Jump to content
 

jeff_p

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    50

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by jeff_p

  1. jeff_p

    Bridging the gap

    By jeff_p,


    Lyghtondown
    Flushed with a feeling of competence and an irrepressible desire to risk failure in the face of a public audience, I chose try my hand at another kit. The Ratio foot bridge, RO548.  I knew the Jujitsu kit bashing skill were unnecessary, but it looked like it would be a little fiddly.
     
    What the heck, we were going away for a week so I packed the kit, some tools and an extra dollop of wishful thinking. Shame I forgot the instructions 🙄
     
    Anyway, who needs instructions?
     
    What I can say is that it took way longer without them, but the kit is well formed and goes together fairly logically.  Here's the result:

     
    Obviously needs painting, like a number of other kids. I'll get round to a serious painting session soon.  Here's a wider shot including the cattle dock:
     

     
    Shame I left the super glue in shot.
     
    Jeff
  2. jeff_p

    Filling in a gap..

    By jeff_p,


    Lyghtondown
    .. in Lyghtondown.  The good yard didn't have any form of cattle or livestock facility.  Given that the size of the yard in real terms is, well, really, really tiny, this was never going to be a trivial decision or subsequent action.
     
    I had a choice of either putting a more normal dock in on the same siding as the coal staithes (?) where it could be basically rectangular, or "jamming" it between the good shed siding and the main good siding but necessitating some significant black belt kit bashing (for me at least).
     
    I chose the aesthetic option and started cutting up the Ratio cattle dock into new shapes with the aim of making a triangular structure.
     
    Not quite finished here, but to me it looks to be fitting in well without looking out of place.
     

     

     
    I shall rationalise the relatively small size of the dock by simply saying that the local farming community didn't need anything larger.  Who's to say otherwise :)
     
    Jeff
     
     
  3. jeff_p
    It would seem that I "fell off" .. well .. lots of stuff, not least keeping this blog up to date, so perhaps it's time for a brief update.
     
    Lyghtondown continues forward but it's hard for me to tell where we had got to in the blog, all the old photos have been 'archived' (euphemism for deleted).  I know I was playing out with electronics (I still am) and that some success had been witnessed regarding actually getting things moving.
     
    Anyway, we've been a little more focused and things have moved on and improved so here are a few images for the layout as it currently is:
     

     

     

     
    The ballasting was the work of only three or four days while the management went on a "building" building marathon filling up the empty spaces with .. stuff.  There's still much to actually decide on and build however, we're currently negotiating the "greenification" of the landscape and have quite a number of trees to create and plant along with all the other paraphernalia that you can find in the oddest places.
     
    Regards,
    Jeff.
     
  4. jeff_p

    "It's alive!", finally

    By jeff_p,


    DCC
    Just a brief one as I'm a bit chuffed with some initial success with my DCC "box".  I've been working on extending its abilities past the normal range of a DCC generator/controller as I outlined in the last entry, and now, finally, the various elements have come together.  I'll aim to write up something more informative soon (I haven't started testing it yet), but my foray into PCB design and manufacture has worked out better than I anticipated, and resulted in the following "solution" for the controlling electronics:
     

     

     
    The Arduino UNO has been replaced with a socketed Nano, and the single motor shield simplified into a pluggable module focused on just DCC generation.  Still two outputs per board, so the whole unit can run six DCC outputs.  Six was chosen as this is the effective limit of the Nano in terms of pins available.
     
    I've crammed this, a power supply and one or two other bits and bobs back into the original case, and so I now have this:
     

     
    As I said I haven't really started testing anything yet, but the Nano is happy and now displaying 6 districts (A through F).  All the panel components have had to condense sideways as the PSU is filling the extreme right of the box.  The main upgrade here are the three sockets, each presenting two DCC Districts with Ground and +15V
     
    One advance on the district front (apart from each district being independently powered) is that in the event that there is a power related "Opps" the firmware will try reversing the polarity of a district briefly before actually turning it off.  The aim here is that things like reversing loops/triangles or turntables which normally need some explicit mechanism for handling the potential for shorting can simply be made their own district.
     
    Well, that's the design goal.
     
    There is a whole pile of careful testing before I subject an engine to trial runs, not mentioning actually rigging up a test environment where the practical testing can take place.  But this is something of a landmark that I wanted to share.
     
