Regularity

Doors are different, and no vents at the end. There is a very good book on the subject produced by the HMRS...

The NMRA DCC protocols are primarily concerned with how the commands are coded and decoded, so that you can use system A to control decoders made by B, C and D, etc. To criticise them for not imposing themselves further is to misunderstand what they are there to do: they are not a regulatory body with legal powers (nor would they wish to be so). They are a voluntary body that publishes standards required for compatibility and interchangeability, as if manufacturers chose to conform, then they will maximise their sales’ opportunities. They are, in effect, a consumer champion for basic requirements, but wisely eschew going further than this. No manufacturer is forced to comply, and apart from anything else, it would be impossible for the NMRA to enforce anything at all. Something more complicated would lead to (not unreasonable) accusations of arrogance and condescension and ultimately to manufacturers doing their own thing, to everyone’s detriment. I don’t like the ESU DCC command system, for example (I would be seriously interested in the new handheld unit they have in North America but not Europe) but I might choose to use their sound decoders, which means I can choose the best combination for me, and also take my trains and run them on someone else’s layout, which may have Digitrax as its base system. Home computers are now so common that most DCC users probably have one, and for the cost of not a lot - certainly less than most RTR locos without DCC let alone sound - could buy a Sprog and install JMRI, even if only to fine tune decoders and remap function keys to be consistent with each other. Use of, say, phone based throttles means that one can visit friends and provide a controller as well as locos running on trackage rights, so there is no need for the NMRA to mandate what the functions actually do. Besides, manufacturers may have different sound sets they wish to incorporate, and who is to say where they put what? I agree that the way momentum is handled, and the poor way it is coupled to sound, is an issue, as is the matter of engine brakes and train brakes, but that reflects a lack of imagination on the part of some manufacturers, and also on modellers - as Paul Chetter has shown, amongst others, it is possible to program a more realistic response into a decoder, but I think we have yet to see something properly designed so that the sound and speed and momentum reflect what would really be going on, depending on the load and how it was being driven. But your admonishment of the NMRA for not doing what they are not there to do is wide of the mark. And no, I am not a member, and don’t intend to be, either.

It is, in theory at least, possible to use something like SMA wire to operate freight car brakes, controlled via a small, cheap DCC decoder using a specific function or just the drive output (for variable applications, maybe). These could be put into a consist with the engine for applying via a function, or consisted with each other for gradual applications. Just an idea.

That would be true in the latter days of pre-grouping, and even then not completely so.RCH specifications were usually a reflection of the current state of play, so to speak, to provide something which would become the standard for the next few years. The 1907 specifications were an attempt to standardise on the best practices at that time, including the use of 7 planks for coal wagons - despite many coal merchants not wanting the extra capacity (more coal means a longer time to unload/sell and an increased risk of demurrage charges, plus a higher price to pay for the extra coal) as this suited the colliers. The earliest example I have found of a wagon to this size was built in 1896, and it was the early Edwardian period - when a lot of investment was being made by many railway companies - before they became commonplace for new builds. Prior to that, 5 plank coal wagons were the most common coal wagons, with a 4-plank side door: 6 plank wagons, never very common, came after the 7 plankers in response and as a sop to complaints from local merchants about their being too much coal in a 7 planker, etc. For export coal traffic, the collieries would be using the bigger wagons, and trains might well consist of wagons from a single colliery, but the sizes would vary as would for many companies, the livery and lettering on the wagons: some variety is still possible. As with everything, photogenic evidence is the best thing, but it takes time and frequently there will be some useful information in the background of another picture. (If anyone has a picture of the TVR from the nineteenth century that proves me wrong, I will be delighted!)

To be pedantic, that is a BR liveried conversion of an iron mink to a GPV. BR gunpowder vans had square corners, as did the last 25 built specifically for the traffic by the GWR (and indeed the LMS vans). See: http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/gwrgunpowdercxv Not seen any photos of round corners in the BR blue era, so I mention this as a note of caution to modellers of that era to check!

An additional photo - scarily nearly 15 years old!

All this talk of urine collection on a model railway bulletin board. Someone’s taking the p155...

They owned lots of canals, so plenty of docks! It was intended to prove that rapid acceleration didn’t mean electrification. And like GER decapod, was a similarly unwanted singleton. And such a smoothly curved front end, even more so...

I am reminded of the North Staff’s experimental 4-cylinder D class...

Yes. All done with ply and card - Trevor doesn’t like plasticard! The coaches were made from Nigel Digby’s drawings in his M&GN book, IIRC, but they are fairly typical of those built by contractors for smaller railways. Incidentally, Jack Kite’s books are “Vintage Steam” and “Vintage Album”.

