Railway PLC (PLC) and The Somerset and Dorset Railway Trust Ltd. (S&DRT) can confirm that they have opened discussions regarding a new 10-year lease for the Trust to occupy the Washford site. This follows from Washford Yard not now being required by the PLC in its entirety in the foreseeable future although the PLC will still, by agreement with the Trust wish to use the Yard from time to time during the period of the new lease. Any future arrangement will exclude the station which will revert to PLC management. This will allow the Trust to continue with their restoration and maintenance work on their rolling stock at Washford whilst at the same time making arrangements for relocation of artefacts to other sites. The Trust had already completed a strategic review of how it is fulfilling its charitable objectives. It has concluded that moving its museum items and some of its rolling stock to other locations will enhance their access by the public and broaden the appeal of the Trust.

West Somerset Railway PLC Board - Somerset and Dorset Railway Trust Board

My sympathy for those impacted by this.  Hopefully people will follow the advice and this will reduce the current rise in cases.

Another 1st world (and railway centric) problem is preserved lines who were just starting to get back on their feet.  This will put at risk the specials in the run up to xmas. As these are a big part of their income another risk to jobs and projects in this sector.

2 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

I *think* the centre road was effectively an extended crossover - the line you entered from was not the line you ended up on at the other end (ladder junction?). I think there's too much equipment where it used to be to be easy to re-instate.

From this photo that looks correct so it doesn't appear to have been a bidirectional passing loop at that time (early 60s?).

farm4.staticflickr.com/3191/2811863063_fd34530e57_z.jpg

Agree not easy to reinstate but from recent pictures it looks like there isn't anything impossible to move if they needed to put back the middle line.

Great photo's of Chelmsford and a few other places I know.  I came to Essex in the early 90's and seen a few railway changes since then.  My only visit to Chelmsford before the 90's was in about 1982 coming out of London on a 12 car EMU to cycle in Essex.

A question I have about Chelmsford station is when the centre line between the platforms was taken out, I can't remember if it was there in '82.  I'd guess it was bi-directional for fast trains to avoid slower ones stopped in the station.  Would this be useful now or is Chelmsford important enough that all trains stop there?

There were the Aveling and Porter series of standard gauge locomotives based on traction engines. AFAIK these were a bit ligher than the one off Pecket design, but it depends if you measure size by height, length, weight etc.

1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I see the WSR is the subject of another controversy, this time because the WSRA is attempting to get its list of trustees on the WSSRT.

When will these unnecessary politics stop?

Do you have a link for that story? I did a quick search but no joy. I did find a WSR official info release that Andy Forster has been temporarily (re)appointed CME, for the upcoming xmas season and reopening next year. WSR also seem to have been granted 880k from the government but not sure of the terms.

I realise this does not help the OP but for the amount DCC decoders cost (or rather how much is charged) they should have output protection built in. In other words even if you have a short circuit at the output they should not fry themselves. This protection is available in many voltage regulators (e.g. 7805) that cost less than £1.  A DCC decoder is much more complex and sells in fewer numbers but cost 20-30x as much.  Perhaps the cheap decoders could not have this (you pays yer money an takes yer choice) but to hear that the pricier ones blow is disapointing.

3 hours ago, Bon Accord said:

Interesting that the builders have chosen to include a BR AWS battery box on the running plate!

If this has been built to work under its own power (diesel or otherwise) it may need to be mainline certified if they are filming on network rail hence working AWS?

It looks very convincing, the boiler looks just right, perhaps there are some real bits on it that are scrap or life expred. Any info on who built it as I'd guess someone in UK rail preservation (probably sworn to secrecy) has been involved. If anyone knows which direction it came from that may give a clue because if it is a working (even non-steam) replica there can't be many places that could build something like that, probably for a fairly pretty price!

In principle, rather than track plan, Bath Green Park. Lots of local services to Bristol and branch services down the old S&D. There were only 2 platform faces but 4 tracks between them. I understand turn around times were tight and some trains had locos attached at the rear for reversal, although these may have been the longer distance though services between the midlands and Bournemouth. Turn around times were perhaps not as tight as the 3-4 mins mentioned here though.

