xveitch

Would this rebuild be possible with the original motor/flywheel setup and just removing the UJ? The new space under the boiler really makes a visual difference to the model. It looks like Oxford Rail have missed a trick, especially as it looks like the Hornby version has been carefully designed to not intrude into that space. Can't wait to see what you do next

Hi All, Yet another closed station is being considered for a reopening. Wilton is a small town near Salisbury in Wiltshire and has been without a station since 1966, but the growth of the nearby city of Salisbury requires better transport links, including a new station at Wilton. The ex-SR main line from Waterloo passes through Wilton via Salisbury, going down to Exeter. The SR built their station, originally just 'Wilton Railway Station in 1859, being renamed as 'Wilton South' in 1949 and was closed in 1966. The GWR's Salisbury Branch, linking in with their main line via Westbury, also had a station at Wilton. It was built in 1856 and had one platform due to the branch being a single line. When the line was doubled in 1896, an extra platform was fitted. Again, it was renamed in 1949 as 'Wilton North'. It was closed in 1955, although it remained open for goods traffic until 1965, and the goods shed can still be seen today, albeit in the guise of a shop. That is how a town of, according to a 1861 census, 1,930 people gained two stations. Recently, a group of organisations, including TransWilts, Wiltshire Council, South West Trains and Great Western Railway (ex-First Great Western) have put forward plans to rebuild 'Wilton North', renaming it as 'Wilton Parkway'. This station will, according to one of their recent publications: "Provide new capacity for passengers to access the National Rail Network using direct trains to London, Southampton, Swindon, Bristol and Cardiff Support sustainable access to Salisbury with a highly attractive 5 minute journey time Offer a fast, high capacity rail-bus link to the World Heritage Site at Stonehenge" The plans are still very much at development phase, with Business Cases to prove and an assessment of its economic benefits to get through, but it is good to see recent developments in the UK's rail infrastructure pushing forward. Xander. http://www.twcrp.org.uk/WiltonParkway_2015_09.pdf http://transwilts.org/tw/london-yeovil/wilton-parkway http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/13796760.Designs_for_new_Wilton_Parkway_project_unveiled/ http://southwestwilts.ourcommunitymatters.org.uk/news/wilton-parkway-station-proposal-find-out-more/

Hi All, Thanks for all the comments, they are so helpful. I've just condensed the overall thoughts into a list. So toggle switches and slide pots are a bad idea because of reliability issues, with rocker switches and rotary pots being a better solution. Also, it seems that design 3 is the best case idea for this project (I'll mention Huw Griffiths' idea soon), but it would be lifted to a new level by adding a proper handle, magnetic tape for a secure lid, and to add felt to provide a softer end stop. Huw asked how a user would attach his wiring, I was personally thinking a screw "choc block" style connector due to its ease of use. This leads onto another point, location. I agree that having the connectors on the back is a bad idea, as it restricts the options the user has for mounting and is generally awkward. So where could it fit in? There are two key places with the design currently, either along the left hand side which would be easy to access, but would restrict placing any units to it's left and would not line up with the "control columns", ruining the simple, organised look that I was trying to acheive. The other option is the bottom, which is unobtrusive but also at risk of catching on something and also less easy to access if the unit will be attached vertically. I must add that the design at this point is only a basis to work from, and is definitely not set in stone, so any further ideas are fantastic. Huw also mentioned another way of designing the product, with two translucent sheets of acrylic held together by nuts and bolts. I like the adaptability of this and how it can easily become a modular system, but for several reasons I am still not sure that this will work for me: Visible circuit boards scare people who have weak electronics knowledge! After some research with the owner of my local model shop, he mentioned that his customers either have a fantastic electronics knowledge, or none at all. Of course, those who do have that knowledge are able to build their own lighting control circuit, which will mean that my product has limited attraction to them. Instead I am aiming for modellers (or any other users) who want to learn and improve. Therefore the product can be used manually or programmed to be automated (flowcharts are easy to pick up, and ambitious users can learn some programming language if they want). Also, as the connectors will be screw, the user could buy pre-wired LEDs to fit, or learn to solder some themselves. In a nutshell, I am aiming for a product whose capabilities match the users' knowledge as they learn. I really like the idea that the product will look and feel like a commercial product, and that I can look upon this process as a manufacturer would. I think this would really benefit my learning, especially as I am thinking about going into engineering in the future. And finally, this project is for my GCSE, and therefore the product needs to be complex enough so I can gain my maximum mark. Huw also mentioned that having full sized pots may not add to the product much. I think that if the product was aimed entirely at those intending to use the automation feature immediately, then this would make sense. I feel (tell me if I'm wrong!) that some users would enjoy being able to vary the lights to allow them to give a full day to night to day lighting range (like Miniature Wunderland - they were even planning to sell their own light control unit, but unfortunately it didn't get off the ground - http://www.miniatur-wunderland.com/exhibit/technology/lightcontrol/ ) but without having to program the unit. Maybe I'm trying to be all things to all people? After I've reviewed all this information on my Controlled Assessment slide show, I will be further developing the design, so any more ideas are brilliant. Thanks so much for your help and support, Xander

Thanks. I'm going to use the PICAXE range because I've used them before and our DT department uses them. The PICAXE range are also easy to program, with flowcharting and standard programming both featured on the programming software. The semi translucent cover is also an interesting idea. Xander

Hi All, I'm designing and constructing a lighting control unit for my Design Technology GCSE. The product will control several LED outputs for LED fitting on the layout (e.g. yard lights or house lights), plus a higher voltage output for a motor etc. It will be much cheaper than the extortionate Woodland Scenics "Just Plug" lighting system, yet also have a key benefit - the ability to automate the product. The product will have a PICAXE chip, which will allow the user to program and automate the product, using either flowcharting or standard programming. It will have instruction videos or booklet designed for beginners to the most advanced. The product can be operated either manually, through variable resistors and switches, or automatically, by programming the product. For my project I need to get "user group feedback", so any ideas or improvements, plus your personal opinions of the different design ideas would be fantastic. Xander

As a 15 yr old modeller - this is cool! You could also attach a vibration sensor to add further data to passenger comfort charts.