Regularity

...heel in the sand? (See what I did there? Heel, toe? Turnout... I’ll get my coat...)

I am glad to hear it, my good captain. The combination of sausage gobbling and nutbush was eye boggling.

Hi Simon, You may be confusing this with Stanton S-Cab, which is available off-the-shelf to North Americans and Antipodeans with Soundtraxx decoders. Tam Valley is device agnostic, but as you say, is not a single board with 8-pin or 21-pin sockets and plugs. It doesn’t even require another Bernd Lenz: no protocol needs developing, just a circuit board to be placed between socket on the engine, and plug on the decoder.

I have 3 issues with ProtoCab, after initially thinking it might be the bees-knees. 1) It is taking a long time to come to market, and the simpler starter system has delayed production of the original idea with the concentrator, which was supposed to come out in 2013; this is linked to 2) It is very much a small family business. Development is slow, and there is a massive risk of unsupported obsolescence due to “key person risk”; 2) I can’t use it to drive my existing DCC sound unit-fitted locos. On the first point, I am slow to progress so maybe not a major problem, but I was looking forward to their bring a software solution enabling me to use a cheap tablet or laptop as both network provider and concentrator, with the expenditure being on the loco components and controllers (I don’t personally like phone-based throttles). But this really focuses the mind on point 2. Second point. What are the business continuity arrangements/long term viability of the company? I realise that some of this would be confidential, but I am not the first person to raise this concern. I really buy into their concept, and really want to support small British industries, but at the same time I don’t want to spend hundreds of pounds on a non-proprietorial system that ends up being thrown in the bin. Which brings me to point 3... Third point. Aside from the cost investment, there is a great variety of digitally recorded sound available for DCC. Tony has told me at various shows that sounds could be stored on the concentrator and broadcast directly to an on-board speaker, which would be wonderful, but when will get this (see points 1 and 2) when will I have access to the variety of sound projects currently available? Will ProtoCab engage in licensing arrangements with various people and companies? To bring those points together, ultimately I think we will see a simple to fit solution which includes sound, etc, but also has sophisticated capabilities so that there is a combination of sound recordings, back-emf and user-defined parameters (I.e. we enter information about the train load, just as a guard would inform the driver - “18 vehicles with a load equal to 24, 4 fitted at the head”, with the driver aware of the power output of his steed, e.g 4F, C, “type 2”) so that there is simulation of the effects of inertia and gravity, with increasing time for acceleration and braking and slowing down on gradients and curves, just as on the real thing, with the exhaust sound being part of the reaction to these effects. All powered on-board and controlled remotely - hopefully via a central command system to (a) keep information about engines and their settings; and (b) prevent chaos. To a large degree, DCC is already there, but the protocols are based on 1980s technology and physically doing it requires shopping around and an element of dedicated DiY. There is a great opportunity for the right alternative, should it appear. The question is, is that alternative going to be ProtoCab? I hope so, but... Sorry: I am going a bit OT here.

Guess what? After asking, I went and looked at the video, and saw which battery it was.That suggests you should get about 2.5 hours of running at maximum current draw, which is very impressive. As I said, there are other solutions, such as DC-DC converters, which allow for the use of a single cell (makes charging simpler) but they only offer part of the solution - mind you, if they offered a full solution, then who would buy their other products?The reason for the increased voltage requirement is that DCC needs a minimum of 7 volts without sound, and 8 volts with (based on reviews of sound and silent models running on DC) and with a nominal 3.7v per lithium cell, 3 cells are required to get safely over this hurdle - or a step-up circuit with associated power losses. I agree, but a friend who has fitted these things to all his locos argues that this is precisely why he needn’t consider wireless BPRC!

Almost always the case with anything new. But that’s the point, isn’t it, of things like RMWeb? Sure, find inspiration (other layouts and models), items for sale, and information, but ultimately it’s about support and friendship. And really bad puns, and going OT as much as possible.

