5BarVT

Which would be missed more? Q.E.D. Paul.

Indeed, all the oil would likely have gone, leaving only the heavy metals . . . :-) Paul.

Sure it’s not shoving a failure out right road? Paul.

Can’t quite remember as it’s a long time since I was inside one of mine, but I seem to recall that the LEDs might be pre wired to the leads and thus already in their chosen CA/CC condition. But even if they are , nothing to stop you unsoldering and redoing in your chosen config. Paul.

Thank you to all for another enjoyable day out on Saturday. Late decision to attend this year as it’s no longer a 30 minute walk. Wellpark (which I have enjoyed before) just oozes Glasgow East End. The cut down Belgrove signalbox caught my attention this time. Eastfield was impressive and has just the right feel for the Hawthorn St area. I noticed the EP point machines. Donaghadee was a pre decided draw (family connections to the Ards) and the craic was brilliant. Thanks for inviting/bringing it over. Showed my wife the photos and she commented me that you wouldn’t know there had been a railway embankment through Newtownards these days. I watched Neuberg for quite a while because I was intrigued by the control system (rocrail) and it was only on the second visit I twigged they were the same layout 100 years apart. I liked the steam powered snow cutter. Kettlewell hit my interests spot on - signalled, interlocked (home built mechanical), releases to the ground frames and signalling driving the layout electrics - very well done for a self taught modeller. And a superbly engineered reversible traverser. Effingham Street with its JMRI automation was an extra bonus discussing its technicalities. Balornock Goods was educational, especially thinking ‘what if’ UK HO had caught on. Watching the exhibitor(s) managing the (child) operators on Türland was fun! Brave (!) but good investment in the future of the hobby. Very pleased I made the effort to go. Paul.

Ah. Don’t you know it wears off after precisely 362 days. :-) Paul.

Good to see you today. Now you know who it is when I’m spouting about signalling. And who to slag off when I get it wrong!!! Paul.

You almost can! It’s just a tandem turnout (asymmetric three way) with the following turnouts hard on the crossing nose. Might manage something quite close with some point trimming. Paul.

P.S. Meant to say that ITG’s idea of drawing up a wiring plan from your layout (hopefully knowing how your DCC bus and droppers are routed) would be a good feasibility study. That would give you an idea of how much effort and cost will be involved. If you discover that JMRI does not need continuous train detection, and you go with diode drop detection, Iain’s comment about back to back diodes for undetected areas means either a pair of diodes for each junction area, or, a second bus around the junction areas. Paul.

Still using current sensing, there are some designs that use a transformer design rather than diode drop. Although mine are all on the same polarity, they don’t have to be as there is no electrical connection between the rail and the sensing circuit. Will still require fiddling around under the board to separate wires and route the right ones through the toroid. Thats where it’s easier if the boards separate so they can be upended for working on and ‘too late now’ if they don’t. I use Rr-Cirkits Watchman available from Coastal DCC, supplemented by MERG DTC2 where a multiple of 8 is not cost effective. Train detection in turnout areas is an interesting topic (!). For the commercial systems (iTrain and Traincontroller) you don’t need it to make the programme work, for JMRI you would need to check. (I think I have seen a JMRI discussion that hinted that train detection sections need to be abutting for its logic to work properly.). When comparing, also beware terminology differences - in TC and iTrain a Block is the track between points where the train will stop and may have one or more train detection Sections. In JMRI, Sections are the track between the points which may contain one or more Blocks! I’ll be back with more generic thoughts later. Paul.

I was about to say exactly that! web site is https://www.brian-lambert.co.uk/ Paul.

I’ve had droopy Heljan couplings. A sliver of (say) 10thou plasticard in the NEM mount can help it stay up. Possibly the Hornby coupling is thicket and achieving the same result. Paul.

No, because there are 9 on bridges. Paul.

Depots is dangerous places! Paul.

Almost!! You can’t put the power on the C pins because of the short you describe. But, if you put the power on the NO and NC pins (linked NO to NO, NC to NC) and the motor on the C pins then you don’t get the short. Hopefully the switch will test out as per Jeremy’s table and then you can try the alternative wiring. Paul.

That’s a much better way of testing! Using both sides of the switch is making it more difficult to work out what’s happening because you don’t know whether it is the positive that is being switched, or the negative, or both. A better approach (using the kit you have) would be to wire the +ve direct to the device and use each side of the switch in turn as follows:- -ve to common, device -ve to NO, record L, C, R. Repeat with device to NC and record. Repeat both for other side of switch. Those results will show how each side is connected. It assumes there are no connections between the two sides, but we can deal with that later if necessary. Paul.

Are (were) you feeling alright? There’s some paint on them and they look almost complete. Concerned of the GWR.

I’m suspicious about the wording of the description. They are called DPDT, but the 2 position is SPDT not DPDT. Now there is a version of DPDT switch that can be made into a three position ON-ON-ON SPDT. If you put the standard ‘cross’ on that type of DPDT you will get a short in the centre position. Given that they call the 2P switch DPDT when it isn’t, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 3P isn’t a ON-OFF-ON DPDT either. I’m not keen on testing contact positions by looking for a short - there’s a good chance of damaging the contact so that it won’t work anyway once you know how the contacts are arranged. Paul.

So it has 8 connectors? Paul.

Yes and no (I think)! The diagram for your switches looks like a single pole switch with connectors for an LED - would need to see from the back to be sure. Assuming they are only single pole then:- Can you wire it like the “standard switch”? No. Can you use it to drive a tortoise? Yes. You just need (a) differently configured power supply/supplies. In the tortoise wiring instructions (http://www.circuitron.com/index_files/ins/800-6000ins.pdf ) the “standard” switch is Diagram 1. Your switches need Diagram 2 with 2 supplies or Diagram 3 with an AC supply and diodes. Hth Paul.

Next step is a 6” wide full height module (1 of three required for the full frame). I’m expecting that to be sufficiently rigid, but ply is an option if it isn’t. There’s also the option of putting extra cross pieces for strength, but I need to leave openings for getting bits in and out. Paul.

2 1/2” wide (63.5mm). From memory, the height is 151mm and when full size the height will be 271mm. Width for my 35 lever frame will be 18” 457.2mm plus 10mm each end for the prototype finish. Paul.

Turbo***. :-) It is Sunday after all! Paul.

And only a phone call away for Tuesday and Thursday. Paul.

Thanks. It suits my skills and desired outcomes. Paul.