Philou

Top marks - my gob is well and truly smacked !!!

Cheers,

Philip

Hi chums,

I did send an e-mail to Dave regarding the points made a little way up the thread (height of the driver's door window, the shape of the smaller grille and the proximity of the destination blind window to the larger grille) to which I did receive a reply thanking for the comments. He also said that he picked up another item (that no-one else has spotted).

I won't divulge what it was, as it was a personal reply - but I have asked him if I could mention what it was on this thread. As soon as I have a positive response, I'll let you know.

Cheers,

Philip

Ah .... no, I haven't sent anything to Dave regarding the possible slight discrepancy with the height of the driver's door window. As I haven't really been following this thread I haven't had need to think about communicating with Dave. Do you have an address for him?

Cheers,

Philip

Funny that you should mention working trolleybuses as I seem to have acquired a couple of Cardiff trolleybuses (my home town) made by the Original Omnibus Co. (Corgi?) AND a couple of pairs of booms from PC Models (I think) ready for 'improving' the basic model and have a static system for my railway model. I did see a trolleybus system (possibly it was Walford Arches) that was very good. There was one that had the Faller system as the basic driving force and the overhead laid to suit - that was good save for the starting and stopping that was a bit - shall we say - abrupt.

Unfortunately my railway model will now be based on a real town that had neither trams nor trolleybuses - so no electric traction for me .

I'm glad the link was of use to you. They do seem to indicate that it is suitable for RTR railway stock (docksides and the such). They say, if I recall correctly, is that it is the flanges that run in the groove rather than the wheels on the rail itself. I thought it was a rather neat way of achieving the look rather than having overscale check rails. I suspect that the setts and paviors proposed are for a 'quick-fix' rather than something that is modelled prototypically. Carving your own in plaster, though time consuming, is probably rather more satisfying.

Cheers,

Philip

Hello,

I have just found this thread - though I don't model trams, I always had a 'thing' about them - but trolleybuses are the bees knees for me!

I was intrigued by a post above that seemed to indicate (though I might have mis-read) that you were having to bend your own track. I wonder if you know of  'Electric Avenue' (American based)? They sell tram rail (the proper profile) suitable for HO, therefore 16.5mm gauge - no need for check rails. The radii seem very tight - as per the prototype.

I have no connection with them nor used any of their products - just passing on some information, if it's of any use.

Here's the link: http://www.proto87.com/Street_track_for_trolleys_and_trams.html

Cheers,

Philip

PS: Good luck in your endeavours.

@ Ray Von

I don't know if when you clicked on Nearholmer's link (post No 3477465), you were able to view the pane on the right hand side that had other photos showing further shots of the bridge - though it didn't show exactly how close was close!

Cheers,

Philip

Edited to add that regarding the proximity of the bridge to buildings, it was always a surprise to me when travelling on the southern side of London that on the raised sections (on viaduct) just how close the tracks run to the buildings - Brixton springs to mind.

Pssssssssst ..................... where are the photos ?

Cheers,

Philip

Erm ..... I've never seen an APT either, and I'm not in the market (yet) for one, but I would suggest that the driver's door window is a tad high, the top of which ought to be in line with the tops of the grilles as per the colour photograph. In any case the door frame is much thicker above the window in the photo than on the model.

Cheers,

Philip

@ Nearholmer

..... and on quite a skew too! It didn't look it face on. Nice bit of detailing if anyone wanted to have a bridge that is a little different. I agree regarding the raised footway though.

Cheers,

Philip

The reason why I laid underlay under what seems to be a large area was that it is an MPD (of sorts) and the whole area has been ballasted in sand with just bits of chipping  here and there and then dirty up - there was no need to have any shouldering between tracks - indeed the less shouldering the better. As speeds are very slow there are no sound issues (for me ).