After about 1962 reduced longer distance trains, but probably also a less intense timetable.

A possible Minories (ish) model using rule 1 if local services had remained into the station after '66?!

I like the washing line analogy for a ring connection. The 2 basic ways of connecting multiple circuits to a single power supply are ring and star. Star is where each circuit, or group, is separately fed from the supply. Each has their advantages and disadvantages, e.g. with the start configuration you can have different fuses so they are tailored for each group of circuits. I don't think there is a clear winner. Your plan for a ring system looks fine.

On ‎30‎/‎08‎/‎2020 at 12:25, caradoc said:

 

It doesn't have to be that way ! In Scotland, recent years have seen the re-opening of, among others, the Larkhall branch, Airdrie/Bathgate, and the Borders Railway. All three were completely dismantled, as opposed to disused or freight only lines, and two are electrified. So it can be done ......

 

Quite!  I wish the English* parliament would take heed of what has happened north of the border.

* There is, of course, no such parliament, I mean the parliament with jurisdiction on such issues in England.

On ‎30‎/‎08‎/‎2020 at 19:20, Mike_Walker said:

On the GWR the convention was to number from the Down side but, as with all such "rules", there were/are exceptions such as Bristol Temple Meads.

Bristol Temple Meads was a jointly run station by GWR and MR (later LMS). Not just the old station as from about 1880 to 1948 the running costs were split 5/8 GWR to 3/8 LMS. This might of determined platform number sequences, perhaps at other places where the GWR shared stations this was also true?

For the long drawn out process (and thus unlikely re-opening) look no further than the Portishead branch passenger re-opening.  Previously being local and having travelled on the line in the GWR 150 event I use this scheme as a bit of a bell-weather for re-opening lines.  The scheme has local backing with the council coughing up money and it has apparently a good return ratio.  Much money spent over the years but little to show for it.

Problems with each re-opening scheme are unique but the decades this re-opening has been rumbling on for shows how even a good scheme can be mired to such an extent that it effectively has little chance of happening. 

One issue for all schemes is that each stage is done, one after the other, and it takes so long to move the project forward the reports on environmental effect, traffic impact, finances etc. become out of date when the next stage is started so they have to be done again - soaking up millions in the process.  If the government are serious about re-opening lines perhaps new legislation is required to streamline (not circumnavigate) the various stages of (re)building rail lines.

For some Portishead info, and hence what can (and will) go wrong, there are many references on RMweb including:

18 hours ago, The Johnster said:

In 1960 Swindon turned out Evening Star in full lined green passenger livery, and this was by any lights a pure freight loco, but this was sanctioned and excusable.

Evening Star (and a couple of other 9Fs) went to the S&D and did many turns as a passenger locomotive, so lined green turned out to be appropriate in the end.  The 9Fs were almost too good for speed and haulage capacity by all accounts on this route :-). As it didn't need assistance (double heading) it saved cost too - but that may have not been welcome 'upstairs' on a condemned route...

I wonder if it's livery (as well as not being of GWR design) was a reason this celebrity loco was posted out to Bath MPD?

Binliner depot near Lawrence Hill station in Bristol:

http://bristol-rail.co.uk/wiki/Bristol_City_Council_Refuse_Transfer_Station

Photo on above link is from 1995 so sits in your time frame.  Earlier there was a cement and molasses traffic in the same area but I think that had stopped by the late 80's.

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I'm quite happy to deal with voltages & resistances, but selecting the correct resistances for LEDs is something I am less familiar with.

The supply I would like to use is 12v dc. I have some LEDs with a Vf (typical) 2.1v, Vf (max) 2,5v & Vr (max) 5v. Max forward current is 30mA.

I guess vR is irrelevant if I ensure the polarity is correct?

I would like to use 4 LEDs & I expect the best way is to connect them in parallel. Is this correct? If so, what resistances should I use?

