Jump to content
Users will currently see a stripped down version of the site until an advertising issue is fixed. If you are seeing any suspect adverts please go to the bottom of the page and click on Themes and select IPS Default. ×
RMweb
 

Keith Addenbrooke

RMweb Premium
  • Posts

    2,798
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wirral
  • Interests
    Continental and American Standard and Narrow Gauge Railways and Model Railways, Layout Design, GW Branch Lines; BRM Subscriber and 009 Society Member

Recent Profile Visitors

5,241 profile views

Keith Addenbrooke's Achievements

6k

Reputation

  1. Hi Phil, I’ve been trying to think of a prototype-ish setting where this arrangement might work. This is what I’ve come up with: I’m tending towards a post-rationalisation DMU / EMU setting (which doesn’t involve turnover operation), where I could see a plan like this representing the suburban end of a commuter line with infrequent services (half-hourly or less). I would renumber the platforms from the bottom, so most services simply arrive then depart from what becomes platform 1. Platform 2 is the main relief platform, from where additional peak time morning services can depart, while Platform 3 is little used / disused and is a stabling siding for a spare unit to cover failures. Operationally, I wonder if the dependency on a single arrival track is a potential problem, for example if a unit fails while there, or if a late arrival holds up the next incoming Service? Installing a second crossover further up the line (off-stage?) for ‘wrong line’ arrivals would solve this, but wouldn’t be needed for regular operation. Just a thought. Incidentally, modern day Cromer (island platform and a pair of crossovers) has been modelled in OO and O scales - the added interest coming from the station being the meeting point of two branch lines, not a double track (I think). A real life example of a compact station? Keith.
  2. My thanks to @smokebox for pointing me in the right direction. On closer inspection the underside of the capacitor showed quite a bit of discolouring (not visible on the photo), so it looks like it had fried. I therefore took the easy way out and simply removed the whole terminal clip from the track and binned it. For practical purposes that ends the story. All I can surmise is that the derailment I referred to caused a short. PIKO A-Track points are interesting: while they have plastic frogs and look like Insulfrog points, they are not isolating points due to concealed wiring hidden inside the underneath of the plastic frog. This means all rails are live, so a derailment by a locomotive with long bogies could result in wheels from the same side of a powered bogie touching both switchblades at the same time, presumably causing a short circuit, Keith.
  3. Looks good. I know nothing about 3-D printing, so just wondered if the need to set it a steep angle (to fit the printer, I noted in an earlier post) mean a lot of resin gets wasted - all those supporting struts - or can it be recycled? Just wondered, Keith.
  4. Sorry, I may have got my platform numbering the wrong way round - I’ve been looking at this: (Arriving locos with solid blue roofs, train carriage(s) with grey roofs, and turnover loco in translucent blue). Looks like I’m not seeing something I should, sorry, Keith.
  5. True, but does that leave you with a station that can have longer trains departing than arriving? There may well be prototypes where this happened, but perpetual asymmetrical operation seems an undesirable feature to me. Just a thought, Keith.
  6. Thank you - that makes sense. I’m still wondering though why the unit seemed to fail following a derailment elsewhere? Is there something I should be looking for? Although unused, the set was made some years ago, but I don’t know if this type of capacitor ‘ages’ (some do, I’ve learned), Keith. PS: thinking about it, could I just remove the capacitor and use the terminal clip like two wired rail joiners? I’m not worried about radio interference (unless it’s a legal requirement). I have no plans to switch to DCC but I think I’d have to remove it anyway if I did. When I’ve got some baseboards to lay track properly I won’t use a terminal clip: this is only temporary till we move house.
  7. Hi. It’s nearly 40 years since I studied basic electronics, and not having used it since I’m afraid my knowledge of all things electrical is best described as zero (I mainly build structure kits). I’ve bought some PIKO H0 A-track - I need Code 100 for running my older trains, and the PIKO track has a much narrower rail top than the Peco equivalent. The set I’ve bought included a train set power clip, which seemed to fail after a derailment on some points while testing. Everything else is fine, so I’m confident this is where my problem is, so I took the clip apart. My apologies for a very basic question, but what is this, and why is it needed? My photo isn’t very clear, sorry, but it is soldered across the brass connectors, so I assume it’s to cope with short circuits (which could well have happened when my loco derailed on a curved point). I’ve reconnected everything using a Gaugemaster Combi and a couple of wired fishplates (my usual wiring preference), but I’m curious as to the purpose and need for this bit. Apologies again about a very basic question - any advice welcome. Thanks, Keith.
  8. As an aside, I know of a couple of wonderful European outline model railways where the scenic section is just as @Harlequin has drawn: a single through line. Not suggesting it meets the requirements for this project for @TrainsTim, but could be the basis for a very effective layout for someone who has an interest in scenery and just enjoys watching trains run. A good fiddle yard / staging area is key, Keith.
  9. Thanks @RichardT for highlighting this video. As someone who doesn’t watch “What’s Neat” regularly, it did take me a bit to get used to the programme style, but the thing that stood out for me was the news that Kalmbach had sold their Milwaukee building some months ago - prior to the sale of the titles or even the involvement of the new owner. This suggests to me a business already in difficulties, giving the impression there’s more of a sense of a rescue than a takeover behind the scenes? I agree David Popp’s intervention / contribution near the end was interesting - seems he really wanted to get across his point that the staff team are fully aware of the decline in MR over the years (and aren’t happy about it), and are very keen for this new opportunity to work out. Firecrown are still a new business, so I really hope it does indeed work out well, Keith. (PS: I am picking up from other courses the suggestion Kalmbach as a business is going to close once all titles are sold, but would be happy for someone better informed to confirm or correct this. Thanks).
  10. Interesting. The crossing does rather stand out in this respect. Last time I looked at a Hornby OO crossing that version still had a solid plastic centre. The Peco OO Setrack version had long plastic check rails, but a much shorter plastic insulating section in the middle of the long sides (same in N gauge, I think). I’m guessing this hasn’t been a problem with the long Pacifics in TT, but I wonder how the 08 shunters with shorter wheelbases have got on? Keith.
  11. Hi Andy, I do like the Severn Models Church you've got - we don't see many model railway structures in metal, but this one looks really neat. I think it also looks good on top of the hillside (middle photo) - being smaller than the Kestrel kit the photo suggests it helps force the perspective. How big (small) is it? Just wondered, Keith.
  12. Indeed - from what I remember, the thrust of Roy Link’s original 1978 article was precisely that: his aim was to show what could be done in a small space to get a layout built. The choice of GWR branch line as a theme was therefore a secondary consideration - he opted for it to make it as easy as possible. The Airfix 14xx and Autocoach were suggested (I think he said the run-round loop was not long enough for a B-set anyway). Sadly, I had to put my own plan for a TT:120 version of the plan on long-term hold, but I’d still love to do it one day, Keith.
  13. Sorry to hear of your health issues - I hope you were able to enjoy the Show nonetheless - you’ve certainly created a very nice Narrow Gauge atmosphere from what we can see in the pictures: a lovely layout, Keith.
  14. North American TT modellers seem to standardise on the Micro-Trains couplers used for N-scale (rather than their Kadee cousins aimed at HO). The ttnut web Forum is a good place to find out more. Just a thought, Keith.
  15. I think the iron arch lattice in the actual proposed bridge looks really nice - seems to me the sort of fine detail where laser cutting can give a really good and crisp result, can be better than plastic in my view. Nice choice, Keith.
×
×
  • Create New...