thegreenhowards

Hi William I did this a long time ago and don’t have a wiring diagram, but I do seem to remember ringing up Gaugemaster who were very helpful. I’ve had a look at the point, and it seems that I have wired it with track buzz feeds from the toe end and then connected the frog wire from each GM autofrog to the two frogs farthest from the toe. The other frog doesn’t get any wire and seems to rely on the point blades. I don’t normally rely on the blades making contact and no doubt I will get a reprimand from sir! But in this case it’s in a yard where the only locos shunting have good stayalives, so there was no need to worry about perfect connectivity as long as I don’t have a short. The autofrog work by detecting a short circuit and switching very quickly (before the system shuts down!), so it doesn’t need to know which polarity to set - it just senses it. The autofrog will not switch on DC but if it’s set correctly for the road you can run a DC loco over it. I hope that’s helpful Andy

I have a Peco code 100 3 way electrofrog controlled by two Gaugemaster Autofrogs (ref: DCC80). It was dead simple to wire up and works perfectly. Andy

I have one very similiar which I bought from Tony. I believe it was ex Gamston Bank.

The dodgy weather at the end of last week encouraged me to get on with some inside jobs. One of them was converting this 27 into a ‘Scottish’ one with the sliding windows. My initial plan was to cut out the yellow window divider and then raid the 26 and see if its windows fitted, but they were marginally too small. So I had to make some glazing out of acetate sheet. I then used my lining pen and aluminium paint to do the sliding window frames. It doesn’t bear close scrutiny, but I think it looks OK for the 3’ rule. I also fitted the snow ploughs which give it a very Scottish look and a sound decoder, so she’s now ready for weathering and then into traffic. Andy

1. Because Peco don’t make code 100 electrofrog slips and crossings; and 2. Because I had spare insulfrog points from a previous layout which I thought I’d use up in the fiddle yard. I would make different decisions if I was building it again, but this was 8 years ago and I’m still not sure I’d trust my clumsiness with code 75 track! Also, I believe that with the very small insulated section on newer Peco insulfrog points, it’s not the insulated bit which creates pick up problems but the wheel drop into the crossing which lifts other wheels off the track. I do occasionally get pick up problems on electrofrog points. For my foray into O gauge I’ve used kit built points in the main and they are generally better. But being in the garden, I get more dirty track which creates problems. Regards Andy

I do like reliefs - the stock is much more interesting (hint hint). Is this relieving the Tees Tyne Pullman or have I missed something in between? Andy

I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. As a general rule I agree with you, but I think there are exceptions. Poor performance in the mechanism needs to be sorted out, but poor performance caused by lack of pick ups can be cured electronically. I’m thinking of a 4 coupled loco. Rather than trying to put pick ups on the bogies, I often use a stayalive which gives very smooth running much more easily. You may well ask if more than 2 pickups per side are necessary. And I would agree that they shouldn’t be. But sadly I find that they are - particularly on my garden railway, but also on Gresley Jn which has insulfrog slips and a few insulfrog points in the fiddle yard. Regards Andy

Thanks Tony, that’s more balanced! I’d certainly agree that DCC is more suited to RTR locos and complicated layouts with lots of shunting and the resultant need to isolate things. I have many kit built locos fitted with decoders but I wouldn’t deny that it can be problematic. However, for someone who loves soldering as much as you, the need for a few more solder joints is hardly a reason to avoid DCC! The issue is with finding somewhere safe to put the decoder (and speaker because sound is the best thing about DCC for me) and avoiding shorts (which all too many kit built locos seem to have from time to time). I hardly think that the inability of a DCC hater and a man who admits he has 10 thumbs to change the address is a reason for abandoning DCC. I’ll wager that next time Timara visits it will be changed in less than a minute! Each to their own, I’ll now go back to listening to my O gauge 37 thrash round Glenfinnan! Andy

Gilbert, I had problems with my NCE Powercab when I added a booster. I initially fed the programming track through the booster and I couldn’t read any CVs. I sussed it in the end but not before I’d sent a couple of chips back as faulty - sorry LAIS DCC! Try reading other locos in the same way as you tried the K2. If none of them work, then you know it’s either the controller or your wiring to the programming track. Regards Andy

Any excuse! Clockwork is even simpler, perhaps we should all revert to that! I’m not saying you made the wrong choice for LB or that DCC is for everyone, but a bit more acceptance of horses for courses would be appreciated. There’s no way I could run Glenfinnan on DC, and it would have taken tons of unnecessary wiring to do Gresley Jn on DC. All the best Andy Regards Andy