    Tomorrow will see our oscilloscope (just a hobbyist one, nothing fancy) get some use as we work our way through the various use and error cases to see what happens.  I've no doubt that there are issues, how could there not be, the firmware is over 6,500 lines of C/C++
     
     
     
  5. jeff_p

    Since I was there...

    By jeff_p,


    DCC
    ... and had already confirmed a modest case of "stepping over a line", there's been some additional work going on.
     
    I give you a DCC Generator that supports multiple Power DCC Districts.
     
    OK. Stunned silence from most of the audience, and I would imagine for 95% of those people using DCC out there this means little to nothing and even if it did has little to no practical use.
     
    Question: What is a DCC Power District?
     
    Answer: As I understand it it's a mechanism for subdividing up a layout is separate areas such that if there is a "power event" within an area (e.g. short circuit or overload), then only that area is impacted as the controller only shuts down the power supply to that area.  The rest of the layout continues unaffected.
     
    So .. what have I done?
     
    Behind the scenes at a software level quite a lot.  Visually the display on the front of the box has been updated, thus:
     

     
    The central area now reflects the fact that I've taken to lettering each of the possible outputs from the Motor Shield alphabetically, and display each with a small "power bar"  (in this case a really short one of just a '=' symbol).  This displays all the driver devices inside the box (only two in the case of a standard Motor Shield) regardless of their association with the operations track or the programming track.  In the event that there is an event then the controller removes the power from that driver and fills that bar display with '*'s (which are meant to flash, but haven't yet).  After a short period of time (5 seconds at the moment, probably too short) it tries to restart the output.
     
    I realise that with only two possible outputs this seems like a waste of effort, after all you need one output for the main track and one for the programming track.  However, the programming track is now optional in the firmware, so it is possible to have two power districts driving the main track.  But .. I have some bits and pieces on the way, and it should be possible to make a shield with four drivers which would still work on an Arduino Uno, and if you're up for it, six or eight using an Arduino Mega.
     
    Anyway, that's a week or two away.
     
    Here we are running a couple of trains (Nos 10 and 51, as above ), tail chasing style, round the layout using the controller with the new firmware: https://photos.app.goo.gl/h5etMcWpHnQQ9fT59
     
    Jeff.
     
  6. jeff_p

    Now I'm definitely going too far

    By jeff_p,


    DCC
    There's no doubt that I have crossed some form of line.
     
    None what so ever...
     
    I give you, "Yet another persons home grown DCC generator" (thingie):
     

     
    What is it?  It's effectively an alternative to the DCC++ Arduino and Motor shield solution for driving your DCC trains.
     
    It is all fresh code which has it's own selection of pro's and con's, but I am chuffed with the LCD giving a second by second summary of what is going on (as far as the Arduino can tell).  The "Lnnnn" gives the value returned by the Motor Shield for the power/load passing through the H-Brigde, "Pn" says which track is on (0-none,1=Main, 2=Programming).  "Fnn" tells you how many output bit buffers are free. "Tnnnn" indicates how many DCC packets are being transmitting per second. "Uxxxx" is the uptime of the Arduino since last restart.  The right hand side gives a brief summary of what the currently active bit buffers are doing.  In this case an engine with the DCC ID 473 is going forwards at speed 48.
     
    Obviously the Volt & Amp meter are self explanatory.
     
    All good fun, so far.  Plenty of testing to do .. good excuse to play trains me thinks
     
    [Edit] A little film of it working here: https://photos.app.goo.gl/9Cz8GeaqVTo8fu1E7
     
     
    Jeff
     
     
     
  7. jeff_p

    Just a quickie

    By jeff_p,


    Point matters
    After a wee comment from one of the local club members, I've been "refining" the servo motor code for the Arduino, thus:
     
    Bouncing servo motor
     
    Refining isn't perhaps accurate, more of a complete over haul.
  8. jeff_p

    Movement on the I3

    By jeff_p,

    Now that the (apparent) rush with the blog is over a more sedate and relaxed pace will be the order of the day, but I mustn't allow lethargy to take control.  So, in the spirit of showing that the lock down protocol hasn't resulted in me wandering about the house all day dressed in my slippers and dressing gown (what a terrible image, sorry , and I don't even own any slippers), there's been some progress on the SE Finecast I3 kit.
     
