thegreenhowards

A great find. It’s a shame the picture quality is so poor that some of the details are difficult to make out. That said, the photo of the ground frame at Glenfinnan is excellent and I liked the close up of the concrete overbridge between Morar and Mallaig - that could make a useful scenic break!

The chronological consistency has been sacrificed for geographic continuity which makes it hard to draw too many lessons from the stock formations. But the green and cream mk1 on a service train was interesting as Rob said. I didn’t think there were any spares of these, so would it have been just pre or post the steam season?

In terms of time frame, there’s one photo of a split box 37 with valences and round buffers (leaving Fort William towards the beginning), so I would have thought slightly earlier than 1984? When did the last valence fitted loco get ‘chopped’?

Andy

My first choice would be a class 21/29 to complement the recent Heljan Class 27. 

I rather fear that it will be a J69 as I’ve recently finished a kit built one!

Andy

I think you’ll find both the alpha meter and the back to back gauge very useful. I use both of mine a lot.

The acceleration sounds pretty good to me now. However, I wasn’t convinced by the coasting into the platform. Do you have active braking on the Accurascale chips?  I always find that works better as I can shut off completely some way out of the station and coast in until braking in a couple of phases, one approaching the points and the other half way down the platform.

Andy

Saturday please.more interesting coaching stock and more V2s.

Interesting discussion over the Heljan Newton Chambers car transporters. Personally I think it's a brave but welcome attempt to model an unusual and quite specialised prototype. I think the pricing is quite reasonable given where other new products sit, but it is admittedly quite an expense for a full train. I would have bought them if they'd been available when I was forming up trains for Gresley Jn, but instead I went for the earlier version of the same train, The Car Sleeper Limited, shown here photographed by Tony on Little Bytham (Tony, I hope its OK to use the photo - I will remove if there's an issue).

Even in this case, I waited until Hornby were flogging off their long wheelbase CCTs for just over a tenner each!

With Bachmann producing the same Newton Chambers coaches imminently, I suspect there will be a lot of these in bargain bins in the not too distant future. If they get really cheap, I may yet be tempted! 

What I would really like is the car carrying vans introduced in 1957 to replace the CCTs. They were bogied vans rebuilt from redundant ex GE 54' eliptical roof coaching stock (p215 of Banks and Carter). It's a shame that neither Bachmann or Heljan produced these instead of copying each other.

Andy

We have now started gluing in the retaining wall sections along the bare plywood cutting sides. I think it’s a massive transformation.

31 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Modesty should forbid ... but I like the second one!

 

Thanks, Gilbert

I agree. The signal’s too mixed up with the loco in the first one. Second shows both loco and signal off perfectly.

57 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

I don't know about a 'reprimand'; if it works, then that's fine, but I know nothing about 'stay-alives', 'frog juicers' or any other items in the paraphernalia associated with DCC mentioned on here of late.

 

I firmly believe in the efficacy of live frogs, and not relying on the switch-rails to transfer electricity on any pointwork. The Code 100 Peco points I used in Bytham's fiddle yards were (ostensibly) 'live-frog', but the wiring suggested seemed, at best, a half-way-house to me. 

 

Thus, I modified them............

 

 

By removing some webbing and permanently bonding (with 30Amp fusewire) the switch rails to the stock rails.

 

 

Then gapping the switch rails, so as to completely isolate the frog.

 

 

Then changing the frog's polarity with micro-switches. 

 

The result is completely-free-from-stuttering-running through the pointwork, using a system I understand.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Good morning Tony,

That is what I do on normal Peco points although with autofrogs rather than micro switches.  As Robert says the newer Peco points are easier. I just couldn’t figure it out for the 3 way.

Regards

Andy

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Shades of Don Neale's Kirtley branch over 50 years ago...

That’s praise indeed! I have a long way to go before I get anywhere near, and I don’t think my wife will allow that degree of ‘embedding’ in the garden.

8 hours ago, Softvark said:

That 37 sounds the business! Whose sound file/decoder are you using?

 

Julian

Thanks - that’s why I said crank the volume up! It’s a Legomanbiffo sound file on a loksound XL. I think the sound comes over much better in O gauge because if the ease of using bigger speakers. This has two large (45x35x20) 3W speakers in the fuel tanks.

I’ve been working on some changes to how the station boards fit into the garden, in particular I’ve dug a new flower bed for my other half and the deal is that I can have a viaduct running across it. So far I’ve half mocked something up, but the eventual aim is to have something permanent in concrete. This will be a sort of mini Glenfinnan or maybe a Arnabol.

there’s still lots of work to do to connect it into the rest of the circuit, but I’ve run a first train as shown in this video (please do crank the sound up).

https://youtu.be/mctyMsJ_4fs

The Interfrigo vans are now running smoothly after some problems. I noticed that one was always derailing while the other was fine. I tried single vans and the same one derailed. A friend then noticed that I’d put springs on one and not on the other. So four bits of sprung 0.7mm nickel silver wire later and all was fine. A lesson on the need for some springing with longer wheelbase vans.

regards

Andy

On 26/07/2023 at 09:29, ecgtheow said:

 

Good morning Andy,

 

I was interested in this as I have a Peco 3-way electro frog point to wire & although the Youtube videos showing how to do it are helpful, using 2 DCC80s should involve less wiring so I looked it up on the Gaugemaster website, but I was left confused by their wiring diagram & that the DCC & DC information is the same (I use DC).

