highpeak

Dr "Two Sheds" Gerbil-Fritters, I presume?

It's always annoying when you have to undo work that took a while to complete, sorry about the brake rigging. Sometimes kit instructions are not the greatest guide. But the news on the health front surely outweighs that! Hope you continue to do well!

I spent a number of years as caretaker at a streetcar museum, living on site. Most of the yard area was gravel, which my cat Marmelade did not like to walk on. She got quite adept at walking along the rails, switching tracks to get where she wanted to go. The museum offered guided tours through the carbarns, and occasionally Marmelade would tag along to see the the job was done properly. Unfortunately on occasion she also caused a bit of alarm by trotting past the visitors with a big fat mouse in her mouth. I don't think my current cat Lulu, who is 10, can climb up onto the benchwork to inspect the layout. She does like to work with me in the basement, playing with bits of wire or what have you that have fallen to the floor. She also has an uncanny knack of knowing when I am on my hands and knees searching for things that have fallen off the workbench and shows up very quickly to assist in the search. My dog has no interest in any of the modeling activities and is content to lie on a dog bed next to the layout, waiting till work is done for the evening and he gets to go out.

It's pretty much as Jamie said. There are some sketches (and frankly some are sketchier than others) at http://www.nmra.org/member/sites/default/files/datasheets/Prototyp/D9o.PDF which may help. These two pictures might help illustrate the relationship between the brake lever that is actuated directly by the cylinder and the lever that is attached to the hand brakes. In this photograph, the lever on the left is operated by the cylinder, the lever on the right is connected to the handbrakes. Winding up either handbrake will cause the right hand lever to pivot such that the end closest to the camera will move to the right, pulling via the chain on the left hand lever (giving the same effect as the cylinder piston pushing on that lever. Here is the cylinder attached to the left hand lever in the first picture, you can also see the chain that connects the two levers. Sorry the pictures aren't the greatest, it was hard trying to get a good angle on some components.

It's a bit off-topic but illustrative of this point: if you look at National Weather Service forecasts in the US, there is a link marked "Forecast Discussion". That will show you the reasoning behind the forecast and the degree of confidence the forecaster has in the interpretation of the different models. While it's pretty heavy with weather jargon (a lot of which has links to definitions), there's enough there for the lay person to gain some insight into what went into the forecast. Sample: http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&issuedby=OKX&product=AFD&format=CI&version=1&glossary=1&highlight=off

The new owners of the MM&A have chosen a name for their road: Central Maine and Quebec. http://bangordailynews.com/2014/02/14/business/new-owner-new-name-mma-to-become-the-central-maine-and-quebec-railway/

Some updates on recent developments: An interesting article on MM&A's safety record as regards securing trains at [/url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mm-a-railway-had-repeated-brake-violations-on-the-books-1.2534131[/url] Meanwhile the Portland Press Herald reported that lawsuits are starting to be filed by various parties involved: http://www.pressherald.com/news/Maine_rail_bankruptcy_likely_to_spawn_more_lawsuits.html Cases against the various oil companies involved might be bolstered by some fines levied against oil companies for incorrectly representing the nature of their product http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/business/energy-environment/3-companies-fined-for-mislabeling-crude-oil-in-rail-transit.html?_r=0. This might be useful material for a lawyer but I think MM&A might have a hard time convincing anyone they would have done anything differently had they known more. Some motive power has moved off the MM&A to other RailWorld properties and locomotives that were pretty much junk are being cut up at Derby (source: various posters on railroad.net). Fortress Investment reportedly paid somewhere around $15 million for the road. In 2003 the transactions that led to the formation of the MM&A totalled $55 million, and in the 10 years following around $110 million was invested, including a $34 million FRA loan for track rehab. Taking into account money raised when some of the road was sold to Maine DOT or Irving, the loss in value over 10 years comes to around $71 million. (source: post on railroad.net by a pretty savvy individual) Helluva way to run a railroad. (railroad.net posts are in the MM&A sub-forum which is part of class II regionals)

Most kits make little or no provision for an accurate representation of the way in which brake system components were attached to cars. It can also be a trial to get them all to sit at the right height to run piping or rods properly. I offer some pictures I took of the underneath of a MEC caboose in Pittsfield ME for ideas as to how you might represent the mounting of the bits and pieces. I think I would probably attach the components to the floor via some sort of discreet pin arrangement and then make a cosmetic bracket.

