highpeak

I was leaning towards the NCE set up, based on some internet research and reading their manuals available on their web site. Looking at the locomotives I have, there are enough diesels that fit the period that are either already DCC fitted or at least DCC ready to get something up and running quickly. Steam would be a later addition anyway, adding a turntable and building the Bartlett roundhouse kit are going to take way longer than mucking around with a decoder!

Once again I thank the messengers though the message is not quite what I had hoped for. It seems that if I opt for DCC then my 2-8-2 will belong in the DCC-ready group rather than DCC equipped, a badly behaving big engine in a small yard is not what I'm looking for. I fully concur with JWB's point about needing to experiment. I have quite a pile of experiments in fields such as track and tend to fall prey to indecision as to which way to go. I had rather hoped this decision would be a bit more clear-cut, especially as this is quite an expensive area of the hobby. Keith's suggestion to remove all the electrickery and make it a DC engine has its appeal, but the flexibility of DCC also has its attraction, so I'll be mulling this over for a while. No huge rush as my layout only exists as doodles on paper at the moment.

Are you saying that even with a DCC controller the performance of the engine is still not going to be particularly good? Since all I have room for is a yard-to-storage kind of layout, good slow speed control is essential, the only time it would ever see any kind of speed is on a rolling road for running in.

For me, this party's just beginning as I look at doing a bit more than just tinkering with resin and etched brass kits, and I think you've pretty much summed up the state of affairs, Prof. The question now seems to have become whether to remain in the world of DC, with another controller such as the Tech 6, or whether to move into DCC. I'm open to either, and took a quick inventory of the locos that would be used on any layout I might build. They range from apparently already DCC fitted to DCC ready to pre-DCC, but new enough and fairly commonplace so shouldn't present too many problems. But there are also some probable headache cases: I have a couple of old Blue Box Athearn engines (GP7 and SW7) that I would want to run mostly for nostalgic purposes as they were my introduction to US railroads. I also have three B&M engines from the 70s (two PFM B-15s and a Sunset K-8) that have open-frame motors, along with an MDC ten wheeler that is slowly being hacked around to vaguely resemble a MEC O class. From my readings so far on DCC (and I confess to being a total novice) I understand that the power feed to the brushes must be solely via the decoder. But I read somewhere that open-frame motors are "decoder killers". Is that because those motors are usually mounted so that one brush grounds to the frame and is thus a problem, or is there something inherent in that type of motor that doesn't work well with a decoder?

That, coupled with the fact that the controller has a current leak and so doesn't really shut off power until you turn it off, explains that odd behaviour. Faced with a clear need to catch up with the 21st century, I am now pondering which route to go: stay DC or bite the bullet and look at DCC. I don't need to rush into anything since I am still doodling layout designs, but clearly I need to make some changes. Once again, thank you for all the replies, they have cleared up a lot of what were to me quite odd things.

I took a look at the controller when I went home at lunch time, it's a Controlmaster I. I think Tech IV came out around the same time, maybe why I got confused. Anyhow, given that the controller isn't up to the job, I will need to part with some cash for a new one and will take a look at the Tech 6.

I will try the business of trying to get the whistle to blow as you describe. That would make sense, because one snag with the old MRC controller (I think it's a Tech IV or something, I bought it way back in 1980 when I moved over here) is that it is leaks enough current for low-current motors to still be energised and, in some cases, continue to move the engine, even if almost imperceptibly. So if the engine "thinks" it's still moving and operating the direction switch is intended to operate some function of the sound module while moving, then it follows that it won't change direction. Off isn't actually off with some stuff. I sense that I am going to need a new controller, which opens up a major can of worms for somebody like me who was quite happy with an old Hammant and Morgan Duette! Thanks to all who have responded. My modelling has for years just been fiddling around with rolling stock and structures rather than actually building any kind of layout, so I am way behind on developments in the electrical/electronic world.

The box says something about Paragon Series 2 (you can tell I really researched this one). It's the kind of thing that happens when something appears that is fairly close to a Maine Central steam engine, they had a small group of USRA Light Mikes, though the standard MEC Mike was quite different. But other than a couple of P2K switchers that would only really be seen at Waterville or Rigby, this is about the only game in town other than some heavy duty butchery to end up with only a rough approximation of a MEC engine. The idea of stripping all the circuitry out has some appeal, though I'll probably spend some time with it on a rolling road first per Ian's suggestion. One thing that really puzzles me though is why the direction changeover switch makes no difference to what it's doing and changing direction requires turning the controller off altogether.That doesn't seem to make sense, and nothing else I have does that so I don't think it's my ancient controller.

