Harlequin

2 minutes ago, coeurdelyon said:

Hi,

FYI The smoke box door fitted to 5320 in G W R livery is taken from a photograph showing no smoke box door with a number plate and without outside steam pipes, so we are correct and no replacement door is necessary

See attached photograph

 

Thanks Richard but the photo of the model of 5320 posted by Robin above (courtesy of Cheltenham Models) shows her in GWR livery with a BR numberplate and shedcode plate on the smokebox door.

So, is that a photo of a pre-production version where the wrong smokebox door has been fitted by mistake?

Has anyone built a TT:120 Minories yet?

At TT:120 scale, Minories SP35 would be 1.352 m long and 193mm wide, or call it 4ft 6in by 8in in old money.

2 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Does it depend on whether the chip has the Stayalive control built in or whether a separate interface has been used?  I use small Zimo decoders which need a separate interface wired directly to the common (supply) rails on the chip. I don’t see how the chip could then differentiate from power supplied via the track and power being taken from the capacitor.

The Zimo stayalive time controls work for external stayalive circuits.

The decoder rectifies and smooths the DCC waveform from the track to become its main +ve and gnd power supply. It also watches the DCC signal for commands. So if that command signal disappears but there's still power between +ve and gnd it must be running on stay alive and it can start its timers.

BTW: Decoders (at least current ones) are not just computer-like - they really are computers. Zimo MN and MS decoders have ARM cores in them, running the same instruction set as most mobile phones.

I just received my last ever parcel from Hatton's - something I had forgotten was in my trunk:

End of an era! 😞

I have an uneasy feeling about that firebox...

Most photos of the prototypes suggest a much flatter top surface but sometimes you can see something like the Dapol rendition. E.g.:

The thing is, I think we're seeing the inwards taper of the firebox sides in that photo, not so much the backwards taper of the top...

It will be fascinating to see one in the flesh, see what it really looks like from different angles and compare it with the previous batch and other locos.

P.S. I have been making a CAD model of a Small Metro (Medium Metro actually) and I started off from weight diagrams before I had access to a frame plan. The weight diagrams introduced many mistakes that had to be tediously corrected later.

53 minutes ago, Graham T said:

It's starting to look somewhat bleak at Chuffnell R, but not as bad as it will look soon!  All the rolling stock now packed away...

 

Hi Graham,

Don’t feel too down about what you’ve got to do. Chuffnell R is immortalised on RMWeb and its development has delighted and entertained loads of people. I’m sure you have hugely enjoyed making it and sharing it with us. Job done!

Change has to come and we’re all looking forward to seeing what you do next, whenever and whatever that might be!

25 minutes ago, Andy Keane said:

Caldicot Castle is just about finished. All the DCC gubbins is in place and I have just about finished toning down the paintwork with weathering paints and powders. There was moment of confusion with the Staco1 stay alive on the Zimo chip to begin with. When using my bench DCC test set (an NCE Power Plus) the stay alive worked only intermittently (every thing else being just fine). After much testing and even getting John of YooChoos to fit a new one to no effect, it seems that its the DCC supply that causes the issue. When placed on my Helston layout with its meaty five amp NCE Power Pro all is fine all the time - most odd and the first time I have ever had such an issue. I wonder if this batch of Zimos is somehow different to previous ones which have not minded the supply type at all? I am also much indebted to Phil's @Harlequin trick of using a grill over the speaker to support the coal load - the sound from Caldicot is now epic - the lady wife came in to see what was going on as she could hear it from the main house! I will post some more pictures when the paint is all dry.

I've never been able to prove conclusively to other people that the coal speaker grille idea produces better sound that more traditional methods. I'm sure it does but whenever I try to record it on video the sound just doesn't come across for some reason. So I don't think I've convinced many people it's worth trying. I even idly thought about sending some of my locos on tour so other people could make their own minds up...

So it's really good to get this feedback from you and your wife(!) that there really is something in the idea!