Part of my professional activities involve such esoterica as “Corporate Governance”, and with respect to this sort of thing, I have a simple mantra: the tone (corporate culture) is set by the top. That means the Board, not just the CEO. The Board appoints the CEO, and selects the one who most closely matches their ideas for the future of their organisation. In this case, the top level of MMA had form and views on running a freight railway business. In short, minimal maintenance, minimal staffing, maximum utilisation of assets, pare everything as close to the bone as possible - and sadly, the only way you find out how close you can get to the bone is to sometimes cut into it. The problem is essentially one of unfettered capitalism. When Adam Smith wrote the “Wealth of Nations”, he could not conceive of free markets operating outside of anything but a benevolent moral framework informed by the Christian heritage and the enlightenment. In short, rich people would always make charitable donations to help the poor, and most importantly everyone would act in terms of their enlightened long-term self-interest. Which boils down to believing that inequality in wealth is OK, but excessive inequality (greed and exploitation) leads to the collapse of the system. I am afraid that people who deny the existence of such things as “society” are destroying not just the framework, but the very cradle in which free markets operate. MMA was just a small example of that.

Re ballast. It does show: Trevor Nunn ballasted over the tops of his sleepers, but they still ‘grin’ through.

As Simon says, very smooth running. But your workbench is disgustingly tidy! I have used nail varnish (nicked from the missus) to lock crank pin nuts in place. You can get clear, or if the rods were painted, usually something to match.

Difficult question: such things are not common, they can be patchy - varying according to the interests of the author/photographer/publisher and they tend to pre-date such things as ISBN. Jack Kite, now long gone to the platform in the sky, did an album or two, called something like Vintage Album. It does seem to turn up from time to time. There are also vendors of photos, who attend shows have an eBay presence, or their own websites, e.g. Roger Carpenter at shows, railwaystationphographs.co.uk, who are migrating away from eBay (redgate8) due to eBay’s hike in fees. Usual disclaimers apply!

You need to find access to bound volumes of such as Railway Magazine, and to pore over articles and their accompanying photos. Old - and I do mean old - books may help. The photos are really useful: the article may be about locos, but photos may reveal details about the track, etc. Platforms were generally lower, and gradually got taller, but you can work this out from photos. There were also drawings in such magazines as The Engineer, etc. Both the Midland and the GWR (“narrow gauge” parts) experimented with inside-keyed chairs - the lineman can see both sets of keys whilst walking down the four foot - but found they provided a hard ride, so abandoned them. A lot appeared on other railways, presumably on the second hand market, but again, you find this by looking at photos. You can also determine if turnouts used timbers, interlaced sleepers, or a mixture (such as the GER which used timbers under the crossing vees, but interlaced sleepers between there and the switches). That said, photos of New Radnor in the 1940s show that inside keyed chairs were still in use at the end of WWII on remote parts of the GWR! In your case, there is SECSOC and the LBSCR Society, where you may find members with an interest in trackwork, etc, during the period of interest to you, but don’t bank on them knowing everything or being able to simply download all that they know at the drop of a hat. Basically, you probably have to go to primary resources, in the hope that they even exist.

These were generally (if not exclusively) used in trains travelling down the South Wales Valleys to the ports, arranged with all the wagons the same way round (for end unloading at the docks) and having each set of dumb buffers up against a set of sprung buffers of the neighbouring wagon. There are very few pre-grouping layouts set in the valleys, and even fewer set in the Victorian era, which might be why we don’t see these modelled, assuming that they are modelled at all.

WHS simply seem to be slower at getting it onto their own shelves, despite also supplying many of the competitors who do get it out on the scheduled date. I doubt that MRJ is one of their biggest selling magazines, but if they are like this with others, it suggests that they may be losing sales across the board. You’d have to ask them: if anyone reading this works for them, then telling us unofficially would probably get them the sack, and everyone else on here doesn’t work for them, so we may never know.

A fact which they have freely acknowledged, hence the open source route to development.

Ah. GER livery for the engines, and post 1897 FR livery for the coaches.

I think some feel that his summaries of previous issues are superfluous (which is a fair editorial criticism) and irrelevant (which is a personal issue). We do seem to spend more time (writing and reading) and words than are consumed by the hapless victim... Maybe PK enjoys the letters, likes the writer, wants to share this with us and quite possibly is engaged in a wind up of those who object? I don’t know him, but I wouldn’t put it past him, nor of him co-opting Mr. Lycett-Smith into the venture.

Other than the fact that you are circumventing regulations! If they sold it in kit form, it could be available sans xbee for the European market, and we could source our own... or if they simply sold the casing, plus an specific circuit boards, people could make their own using CE certifified wireless components.

Sadly, no.I thought so too, and engaged the developers in discussion over this. It turns out that this is one of those areas where common international standards have yet to be achieved - this is what trade agreements are all about, and why they can take so long to sort out. There is a thread on the Model Railroad Hobbyist forum: you don’t have to sign up to read, just as here. http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/25866 http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/30265

That’s why I won’t. Also why I won’t. Or is it?

Well, I for one am wary of thinking inside the box: there might be a dead cat in it.