 

It wasn't clear how the DCC80 senses what the polarity of the frog needs to be given the Gaugemaster wiring diagram. Can you explain, please?

 

THanks,

 

William

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

On 23/07/2023 at 08:33, robertcwp said:

I did hear mention somewhere of solid state things existing that work on DC but I have not identified any. The DCC Concepts item about diamond crossing wiring caught my eye as I have a dead frog diamond on my DC layout and have been thinking of relaying with a live frog one but sorting out the switching has rather put me off. In this regard, DCC is much easier.

 

Now for the revelation: I have begun work on a new layout which will be DCC. It will not replace my existing one - the new one will be much smaller. I plan to use frog juicers throughout but have read of others having problems with Peco 3-way points, of which I have one planned to go in the fiddleyard. All the 'on scene' track will be the new Peco bullhead type, where the points were designed with DCC in mind.

 

I have no immediate plans to convert my existing, and now rather old and tired, layout to DCC but if I decide at some point to refurbish it, conversion may happen.

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

On 23/07/2023 at 15:30, davidw said:

Hi Tony, the 60508 that you attribute to Andy is mine no idea to whom 60507 belongs. The boiler still sits too high and will need attention at some point. I'm tempted to approach Pdk for  a new loco body to rebuild do it. The brass, resin and white metal construction was a real pain. It runs nicely though 

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 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

May I play Devil's advocate as well?

 

Why on earth would anyone employ anything but 'live-frog' points and crossings on their model railways? 

 

I admit I did, but that was years ago when I had Tri-ang track!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

However 'masking' an indifferent locomotive's performance by using DCC (or any other 'electronic' device) is still unacceptable to me. 

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

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Andy,

 

Having just looked at some of the recent comments, 'horses for courses'? Horses where a decoder's address can't be changed, where, when I took that decoder out of 61626, the wires (in a most-untidy fashion) were stuck to the motor with masking tape; masking tape which had degraded, smearing everything with sticky goo! Goo which took me ages to remove this morning when I re-wired 61626 for resale. Is this sort of thing a necessity for DCC, or the huge gobs of solder on the pick-up pads? Do DCC-ites think that the more solder the better? Granted, 'heavy' soldering is not confined to DCC, but the end result is that I've now rebuilt the pick-up components and rewired 61626 (just two wires!), which now runs happily on DC. I wonder who installed the decoder in 61626?

 

It looks to me that (admittedly from my prejudiced viewpoint) that DCC far better suits plastic-bodied RTR locos, where provision for plug and play is now a standard. Metal, kit-built locos seem to be a potential problem area (yes, I know, dozens have been installed on the likes of Carlisle), at least in my experience. 

 

Another aspect for my never using DCC, and I admit my being dim here, is that, give or take, because I installed much (if not most) of the wiring for Little Bytham, and built almost all the locomotives, I can usually sort out any problems (especially with regard to the latter). Yes, I know Tony Gee had to fix a point's wiring once, but when he explained, I understood.

 

From what's apparent on here, poor Gilbert is in a 'hostage to fortune' situation. He admits he can't fit decoders himself (even though a highly-prejudiced Luddite can!) and his (highly-complicated?) DCC system appears not to do what he asks it to. 

 

As Gilbert has said, some things never change, and, as I dislike change, I'm happy to keep it that way. 

 

Horses for courses? My mount is an old nag, running on a point-to-point steeplechase, but at least I understand it.

 

Best regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

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

15 hours ago, great northern said:

I think the problem is with my NCE system, which the company tell me is getting due for replacement. We put in a decoder from another loco, and the K2 responded immediately when called up with that loco address. When I put it on the programming track to change the number to 1759 though, all I got was "Cannot read CV". I tried different ways, but to no avail. I'm getting things like this occasionally. I have a new powerpro on order, and will probably just have to put up with it for now. If anyone can think of anything else that I've missed though, please do tell me.

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

14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

More of the above just convinces me of my correct decision to never touch DCC! Just two wires to the motor (one from each set of pick-ups), turn a knob and away the loco goes.

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

2 hours ago, micklner said:

Yes I agree re fleet builds , luckily I do not have that problem.

 

But at the same time I find  most Plastic kits are not that good in actual detail (other than Slaters), and all are far to light and can be prone to warping if they get hot and/or badly built.

3D can be far too fragile, as I just just found out. During the recent build of mine the  Isinglass Coach fell about two feet onto a carpet and the corner shattered (luckily repairable). If it had been a hard floor it would probably have been destroyed. The Sides during the build had to be supported/braced to stop them bowing inwards even after the Roof was fitted, and at one point the floor started to sag due the weight of the whitemetal fittings used by me for the underframe. Luckily again when fitted together the floor straightened out. I would'nt like to take the floor off again as it appears to be very difficult, without causing damage at the same time .

Apparantly there are various types of Resins and Plastic that can be used with 3D Printers , they maybe stronger/flexible I have no idea. There is also little difference in the prices of Etched and 3D kits , Etched are better value at the moment.

 

 

 

That large fleet ,might end up in the bin after a short period if not enough care is taken with its build/use and storage.

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