Edit: And of course, it's not loudness that we are striving for but fidelity of sound reproduction, which is where the quality of the samples comes into play and there are some questions around that.

My 61 is still with me and opened up to have things done inside but poor old sound-fitted 97 is winging it's way back to Kernow, I'm sorry to say. I couldn't work out what was causing her to limp and sometimes jump.

23 minutes ago, mikesndbs said:

 

Oh how odd! Has anyone else noticed if C16 and 16 are missing on thiers? Kernow have agreed to take it back and sort it out for me somehow. Think I'll remove the people all the same as that gives them more flexibility, however I'd not want to lose the stay alive effect lol 

They are not fitted on my Diag. O No.61 but I wouldn't describe them as missing.

Very often PCBs are design with pads for optional components and I think these are just options that have not been used in the release models.

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

OK Phil 

I laid it out again far more carefully with brand new code 75 points ensuring the ladder was dead straight and using set squares etc and you are right ..by 1/5 inch ! perhaps a quarter of an inch as I only used one set of insulating rail joiners and it needs two. I would never though rely on any template with a clearance that tight, you always need a bit of wiggle room. 

I don't think CJF was telling fibs when he gave that dimension- a wooden baseboard is not a precision engineering structure ( even less so when he published it long before laser cut baseboards).  In reality, whether the rail ends are flush with the baseboard end or very slightly proud of it they'd still be very vulnerable with a folding baseboard (to which I'd probably add a protective strip to the ends of a traditional frame).  I 've generally reckoned on a couple of inches between the end of the last point and the board end probably using copper clad sleepers at the very end though I guess that could come down to an inch.   

CJF made beautiful designs within the limits of the technology at the time. We certainly have the advantage over him with computer design tools and precision measuring and cutting. Hopefully people don't take those old plans too literally these days. (Maybe I'm guilty of that!)

In my version of the 7ft by 1ft Minories I managed to keep the turnouts clear of the centre joint by about 30mm and at the entrance/exit the turnout is exactly flush to the 7ft mark, as drawn above, but there's a sturdy end frame the track has to pass through and I use the depth of that to protect the turnout from damage.

50 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Power Class A

 

Jason

Yes, quite right. I will amend my post.

Thanks.

Dean Goods: Uncoloured for route availability, Power class A (not Ungrouped as previously stated). So no need for that decal at all. (But red would never have been right.) See Jason's post below.

The cast iron "Caution" notice goes inside the cab, either on the left hand side sheet or the left side of the roof, but you may not consider it worth doing. Similar to this:

36 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Well, as I said last night, it isn't impossible as I was able to lay it out on a table with just such points (I should have photographed it but trust me that I did do it and measured the result)  Assuming a symetrical pair of boards, it did fit (just) into the 3ft 6ins of the right hand board.  Possible yes, desirable probably not because of the vulnerability of the points at either end.  In seven feet that would also give very short train lengths just three main line coaches with a loco and a four car EMU/DMU.

If I really was trying to cram it into that length I'd face the dilemma of either accepting very short trains or lengthening the platforms by using sharper points and accepting the (very) excessive throwover- especially in the route between the inbound line and platform one. It depends a lot on what stock you're using. 

Geoff Pitt's Horn Lane uses a Minories throat (with a 3 way point for a fourth platform) made up from Peco small radius points and with Underground stock - both sub-surface and tube- it looks absolutely fine. I think the same would probably be true with pre-grouping stock but, with main line stock a similar throat looks positively toylike. 

I did  a lot of practical experiments with a range of 'Minories Variations' a few years ago and the problem I found with the pure Minories throat with medium radius points was that the at least one point length straight between the reverse curves gave even main line stock an acceptably snaking flow. However, the one route with an immediate reverse curve (inbound to platform 1) didn't look good.