On an impulse I bought a Broadway Limited light mikado at the Springfield show last weekend. Tonight I put it on my short test track and was frankly very disappointed. First, the sound system annoyed me to the point I had to work out how to disconnect it. I removed the tender body and unplugged the speakers. Peace at last. However, the running qualities left a lot to be desire. My power controller is admittedly an old MRC unit, but it works fine with everything else I own. This loco seemed to have a mind of its own, a sort of built in random inertia simulator. It would either run flat out or barely crawl, and the only way it would change direction was with the power pack turned off and then back on, simply changing the direction switch did nothing. With the speaker plugged back in control was a bit better, although the starting voltage was extremely high, as the manual mentioned. Frankly, this engine appears to be useless. I do not want the sound system because it does not sound remotely like a steam engine. I have no desire to change to DCC as I don't really need any of its capabilities. I am not a great fan of the MRC controller, but it does the job with everything else I own so there is no compelling reason to buy a new controller. Has anybody else tried to run one of these engines on DC?

The main limitations of working over the Peak District were the strength of the couplings going up the hill and the difficulty of keeping unfitted trains under control going down. The load limits quickly meant you needed a banking engine, so there wasn't much point using bigger engines. Unfitted trains going north out of Rowsley needed a banker if they had more than 26 loaded wagons, and the 4F loading limit also applied to bigger engines such as the 7Fs and the Garratts from Peak Forest down to Gowhole, so while at first sight the route seemed a natural for bigger engines, in practice they didn't help much. There are a couple of excellent books on operating practices over the Peak District: BR Steam Operating volume 6 by Xpress Publishing and BR Operating History volume 1 the Peak District, also published by Xpress Books.

Yes, it was the self-adhesive stuff, and your description is pretty accurate!

The ballast was quite good, at least to my juvenile eyes, but extremely tedious to lay. I remember using a very small screwdriver as a sort of trowel to carefully put it between the sleepers of my new Peco streamline track, I think I could manage about a foot at a time before the tedium of it all got to me.

It's surprising what a difference it made to change from "even with is off" to "even with is on", I think that little change made the trap quite a bit harder to pull. Coupled with the altered interpretation of involvement with play, and it liberated attackers quite a lot. I quite agree that the 0-0 draw can be a very absorbing game, there's a lot more to enjoy in football than just goals.

You're absolutely spot on there, and it's the same over here in the US. The subtle changes in law 11 for instance confused players quite a bit. We have all manner of guidance from US Soccer Federation to mix in with the LOAF, such as the Advice to Referees book, guide to procedures, position papers and directives etc etc. I think it's dawned on IFAB that they need to let it settle down a bit because there hasn't been much change over the last couple of meetings that applies down to grass roots level.

One of the problems with that kind of idea is the impact it has on the assistant referee. You would end up running only from the goal line to wherever the new offside limit line is, reducing your ability to help the referee out in the rest of the field. You'd end up needing additional touchline ARs to provide the same level of assistance to the referee.

The North American Soccer League did tinker a bit with the laws of the game, and FIFA did threaten to throw the US out. Among the changes they made was an alteration to law 11 with an additional line drawn across the field 35 yards from the goal line. You could only be offside beyond that line. Interestingly there had been proposals to liberalise law 11 similar to that in the 20s when you had to have three opponents between you and the goal line, and the FA of Wales recently proposed changing law 11 to only apply in the penalty area. That suggestion did not actually come to a vote at the IFAB meeting... But NASL did have one idea that Mr Blatter might want to entertain. NASL matches had to end with a winner, since Americans find the idea of a draw a bit odd for some reason. Instead of kicks from the penalty mark, NASL used a series of ice hockey style one-on-ones to decide the outcome. A player started with the ball from the 35 yard line and could dribble and do what he wanted to try to beat the keeper. Here's Trevor Francis showing how to do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYI-3EPZf4Q

How on earth did we ever survive to this point without goal-line technology? I can't wait for the day when we can argue over whether the goal-line technology worked correctly or not. What a game.