A working model, with the sides the same length as each other?(I had a very negative experience with a K’s Terrier kit in the early 1980s, although there were two positive outcomes. Firstly, I changed to S scale where any problems are my own stupid fault, and not someone else’s. Secondly, the castings were melted down and provided quite a few GE open wagon bodies for East Lynn.)

Simon, You can already do this, with the Tam Valley DRS system (http://deadrailinstalls.com/tam-valley-information/) available from Digitrains and Coastal DCC. You need one transmitter, clipped across the DCC output, and one receiver per engine. Plus you would need to source some reliable batteries, charging circuits, etc, if you wanted battery power. None of these items are particularly expensive, and some of the 18650 (18mm diameter x 65mm long) lipo cells packed quite a bit of power, so you could install one of those in an 0 gauge boiler, and use a step-up circuit to get roughly 11-12 volts out of it, at a cost of running time from the battery. (Allowing for energy losses, you would get say 1,000mAH out of a nominal 4,000mAH cell. And yes, I know that 1,000mAH is 1AH.) If someone produced something similar which had a single board, with a standard DCC plug at one end, and socket at the other, and with connections to a cell, which included a WiFi transceiver, charging circuit, step-up circuit, and DCC translator from WiFi to DCC, along with a simple transceiver for the DCC output, then I think this single-board solution would sell really well, as one could use any existing DCC system, but no longer have to worry about boosters, wiring, reversing loops, safety cut-outs, power districts etc. I wish I knew more about electronics and circuit design... That’s a really neat and compact solution you have there, Chris. What battery unit is fitted? Having both observed and controlled on-board powered models, the way that they keep moving without even the slightest hesitation is eerily smooth, and really does give the impression of true power in a way that frankly every other solution, even DCC with keep alive/stay alive circuits don’t quite manage. I have no idea why this is the case, but to me it is as big a step forward as when I first drove a DCC engine, and my mind had instantly changed focus from driving the train on the track to driving the train according to where the track was going to take me. (To anyone who has never tried ought but straight DC, you have no idea what you are missing.)

Here’s the funny thing with Peco points (Excepting their US outline points with specified angles, e.g #5. Probably - never looked at them this closely.)Normally, if you do such a thing, you should also ease the crossing vee angle, for geometrical reasons. As Peco use a common angle, this doesn’t matter.

Very rough sketch (‘O’ level art result, D, a fail, which nevertheless was described by my teacher as the best achievement over ability he had seen so far in 12 years in the job!) of a filing jig, from at the most 4 bits of wood (could all be cut from an off cut of 4”x1” pse) some glue and a handful of screws, plus a washer.

These are Ian Pusey’s words on filing switch blades, taken from the March 1982 S Gauge MRS (as it was then) Newsletter, and incorporated into section D of the S Scale Handbook - a free download to all members of the S Scale Model Railway Society, s-Scale.org.uk. To achieve this result, you need to file along the length of the blade. You can also put a sawcut from a hacksaw blade into the base, to accommodate the remaining foot when the rail is turned over. The rule is: bigger file to remove most of the metal and get the shape right, tidy up and polish with the smaller (2nd cut needle) files. You don’t have to have an expensive over-centre Destaco clamp, it’s just a handy tool which applies a lot of grip. You may achieve a similar result with a piece of wood fixed to the board to stop the blade moving when filed, and another piece screwed to clamp the rail and stop it moving sideways - a couple of grooves to match the rail head and foot would help. How thin should the tips be? As thin as possible. Sharp enough to prick the end of your finger, according to the late Norman Pattenden, who really did test them out this way! (When he called it bl00dy track building, he wasn’t swearing, just stating a fact!) Note that Ian says that a joggle is not necessary: as Caley Jim pointed out, this is not the same as a set. If you don’t mind the observations, any criticism aimed entirely at helping you improve on a very credible first effort that puts my tyro creations of nearly 40 years ago to shame, I have cropped one of your photos and ringed some areas of concern. I am looking here at the turnout road, and but you need to consider these points (sorry about the pun!) for the main road, apart from the set. 1) The blade needs to be straight and even: filing along the length of the rail from the end will help here. On straight track, the stock rail would diverge from the main road at a constant angle along a straight line ( at 1:48 as Don says), following a set at point 2. In the case of a curved turnout, apply the curve after you have made the necessary adjustments required for straight track. 2) Put the set here, slightly in advance of the blade tip - that way, you won’t have to get the switch blades as sharp as a knife point, just very close to it. 3a) and 3b) you have bumps in the planing of your switch blade, probably because you filed cross rather than along the blades. These are absolute no-noes. The opposite blade looks OK, so you can obviously do it, but failed to implement a quality assurance test. 4) There seems to be a bump here, which might be tight to gauge, but as you are in 00, you are probably OK, but it would bug the living daylights out of me on aesthetic grounds. In terms of points (3), you need to unsolder the blade, slide it out, clamp it to some wood and address it with a file for a couple of minutes, then put it back in. 10 minutes tops, I would say - less time than it has taken me to download and edit the picture, and then write this. Re the set, it might be possible to put a slight tweak (1:48 is gentle) into the stock rail. You may need to move the slide chairs slightly. I have found, using C&L plastic chairs, ply sleepers and solvent, that it is usually possible to slip a single edged razor blade between the two materials to break the bond. Any plastic which has leached into the wood grain remains there and helps with rebonding once the small adjustments - less than 0.24mm/10 thou - are made. For a first turnout, I must say I admire what you have done and learned, and wonder why on Earth you ever doubted your abilities.