Bit like this:

Cheers,

Philip

There you are - your photo shows quite clearly the four pads upon which would have rested the bearings of the four main girders (lined up under the rails of the tracks above). The pads in most cases would have been cast in concrete (sometimes dressed stone such as granite).

As an aside, if you think about it, the plates of your model bridge could be done away with. Oh? you might say. Well, look at some American railroad bridges - done on the cheap - two girders and the sleepers laid directly onto them. No sides or ballast - scary! I know which type of bridgework I prefer!

Cheers,

Philip

Hi, yes, I know the road as it used to be on the circuit for taking the driving test - hill-start at either end! I don't know if you noticed from the Google aerial images, the raised footway nibbles quite away into the carriageway - a little more than the non-raised one.

Quite a few bridges in Cardiff have similar raised footways due to the near-sea level nature of the city and an inability to drain the 'sumps' in heavy rain.

Regarding the plate girder bridge support, it was said (in jest) as from the angle of the photo it looked as if the one end was hanging on by the magical qualities of fresh air. I think your comment regarding blu-tak explained that one .

On a slightly serious note though, the girders would normally rest on bearings at one end (the other end being fixed). The bearings will/would vary on the size and construction of the bridge (note: even concrete shrinks and expands under changes in temperature and requires a flexible bearing at one end), and the bearing might be a greased plate or a roller. Without suggesting that you re-model the bridge in any way, the end of the plate will need to be set a little way beyond your abutment with a little gap between the plate girder and the abutment, creating the space where the bearing would be normally. It gives an impression that bridge 'floats'.

Cheers,

Philip

Hello Ray Von,

I don't think you'll need more papier maché, it's only for your foundation. Mind when you're using thin card as when it's wet it will tend to buckle. I used exterior grade PVA painted over both sides which reduced its tendency to warp.

It's looking good - but you'll need to give your plate girder some support ;) .

Cheers,

Philip

@Ray Von

Don't forget to put the hogging and sagging curves as you had shown on your graph paper - it'll look all the better for it.

Here's a Google image of Lowther Road - the vertical sag and hog of the road can be seen plus the raised footway and, as mentioned by The Johnster, as a bonus the steps leading into the adjoining cul-de-sac are in the picture. As an aside, the bridge was originally a very wide plate girder affair which was demolished and replaced by a twin track concrete one. You can see the slope of the original abutments on the left hand side plus the concrete capping upon which the bearings would have rested - a bit of detail that is often left out.

LowtherRoad.pdf

Hope it's of use,

Cheers,

Philip

@The Johnster,

Just to chip in regarding coal-train movements into Cardiff, when I were a lad and I waited for my Saturday evening return train to Treforest, on the platform at Queen Street station was a big information board (probably gone now) giving a little history of the station and amongst the gems, it was stated at its peak there were 835 - 835 - train-loads daily through the station. At the time I couldn't get my head around that figure - it now makes sense and matches what you said.

Cheers,

Philip

Can I suggest that the next time OP has an opportunity to get to a town that has a model shop with a working or test layout, if he can't get to a club (I understand that OP doesn't drive), that he asks to be shown a DCC loco (with/without sound) in operation. The shop owner ought to be happy to oblige - particularly if it may lead to a sale .

I think OP needs to see this in the flesh and decide. What floats my boat (or our boats) may or may not be for him.

Cheers,

Philip

Hello,

I too use underlay for flooring (the green stuff), which I think is wood fibre based. I agree that it sticks well with PVA and things stick to it too. The only downside that it blunts cutter blades fairly quickly. Here are a few of before and after photos:

Green underlay pinned in place waiting for the PVA to 'go off'.

Track being pinned in place waiting for ballasting. (Yeah, I know - not prototypical - facing crossovers).

Now you see it, now you don't! Done three years ago and still holding good despite being moved from place to place.

Cheers,

Philip

Not wishing to hijack the thread - but yay for Codar. Still have one in working condition!

Go on, go DCC. As others have said it can be done relatively cheaply (I can't advise on function only chips as I do sound), and you don't have to convert all at once.