Maine Central's Rockland turn would occasionally venture down Commercial Street in Bath to switch Prawer's, a wholesale food distributor. On a pleasant April day in 1976 GP7 #572, looking a bit weatherbeaten, and relatively new U18B #401 switch out a boxcar. Into the 50s further up the street beyond the locomotives there was a coal pocket where coastal colliers would unload coal from West Virginia, a lot of which went down the branch to the cement works at Thomaston.

For reasons known only to the people who wrote them, the law doesn't require the ball to be stationary for a goal kick. US Soccer's Advice to Referees tells us to infer that it should be from the way the law for the other kicked restarts are written. You're correct, though if you'd previously been turning a blind eye to that one due to the conditions you might open yourself to criticism. And as you say, you ought to make the decision immediately. I think most refs would regard it as trifling, especially in that wind. I haven't been able to find anything about what actually happened in the match (a friendly between Maccabi Haifa and Dynamo Kiev).

The Guardian had a link to this video on their football pages http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/video/2012/feb/29/goalkeeper-scores-wind-assisted-own-goal-video It's amusing, but the Grauniad's conclusion is quite wrong. I haven't been able to find any reports of the match, and the video is edited to exclude the referee's decision, but I would be very surprised if a goal was awarded. I realise it was a friendly, from the bits of information I have found, but awarding a goal would be a terrible error. Law 16 states that a goal may be scored directly from a goal kick, but only against the opposing team. The restart is a corner kick, assuming the ball left the penalty area (which it appears to have done) and the goalkeeper did not touch the ball after taking the kick (which I don't believe he did.) He is better off not touching the ball because the CK would be less of a danger than an indirect free kick in front of the goal on the six yard line. Shame the journalists don't read the laws of the game once in a while.

Live steam Lego would be even more fun!

On I-91 North in Connecticut as you approach Glastonbury and the exit for rte 3 there is a sign that advises "ROUTE 3 NO PERMITTED LOADS ALLOWED". What this apparently self-contradictory sign means is that if you need a special permit to take whatever load you are carrying on the highway, then it's not allowed over the bridge to Glastonbury on route 3.

Meanwhile...in the grass roots end of the game. I spent an hour or so playing linesman in an Under-10 girl's game. Usually I assign these games to my new refs to gain experience and toddle along to make sure no adults verbally abuse them, but no volunteers stepped up so off I went to do my bit to make sure the little dears don't maim each other. In this game there was a rare moment of excitement as a young lady entered the game after 10 minutes as a sub for White. Within less than a minute, she found herself with the ball at her feet, and set off on a speedy dribble. Picking her head up, she saw a lot of empty space in front of her, and off she went. Red just watched in amazement at this virtuoso display of ball control. The solitary player in front of her pondered whether to tackle this speed demon, and backed off. Ahead, the goalkeeper stood in a state of shock. Finally, White's ace dribbler heard voices, and those voices were shouting in unison "You're going the wrong way!"

That's a very good point, and it's one of those modelling conundrums. If you model it to dead scale, is it noticeable? If it's not noticeable, then does the apparent lack of it trouble the eye/mind? So is it then necessary to exaggerate it to satisfy the mind? It works the other way too. There's that great picture of those tall trees a few posts ago. If you model those to scale, does the eye/mind scream that they're too big? Bit off the topic of cliches, but I thought this point worth a ponder.

In the Foxline Publishing book "Railways around Buxton" (ISBN 1-870119-01-0) there are three pictures of the W&M railbuses at Buxton. Two are dated 26 July, 1966, the other one simply says c1967. The author gives the numbers of the vehicles as 79961 and 79964. It is very difficult to tell what the prefix is, but from looking very carefully at the pictures under a good light I would suggest that 79964 at least had an E prefix. The destination blinds do however appear to have been changed. One of the pictures has too much glare on the glass to read the sign, but the other clearly shows Millers Dale, but not on one line, the two words are on separate lines with Millers left justified and Dale right justified. The letters do appear to be all the same size. Presumably trying to print it all on one line would have result in rather poor legibility. I wonder how much time was spent on that? It would surely have been pretty obvious to any intending passengers where the thing would be going, not that there were that many by the time these vehicles were introduced.