Cyril Freezer, mid 70s, Railway Modeller.Not sure it was as low as 10 mph, but it was a legacy - like York and Peterborough North - of being early on the scene, when short wheelbase stock running at low speeds was normal, and virtually no one had any vision about the potential for railways to provide high speed services.

You don't appear to have “set” (slight tweak) in the turnout road stock rail, and the turnout route starts to diverge about 5 timbers later than as printed. Personally, I would go with Jim’s suggestion about using a track gauge to find the sweet spot, remove the blades, shorten to match and re-insert.

Teabag.

The decapod’s problem was its weight: major bridge strengthening work would have been required. Having proved a point, it became a solution looking for a problem, whilst creating other problems.

Like this?

Just have a stud of Holden decapods with push-pull gear.

Months? Decades...

I have a question, and a couple of observations/questions. A - what purpose does this crossover serve? Could it be removed? B - do you need this road if... C - ...you rotate the coaling plant 180 degrees?

The only thing that concerns me here is that you think there should be a logical explanation for this!

In the 80s when I was a student in Preston and my then girlfriend was at Reading, the intercity train via Birmingham (changeover from an 86 to a 47) took 4 hours to cover 200 miles, or an average of 50 mph. Not much of an improvement from 100 years before! I then discovered that for a small additional fee, I could go via London. Took the same overall time, but running non-stop from Preston to Euston was much more fun, especially as we frequently arrived early and had to wait for a platform to become clear. Timetabled for about 2.5 hours for the 209 miles: about 80mph average. That was progress!

Well, that would have been a case of you having your cake and eating it, wouldn’t it?

As a well-run company, the LNWR did not believe in wasteful expenditure, to the benefit of its proprietors. Not “cheapo” so much as prudent.

If you approach the infamous Tallington Level Crossing (during the morning rush hour, the gates are supposedly down for 45 minutes) from the east, there is a sign advertising the Tallington Carp Lakes. I still haven’t read it correctly, despite living in the area for more than 16 years.

FWIW, the Bishop’s Castle abandoned the LNWR chain brake coaches in 1924, replacing them with a mixed bag of three coaches which were fitted with the vacuum brake, showing that they were in theory at least able to comply with the regs and requirements. Photographic evidence suggests that this was honoured almost entirely in the breach than the observance! The Easingwold ran short trains over short distances, so probably never bothered itself: As for the Selsey Tramway, the clue is in the last word: tramway. Different regulations, not that Colonel HF Stephens was likely to have been bothered. Reading about him and his attitude to safety, etc, I get the impression of someone who was not a very nice person.