One thing I have had experience is that the (generally) more expensive DCC controllers are better. I had an ECoS II unit - wonderful. Colour TFT screen, ability to visibly control two trains at once (plus others in the background), on-screen point control - you name it and it seemed able to do it.

Why do I use the past tense? Well, over Christmas it and I had a falling out. My fault entirely - I got tangled in some cabling while I was plugging it into a low wall socket and it hit the ground, couldn't stop it time. I expect I shall have little change from £300 to get it repaired - very 'oops' on my part.

I don't regret it and I shall have it repaired and be more careful, but I might get something cheaper to use until such time as I have a permanent layout in place.

Perhaps something to think about when you're costing things up?

Cheers,

Philip

Oh go on, go on, go on, go on - you know you want to!

I wouldn't consider doing DC and DCC - just too much hassle. If you really want to run some 'old' stock, have a separate circuit (or a shunting plank - why not?) for your DC stock. I bit the bullet and abandoned the thought of converting my really old stock (about 50-odd locos) and I've gradually replaced them over the last 5 years with their modern equivalents (about half so far have 'sound').

Just my thoughts.

Cheers,

Philip

Hi Tallpaul69,

Just chucking in my tuppence worth - I too have come back to the hobby after a break of nearly 50 (is it really that long ago!?) years. I started re-collecting stock in 2014 ready for the big day when I (eventually) start my layout and having had a sound fitted loco demonstrated to me, I was hooked. DCC for me it is.

I too am looking at simplifying signal and point operation - not automation particularly - but it may come later.

'Vanilla' DCC chips are cheap enough - but if you want sound - the good makes are NOT cheap (about £115 each). However, if 'sound' is what you should like you could listen to a couple of Hornby TTS chips (about £35) and see if you like. And you don't have to have sound ;).

Cheers,

Philip

An enquiring mind should like to know ............. what is the problem with a BG and no less than one, two, three and four composite coaches plus a brake third? I shouldn't want to make the same error.

Cheers,

Philip

Seems as if Haymarket47 had a run of bad luck - or was just unlucky. I only called by in this thread to say that I ordered a Class 68 in TPE branding on Tuesday, dispatched Wednesday and arrived here Monday lunchtime via Mrs Postie, with the receipt stamped 'Tested VK'. Someone has listened.

Cheers,

Philip

Let us see how you get on - I should like to crib as I have an original set that have only left their boxes once to have a look years ago. At the time I bought them in the late 70s, I thought they were pretty good - but there you go, matters improve as time goes on.

Cheers,

Philip

UUH 360J - Innocenti-Morris IM3 (formerly 2934 BP 33). Basically a Mk1 1100 built from a UK kit in Italy (possibly chez Lambretta) 1963 model (I never knew its Italian number though the 'country' sticker (I) was still on it - painted over in British racing green). Leather interior with Dellorto twin carbs as standard - oh - and LHD. Came via France. My French grandad financed it but I had to pay him back - caused no end of bad feeling in the family until about 3 years ago as they all thought I had had it gratis - no-one knew I had to pay it back. Got it in Dec 1970 and drove all alone from Bordeaux to Cardiff via Southampton where I had to pay £56/12/5d import duty (with discount as it was LHD). First time I'd driven a car since my test in 1968! Kept it until 1982 when I had to scrap it due to rust and no finance (y'know mortgage, kids etc.). I loved it despite being a very poor starter - bit like me !

Cheers,

Philip

Hello 071,

'Sdone .... deposit for the 92 made (Oh ..... what have I done!!!).

As an aside, it would be good if there was a method of spreading the cost of a full sleeper rake, as mentioned earlier - perhaps a few more would be interested if the possibility existed. If as you say deliveries could be expected Q1 (or Q2) 2020 then a coach a month (say) would be more affordable. Just a thought.

Cheers,

Philip