I tried umpteen arrangements using Peco long Y as well as medium points (they're the same length) and found that using Ys for both of the back to back points gave a very bizarre wiggle on several routes  as trains encountered a double reverse curve. However, if I used one for just the right hand of the two back to back points (and a second at the end of plattform one.) I improved the critical route considerably but at the expense of rather more but just about acceptable end throwover on most of the other routes. That arrangement also had the advantage of a less extreme overall S through the throat and the platform end coming of at a 6 degree angle allowing a single gentle curve to the platform rather than the  S of the original plan. 

I think the best compromise depends very much on the actual stock you're using.  The other thing I found was that if you mixed a large radius point with a medium radius in the same crossover you tended to get the throwover/buffer locking of the smaller radius point rather than the average between them. Again, this depended on coach length.

 

For some reason the system isn't letting me post images just now so I'll add them when it does.

 

 

 

This is what I see using all Streamline Medium turnouts with no tricksy angles:

The ladder starts on the right exactly on one of the blue 1ft grid lines and all parts are butted exactly together. A thin white line shows where the two 3ft 6in boards join and you can see that the last turnout overhangs that line. You can also see that the basic 12° geometry doesn't slew the track across enough or at the right angle to feed Platform 3.

I have complete faith in my turnout templates because they proved to be very accurate when I used 1:1 printouts to lay down my Minories. (And that process taught me that I should even have allowed for the extra length caused by insulating joiners!)

9 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Phil 

It is possible, though at first sight It appears not to be. Peco medium L&R points are 8 1/2 inches long so five would be 42 1/2 inches and therefore half an inch too long. However, I've just laid the plan out with those points and it does fit... just and with not a whisker to spare. It's the fact that three of the points in a row are at a 12 degree angle that makes the difference.

I wouldn't build it though, at last not with those points, as you'd be right up to forty two inches* so would have the toes of the two endmost points flush with the board ends (Ask Danster Civicman why that's not a great idea. He described what happened when the entry point to Birmingham Hope Street snagged when he was moving it from the fiddle yard) 

It would though work more comfortably with SMP 3ft radius points as the ones I have in front of me are 8.1 inches long with I think a ten degree crossing angle. With those you'd have over an inch of plain track beyond the points at each end of the board which should be enough for some copper clad anchoring.  However, with a seven foot long layout you'd have a maximum train length including loco of about 48 inches on platform 1 and 42 inches on platform three clear of the kick back siding point.  

 

*So the Great Question of Life the Universe and Everything turns out to be "How long must a H0/00 Minories throat with a kickback siding be with Peco medium radius points in inches." Who'd have thought that was the great question. We apologise for the inconvenience. 

I agree that in some of the many versions of Minories that CJF drew and published it might have been possible to maintain a 3ft minimum radius using the turnouts that were available at the time.

In "60 plans for small railways", where Minories is plan "49s", the length of the layout is 6'8", there is no kickback siding but no minimum radius is stated. So this version might be possible with min radius 3ft turnouts.

However, in "60 plans for small locations" the introduction says that all pointwork is Setrack or Streamline, Minories is now Plan SP35. the length is 7ft, it has a kickback and the minimum radius is stated as 3ft. This combination is, I think, impossible.

29 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Funnily enough, I think some of the original attraction was the "axonometric" projection CJF drew it with (simply the conventional plan  turned through 45 degrees with vertical elevations added at the same scale. With this plan it seemed to just bring the layout to life. I'm looking forward to the first folding Minories in TT120 . 

The axonometric view is reproduced in my track plans album, using my Streamline plan:

BTW: I think that the statement of 3ft minimum radius that accompanies the original plan in "60 plans..." was simply a mistake. I don't think it is or was possible in the 7ft by 1ft size given for the 00 version with the kickback siding.

3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Kernow have kindly advised me as follows :  The standard model will only run on DC, but you won’t get any sounds at all from it. You can only get sounds from a standard model by installing a DCC sound decoder (which we don’t sell separately) or by buying a DCC sound fitted version in the first place.   The DCC sound fitted model will run on DC and DCC. However only basic chuff sounds will be heard on DC and the overall top speed will be less than on DCC. Approx     4 volts are required to produce the sound and you can’ t make the whistle or other additional sounds work.