I used to use an Antex 25W iron which was OK, but quite slow to heat up. Since I moved to O gauge, I’ve bought a DCC concepts 150w temperature controlled iron, mainly for building brass kits. But I find it makes soldering to track much quicker and easier, so I now use it for everything. Probably overkill, but if it makes the job easier, why not? As BoD says, flux is essential. I think this is one of the most misunderstood issues in soldering, but it makes a massive difference. And tinning both track and wire first really helps too. I use Peco track, but I cut the plastic web away and solder to the bottom of the rail before I lay the track. This is easier and more discreet then trying to do it to the sides after laying. Good luck Andy

I’ve had a look at those photos - lovely, but -27C, ouch! In terms of my modelling that would be ‘out of the frying pan into the fire’ with those Pullmans to model! Andy

I agree with the last sentence. My plastic kits are mainly wagons or Kirk. The wagons do get broken occasionally but they’re easy enough to fix most of the time. Kirk kits are ‘of their time’, but I have found them good for building longer rakes of Gresleys and for cut and shutting to make unusual vehicles.ntheyre reasonably robust. My experience of 3D printing is mainly a few Isinglass vehicles which are not available etched, like a GNR BC and a GN buffet car conversion. I’ll be on for one of his 66’ sleepers which he’s promising soon. I also built an O gauge J69 from a 3D print. This I did drop on the floor and smashed badly. It’s repaired but needed a heavy weathering to hide the damage! Andy

I’m doing my best! The Hattons price just kept getting cheaper, so I succumbed to a couple more. The sharp eyed amongst you will have spotted a 26 as well. I was intending to run mainly 37s with just one or two 27s to represent the earlier era, but I’ve become rather fond of them while researching photos. So far I’ve just changed the head codes and fitted a decoder and ploughs to the new blue 27. The question now is what do I number them. My current thinking is: New Blue 27: change cab windows to sliding to make a ‘Scottish’ one for some variety and number it 27008. I’ll try swapping the class 26 windows over and replace them with spares if it works. Green SYP 27: This will have to be a ‘Scottish’ one as I don’t think any ‘English’ ones made it north in this livery. I will have to drill out a tablet catcher recess and do the sliding windows, so this one will go in the pile to be dealt with in due course. Blue 26: I don’t think 26s were very common on the WHL and I’ve only found one photo of one beyond Fort William - 26034 in 1975 in the Tom Noble book. This has the tablet catcher recess filled in unlike mine, so I’m not sure whether to do this one or go for one which kept its tablet catcher recess longer, like 26041. Is anyone aware of other 26s to Mallaig? Please excuse the embryonic scenery which is still wip. Andy

I agree that etched brass is the best for accuracy and produces a robust model. However 3d printing and plastic kits are quicker and easier to build. I agree that etched kits are simple enough once you’ve mastered soldering, but plastic is simpler and certainly quicker because a lot of the detail is moulded in. Speed is an important criteria if you’re trying to build up a large fleet rather than just building the kit for its own sake. Andy

Hi Steve, Yes, I went for your sheet 1039 when I ordered the full 27 (5392) from you a month or so ago. Your other suggestions look like they would have done the job. I just didn’t see them on your website. I didn’t mean to be critical of your products which are always excellent. The white head codes would clearly do a job - just not the one I wanted! I should have asked you but I just saw 1039 and assumed it was what I needed. Regards Andy

I’ve just had a nightmare changing the headcode on my Class 27. I assumed that the best way would be to remove the light box from inside and then the headcode would be a loose piece of paper which I could replace - wrong! The light box was a pig to remove being superglued (or similar) into the roof. I managed to put a screwdriver through the roof in the process of removing it! Even then the headcode is firmly attached to the back of the plastic glazing unit. I tired scraping it off with a knife and it came eventually but resulted in a few scratches. This was sorted with some fine wet and followed by T-cut. Then I realised that the Railtec transfers I had wouldn’t work because they are white lettering. They could be applied to a black painted background, but then one would lose the impact of the backlighting. Precision labels came to the rescue with a set of headcodes on translucent film. At £1.50 for a pair or £4.50 for five pairs they’re excellent value. You just cut them out, place them in the light box loose and glue the clear plastic back on with something like glue and glaze or canopy glue. For the other end and my other 27, I have just prised the clear plastic off the front of the light box with a sharp knife, and applied the fine wet and dry and T cut. I’m pleased with the result, but what a palaver! Now has anyone added a tablet catcher recess and converted it to sliding windows for a proper Scottish version? Andy

One here! I also did several catering cars and even a 3 cpt brake 3rd. All built onto old Bachmann donors. Such a cost effective and easy way of making some necessary and interesting coaches. Andy