If the crew isn't doing the Kadee-shuffle to clear the crossing then they deserve to be written up. The other options Jim Mansfield suggested (in the January 1978 issue of RMC) were: - timber infill and the remains of a shed where the track crew kept a handcar - burying the magnet under foliage. The problem with that is that the magnet has to be set lower than spec for clearance, he solved that problem by using two magnets super-glued together. The magnets are aligned so the poles match and are clamped until the glue sets. With the more powerful magnetic field he was able to position the magnets 5 thou below the rail head giving clearance for the foliage. The way he did the crossing solution, and it wasn't a public grade crossing, just timber in-fill such as might be used by the railroad to get road vehicles over the tracks, was to mask off the central third of the magnet and paint a wood-grain finish on the outer portions, then remove the masking and paint the middle portion. The end result looked quite convincing.

One possibility would have been to have incorporated the magnet into the grade crossing. I think it was Jim Mansfield who hid a magnet by painting it like a grade crossing. I think another thing he came up with was to disguise it as part of a spilled load.

I don't think anybody who models to some standard other than OO or who makes their own track is really opposed to the idea of some better-looking track being available ready to lay. I believe most if not all of the commentary is intended to reveal where the project might run into difficulties, either in being able to produce the product at a realistic price or in being able to come up with a specification that will appeal to the widest market. And therein lies a bit of a problem. There seems to be some consensus on some aspects of what the product should be but not enough to tool up for it. It all reminds me a bit of a letter Cyril Freezer wrote to MRJ (issue 62 back in 1993). He recalled Sydney Pritchard looking at the issue of Model Railway News that had the first articles on what would eventually become the P4 standards, throwing it on the desk and exclaiming "It's no use making track for these people, they don't know what they want." If I have missed the post that managed to come up with the production spec, then I apologise.

They (the Rams) really were dire that season. It was a blessed relief when that season ended, not that there's been much to cheer about since then for that matter. Still, that sorry league record goes nicely with the worst ever FA Cup final defeat for an ignominious "double". I have a DVD of that season's match against Everton at Goodison Park, worth watching occasionally to see just how bad the "best league in the world" can be, Everton managing to lower themselves to Derby's level.

Some interesting details on the development of the locking partition bar (or at least one version of it) are at http://books.google.com/books?id=_oE-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=taite+carlton+cattle+wagon+partition&source=bl&ots=edTOHHhmp6&sig=grgsDAl3jYR9gSXXJbSkW5WO-Mo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KSXfUtnZNJfLsQTfwoL4BQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=taite%20carlton%20cattle%20wagon%20partition&f=false The firm of Taite and Carlton were based in London and appear to have been agents for a wide variety of devices http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Taite_and_Carlton Connecticut is getting heavy snow tonight, a chilly 11F, a good night to be doing some modelling (or mucking about on the internet researching cattle wagon partitions).

The bridge really does capture the look of the real thing. Anyone familiar with Millers Dales should recognise it immediately, which I think is as good a test of modelling as any micrometer would ever be.

Further browsing on the Railway museum site shows this picture http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/photo?group=Derby&objid=1997-7397_DY_9164 which not only shows a partition in the wagon but suggests that contrary to my earlier statement, hay seems to have been placed in the wagon, at least it looks like some is sticking out through the slats at the near end of the wagon and the caption suggests that feed was placed in the wagon.

According to "British Goods Wagons" by Essery, Rowland and Steel, the insides were washed down and limewash liberally applied. The book notes that the use of limewash had been discontinued for the past 20 years. The authors' foreward was written in 1969, so it would seem that limewash went out of style after WW2. The authors speculate that it was replaced by some other less noticeable disinfectant. For a pre-war wagon the interior should probably be a dirty white with dribbles of the stuff on the outside. Geoff Kent in vol 2 of his 4mm Wagon trilogy published by White Swan suggests that limewash fell out of favour around the time of the grouping (1923). This picture might help: http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/photo?group=Derby&objid=1997-7397_DY_9165 Note that the wagon is equipped with screw couplings and extended buffers. The screw couplings would help give the cattle a bit better ride than the typical loose coupling. The book I have quoted notes that some cattle wagons were fitted with vacuum brakes and through steam pipes as cattle were sometimes conveyed by passenger train in the pre-war period. From the same source, b.y 1887 there were three sizes of cattle wagon in use in England and Wales, and different rates applied to each type. The movable partition was introduced so that large wagons could be reduced to the medium or small size, avoiding having to build different types of wagon. The different floor lengths were 13ft 6in, 15ft 6in and 18ft. Nice work on the wagons! Painting is where progress usually grinds to a halt for me, I don't get along well with the airbrush. Those wagons look pretty good, traffic-worn but not filthy. I'm not sure there would be hay on the floor as that might make the floor slippery especially when it got wet. The book is silent on that matter though.

I think Fast Tracks just does direct sales. I live in Connecticut, they came to the big show in Springfield MA once but I've just deal with them via the internet. Service from Canada to the US has always been very fast.

Post 937 on page 38 is a summary of the story so far by the originator of the thread.