( 97 remains jerky at slow speed despite careful examination, lubrication and running in over 2 hours.)

What do you mean by jerky running? Can you post a video showing what you mean?

Do you hear a clicking sound when she runs? If so, have a look at @mikesndbs very important "Last Tip".

Quote

Any ideas where I should apply battery power to on the motor to see if it's actually still working?

To the top and bottom electrical lugs on the motor.

Quote

The lining bands don't continue across the top of the firebox; should they?

No. A painter got badly injured while trying to line the top of the firebox and after that it was discontinued.

If the motor does work, check that the two copper contacts here,

do make contact with the pickup metal on the keeper plate. I.e. bend them out a bit.

I have a problem with number 97: I had run her quite a lot backwards and forwards on my oval test layout with no problems but I turned her around today. (Should have done that sooner, I know.)

She is now hesitating intermittently when turning right on 2ft2in radius curves, sometimes with a click and sometimes even with a small hop into the air!

I assume something is jamming in the motion but I haven't been able to see what yet. I don't want to push it too far so if I can't diagnose the problem soon I'll have to report back to Kernow MRC.

I have fitted the smaller scroll irons but I don't think they are involved.

😞

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

97 now safely received, setting yet another high standard for RTR !

Slow running is a little uneven at present in time with the valve gear despite lubrication and running in, visually checked and nothing appears out of alignment. Will continue with more running in,

Dumb question : DC running still requires a decoder for sound ??

What kind of controller are you using, Mike?

55 minutes ago, Neal Ball said:

Its all been a bit quite at Henley lately - other things seem to be getting in the way ☹️

 

With the SRM landing at Kernow, I have resisted the urge to post on the SRM page on RMWeb - but I have checked when I paid for it 😎 1st December 2022 - Hopefully with the news that Kernow are working on November / December 2022, my sound fitted version will be despatched soon.

 

In the meantime, the passengers and crew have arrived from Modelu. I ordered more sheep as well - you cant have enough sheep on a layout - although I should have ordered a new signalman and some loco lamps. Hopefully I will remember next time.

 

 

I opted for HO crew and passengers and OO sheep (although compared to my other sheep, they are quite small).

 

On the far left is the guard from the SRM crew, with the fireman and driver on the lower right. 

 

The OO sheep are on a board - a wider version of a coffee stirrer, to the right of them is the first batch of SRM passengers, the second batch being on the right (You get 5 in a pack), with 2 seated chaps in the middle, who look as if they are off to the Regatta!

 

The two characters on the far right are whitemetal crew that came with the County loco kit.

 

Whilst painting the characters, I was waiting for the loco running plate to dry. I had previously glued it together, but it wasn't quite right! - Its looking better this time.

 

To be continued.... (as ever!)....

Let’s go surfing now,

Everybody’s learning how,

(Even the sheep!)

😆

Hi Matias,

The Americans would call this a switching layout but in British terminology we don't use the term "switching" so much in this context. We call it shunting. (Switching usually refers to electrical gubbins.)

With the small footprint you have available it's definitely best to keep the plan simple. You need to use just enough turnouts to make the layout entertaining and no more, and employ as many clever tricks as you can to avoid turnouts.

(A "Turnout" is a ready-made bit of track combining a set of points and a common crossing.)

If shunting is the aim here, do you need to clutter things up with passenger-related platforms and station buildings?

Some sort of temporary, off-scene track work (a "fiddle yard") can represent "the rest of the world" where locos and wagons come from and go to. It can also do the job of some of the station turnouts (see previous point). For instance, it can act as the turnout at the far end of the run round loop. ("Run round", not "runaround.") The simplest fiddle yard is just a length of track that you connect to the layout when you want to operate it, like @DCB showed above.

The plan will look more interesting and dynamic if the main line is curved and/or diagonal.

This is very welcome and quite clever because it allows Accurascale to push back very gently on a difficult issue: People still using ancient DC controllers.