Since diodes do not react like resistors & the voltage is more significant, should 4 in parallel be treated the same as 1 when deciding on a series resistor? That just doesn't seem right to me.

There are a number of ways you could configure 4 LEDs with advantages and disadvantages for each.

The most (electrically) efficient way is to have all 4 in series and one resistor.  To calculate the resistor in this case think of the 4 LEDs as one LED with 4x the forward voltage but the normal forward current (4 x 2.1V and say 20mA in the above example).  For 12V this would be (12 - 8.4) / 0.02 = 3.6 / 0.02 = 180 Ohms (but I'd use 220 or more to be on the safe side).

You could have all 4 in parrallel and 1 resistor.  For this resistor calculation think of the LEDs as having the normal forward voltage but 4x the forward current (so 2.1V and 80mA).  For 12V: R = (12 - 2.1) / 0.08 = 9.9 / 0.08 = 124 Ohms, again probably 150 Ohms or more to be safe.  Big disadvantage is if one LEDs fails the others will take more current and also fail.

You could have one resistor per LED, this is less efficient and needs more resistors but has the advantage of being able to adjust the brightness of each LED. Here the resistor value would be (12 - 2.1) / 0.02 = 9.9 / 0.02 = 495 Ohms, so use 560 Ohms or higher.

For all LED calculations use the typical values rather than maximum to make sure components last much longer.

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Portishead branch, closed 1964, line kept open for power station, station completely rebuilt 1962, claimed to be unable to meet operating costs.  Portishead-Bristol currently one of worst commutes in UK, along with Clevedon.  
 

The real culprit here, though, is the Ashton  Estate, power and privilege in everyone’s way in a 21st century ‘democracy’.

Was this posted in the wrong topic?  The Portishead branch has nothing to do with the S&D. (Edit: I think Portland got misread as Portishead).

The writer may wish to know that the Ashton Court Estate was purchased by Bristol City Council in 1959 so unsure of the background for the 'power and privilege in everyone’s way in the 21st century' comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Court

35 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Out of interest, what is generally the reason to convert from a society to a company limited by guarantee (I assume this is also what G0G is)? I remember the 009 Society also doing this a few years ago but can’t recall the specific reasons given, and outside of model railways a few other societies and charities seem to have done something similar.

I've been a committee member of both types of organisation, albeit a few years ago. I agree with Happy Hippo about company limited by guarantee.

Generally if you are doing anything a company does (taking financial risks) then that is a better option. The down side is the overheads as far as approved accounts, companies house and probably having a larger turnover that will involve being VAT registered.  This all takes time and money to sort.

For a non-company model the risk is not limited.  The last organisation I was a committee member of had a chairperson who was wise enough to dispose of as many fixed assets as possible and to limit risks in anything that was organised.

It seems the GOG is run as a privately owned company but gives out the image of an open members society, the 2 are not the same.

6 minutes ago, mikesndbs said:

OK thanks all, so there can be no justification for a S&D 7F working freight to Exeter then?

None at all as far as I'm aware.  The 7Fs were sometimes seen north of Bath on the MR lines - I'm not sure if they got to Barrow Rd.

I think the GW and S&D yards at Radstock connected via some sidings, perhaps via the very low bridge. Certainly no through connection at Radstock, perhaps until the very final days before closure(?). The only rail connections to anything else were at both ends and, in a inconvenient way, at Templecombe (with LSWR / SR).

31 minutes ago, Arun Sharma said:

Whether or not legal advice and/or action is sought, the problem is that there is now a collective memory of what has happened. Our membership does not have a collective memory 'reset' button so it is possibly unlikely that retiming the election would have any significant benefit/effect.

Hi Arun,

If the statements could be published in full (subject to being a reasonable length for all) that should help in making any election fair, which I presume is in everyone's interest.  I assume the GOG website would have room for that even at this late stage?  As I have no access perhaps the statements are already there and it is just the magazine that is being referred to?

Sadly if members are unhappy with how the election goes they may have to resort to voting with their feet.

:-(