I think the use of laser-cut plywood for the Bullfrog is down to Fast Tracks owning a laser cutter! They started with laser cut tie bases for turnouts (which I think Brian Lewis also tried out when he owned C&L) and were probably casting around for other track-related items to make. The machines go together pretty quickly, but the main reason I linked to the instructions were to see if anyone thought the ball bearing/spring locking method might be adaptable to a smaller unit that could go underneath the stretcher bar in place of the current Peco spring module. I was thinking of something that would be a clip fit. It would require space in the baseboard, but then so does the Peco solenoid. This would be smaller than that. Of course, you don't need this if you are going to depend on some form of machine to actuate the turnout, but I was pondering whether you could provide something that would be close to the "open the packet and lay it" option that Streamline provides while avoiding the clunkiness of that spring. I suspect you wouldn't be able to make a stretcher bar that would be strong and rigid enough to deflect the ball bearing against the spring, but I figured I'd share the Bullfrog as I doubt they have bothered trying to market it in the UK.

The Bullfrog switch machine by Fast Tracks http://www.handlaidtrack.com/v/vspfiles/documents/ug22.pdf is also quite capable of switching flexible points and maintaining mechanical alignment. I don't know whether it could be miniaturised and used as an alternative for the Peco spring arrangement. It is a very easy device to install and a bit less expensive than the Blue Point machines.

I wouldn't say this would win any awards but it makes an awkward job a bit easier: It's a little tool I made out of a scrap of styrene and a piece of aluminum tubing and it's used to drill the holes for a Bullfrog switch machine's two mounting screws. The tubing fits through the hole that is drilled in the baseboard for the actuating rod of the switch machine, the jig is aligned so that the machine will end up roughly at right angles to the stock rail and the two holes for the screws are drilled through the guide holes. Trying to do that underneath the benchwork is a bit difficult since you can't see through the plywood to be certain of the alignment of the turnout. For those not familiar with the Bullfrog, it's a laser-cut plywood kit that makes up into a switch machine complete with micro-switch for power routing http://www.handlaidtrack.com/BullFrog-Manual-Turnout-Control-Unassembled-p/bf-0002.htm. Usual disclaimer applies, just a satisfied customer.

Railway Age has an article about crude oil volatility and some questions about the Canadian investigation: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/regulatory/controversy-surrounds-lac-megantic-crude-oil-test-data.html

I coach a couple of women's soccer teams (Over 30 and Over 55) and none of the women I work with have ever made fun of my railroad hobby. In the US you usually have to clarify a bit what exactly you do, because for most people the image that comes to mind is Lionel tinplate. But the general response is positive. My girlfriend got a bit upset when I went off to the last show on my own. She enjoys the big show in Springfield MA and appears to be genuinely happy if I come across something that I have been looking for. I feel a bit sorry for those whose partners are hostile to the hobby. How often is that actually a sign that something else is awry with the relationship? And as for the general idea that in Britain you have to keep the hobby somehow secret, I think that's a really screwed up attitude on the part of the rest of the population!

Martin Wynn addressed the matter of scale/gauge compromises quite succinctly on the old forum at http://rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9849&sid=028a72f195cc1ec99cc9852080cffd18. It doesn't really matter what scale you choose, if you want a correct scale/gauge combination you are more or less forced to follow the various Proto/n standards, at least where steam engines with splashers or outside cylinders are concerned. Diesels would not force you down that road, but the design of most steam engines whether British or US presents a problem, and if you can't live with the stricter standards and all that they involve, then you either end up making some bits of the engines wider (the HO compromise) or the track a bit narrower (the OO compromise) than the corresponding scale dimensions. As an illustration of the HO compromise, I checked my Broadway Limited Light Mikado. I put a digital caliper across the cylinders and it measures a shade under 11' across, the Maine Central diagram quotes 10' across the cylinders. The cylinders stick out past the running board, whereas they should be slightly inboard based on a frontal photograph I looked at. The only way to avoid it would be to use scale wheels and much closer tolerances on the valve gear. And nice big radius curves to get the whole thing around. Now, if the wheels around at the dawn of OO had been a bit finer, would the scale have stayed at 4mm and the gauge been closer to scale (approaching the original EM perhaps) or would the gauge have stayed at 16.5mm and the scale been something like the Trix 3.8mm/foot that they appear to have used for some stuff? Or would it not have mattered?

There seems to be a general consensus that for whatever reason Peco are unlikely to develop the product people are looking for if for no other reason than it would to some degree cannibalise their existing sales. But what of the companies that have raised their game with locomotives and rolling stock? Hornby make track, do they serve markets other than those which model UK prototypes? And at least their predecessor companies have a track record (sorry) for changing the product if you go back a bit. Standard begat Series 3 begat Super 4 and so on. The discussion has focused on Peco, and that's reasonable given their dominance of the market, but might one of the other manufacturers be a prospect for changing the game?