For an indication of where the market is going it’s interesting to look at O gauge RTR which has developed from almost nothing in the last 10-15 years. There are far more diesels than steam with most of the main classes now having been produced. In steam, we have a few yucky GWR tanks and not much else! Ellis Clark’s forthcoming Black 5 is likely to be my first steam RTR purchase although I have bought a couple of small tanks to cut up for their chassis! A K2 is a long way off - I’ve bought a Gladiator kit to join my kit mountain! Andy

Gilbert, If it’s any consolation, you’re not alone. My Virgin media has been down on and off over the last two days. I lost it for best part of a week earlier this year and they tried to tell me there was nothing wrong at their end. They’re a bunch of wasters but I can’t switch as my email address is one of theirs and I can’t face changing it over! Andy

I don’t think I’ve ever finished a layout - I’m not really a completer finisher. I’m always onto planning the next one once the current one is working. Scenery doesn’t particularly excite me. Rather than finished, I think ‘exhibition ready’ might be a better way of thinking of it. I.e. technically working, reliable, and sceniced to an acceptable standard, but with some detailing left to do. Quite a lot of layouts make it that far. Andy

I looked up the 37112 video on your YouTube channel….perfect! I may have to invest in Lok programmer, although it’s expensive. Can one do the same thing on JMRI? Andy

Tony, I thought you might say that about the bogies as I know it’s one of your hobbyhorses! I have to say the length really doesn’t bother me. This picture shows the two together. Joan has the correct 10’ wheelbase bogies whereas Car No.77 has the ‘Railroad’ type which I measure at 9’6”. I challenge anyone to spot the difference at speed on the layout. Even side by side it’s difficult to tell the difference in length, although the reduced detail is apparent. What I do find annoying is the indentation by the axles which, I presume, is a relic of the dreadful Triang axles which used to protrude through the plastic. Thankfully mine have proper metal wheels. When I get round to it, I will fill and paint over these indentations. I take the point about curtains - I will paint some on. Actually the biggest issue with this rake is that the three ‘Railroad’ cars don’t have lit table lamps. I’m not a great fan of lit coaches as I tend to think that such things would not be apparent in daylight. But 7 lit and 3 unlit looks strange. So I either need to disconnect the 7 fitted ones or fit out the other three. I have bought some DCC concepts table lamps to retrofit the ‘Railroad’ examples, so will probably try that first despite my reservations as I’d rather not ‘vandalise’ my ‘super detail’ Pullmans. Regards Andy

Tony, You asked for some photos of my QoS. I did manage to find the ones I’d taken before and have restored them to their place in the Gresley Jn thread. However, these photos didn’t really do it justice, so I braved the heat in the loft this morning (it’s uninhabitable by the afternoon!) and took some more. This is the full train. The loco is a basic Bachmann model, with just coal, crew, headboard and lamps added. The cars have generally had quite a bit more work. The formation is similiar to yours - I can’t remember which CWN I used but it would have been a mid-late 1950s one. The cars are all mentioned as running on the QoS in the Ford books. First up we have Fingall and Car No.105 which form the Leeds portion. Fingall is a renamed Hornby while Car 105 is a Hornby cut and shut. The three cars 105/6/7 were ECML regulars and had different window spacing to the Hornby cars, so I had to cut up the sides and put them back together again. I wrote this up in my Coulsdon Works thread, but again, the photos have been lost. If anyone wants to see them, let me know and I’ll see if I can reinsert them. The name is a full length label from Precision Labels which helps hide the joints. Then we have Cars No. 161 and 70 - both renumbered Hornby, the former is wooden and the latter, all steel. These were renumbered with transfers as I hadn’t discovered the Precision Labels when I did these. Then we have Cars 83 and Joan, both Hornby all steel out of the box, apart from roof weathering. Then, Onyx and Zena. Onyx is a Hornby wooden and Zena is an older Hornby Railroad type, renamed with Precision Labels and fitted with SE Finecast flush glazing. And bringing up the rear we have Cars 107 and 77. Both were originally older Hornby all steel Pullmans fitted with SE Finecast flush glazing and Precision Labels’ names. Car 107 was a cut and shut on the sides and I had to do significant reworking to the roof and underframe to make it a wooden bodied variant. I started my cut and shutting with this one as I didn’t want to cut up a more expensive ‘super detail’ type until I’d proved the concept! Finally, there is the attractive end board, again from Precision Labels. I’m happy to answer any questions. Quite a lot of research went into this, but it was five or so years ago, so I may not remember it all exactly! Andy

I’ll be interested to see how you get on with changing the acceleration cvs. I’ve always shied away from that on sound chips for fear of upsetting the integration of sound and acceleration. Perhaps you could let us know how it goes? I love the weathering on ‘39. Looks very natural. Andy