    I've rebuilt the chassis now with some new parts sourced from 'Finecast.  It became apparent when making a more detailed inventory of bits and pieces that I had lost some of the kit.  Nothing big, just from nuts and bolts, stuff for the electrical pickup, that sort of thing.  I have absolutely no idea where they could have gone to, but given how long it was stored for anything could have happened.  Unfortunately (for me) that meant I needed to contact 'Finecast and request some missing bits, and that mean that I accidentally (honest gov', he made me do it) bought one of their  SR 0-4-2 D1 kits .
     
    The chassis is far from complete, but rather than ploughing on I thought it sensible to make absolutely sure I had the chassis and wheels sorted and rolling smoothly before adding details.  The result was this:
     

     
    Two key elements were causing trouble at this point.  Naturally the coupled wheels were spinning fine independently but wouldn't when coupled, and the bogie (being so light) wouldn't stay on the rails on the tighter curves.
     
    The cause of the first problem is no revelation, and neither was the solution (well most of it).  Using the broaches that I do have I have I eased the bearings in the chassis just a bit more, and then progressively did the same on the ends of the coupling rods.  This I did with the coupling rods back-to-back to make as sure as I possibly could that they stayed the same length, even if it wasn't exactly the right length. The other thing I did was tie the two halves of the compensation arms/levers together.  It can be seen as the slightly off-square bar just behind the front driving axle in the following picture:
     

     
    The compensation still allows the driving axles to rise and fall a couple of millimeters, but has stopped a possible twisting motion laterally.  It was fiddly, but was this necessary?  I don't know, but as far as I can see the driving axles cannot now move further apart through the motion of the compensation, and so this ought to maintain smoother running while still allowing the chassis the best chance of keeping its wheels on the track.  Time will tell.  The bar was placed there as the gearbox fills in the equivalent space around the rear axle and effectively keeps that under control, but the front axle bearings were free to move laterally along the axle so this seemed like the obvious place to add some rigidity.
     
    As for the leading bogie, a spare spring from a three link coupling kit has been donated to the cause, and after trimming has been installed over the bolt between the chassis cross bar and the bogie itself.  Thanks to Martins' suggestion on Monday nights club call for that one.  As is not uncommon for me I'd missed the obvious solution and was caught up in trying to work out how to make something out of some springy wire .  The spring is too strong for an unladen chassis (even cut down), but once all that white metal added then this should resolve itself.  It's easy enough to tune later.
     
    I've also started working on the body of the kit for a few reasons:
     
    I need the weight on the chassis to enable some testing etc.. I might need to trim the motor shaft and also create some restraint for the motor (given that it rises and falls with the driven wheels) I also need to see where I can run wires and place a DCC decoder (probably the bunker)  
    So here I am starting to piece together the major components of the body:
     

     
    Finally, the D1 kit:
     

     
    This goes onto the shelf for the time being, but I have been wanting one of these for the layout for a while now.  It fits nicely into the period and concept of the layout, so much so that I might even need two ...
     
    Jeff
     
    [Edit: just to sort out the typing and phrasing]
  9. jeff_p

    Servo Software

    By jeff_p,


    Point matters
    So, given that I've been playing with servos it seems that producing something simple to drive them would be a good idea.  If you are of a mind, and fancy  a modest challenge, then over HERE (in Github) is the source for the Arduino firmware.  This, after relatively limited testing, should work on a Nano, Uno or Mega2560 and control as many servos and the board has PWM outputs (with some reasonable exceptions).
     
    Here (and arguably meaninglessly) is a picture of an Uno operating a single servo:
     

     
    What this *has* shown (and provided justification for writing the software), is that I need to adjust the chassis design:  The Servo "pokes through" the mount a little too far (1 - 2mm) and so things catch on each other.  Back to the CAD again, and another 3D print.
     
    I should add that while driving a single servo directly off an Arduino isn't a problem, driving more might be.  If you were to employ this then you would need to provide 5 volts for the Arduino (using the barrel jack or Vin and GND pins), and this power supply should be directly supplying the Servos with only the control wire linking the servo to the Arduino.
     
    Jeff/
     
     
     
  10. jeff_p

    For those interested ..

    By jeff_p,


    Point matters
    Just a quick one.
     
    "Can I arrange to put the switches on the actuator" was, I think, the last question.
     
    Yes:
     

     
    and
     

     
    So there are "T Slots" in the chassis into which rather small M1.6 bolts fit and M2.0 might fit (I haven't any to try).  I would hardly say that it is simple, but it is achievable.
     
    Attached are the STL files for the chassis, the rod and two wheels (one with 10mm throw and the other with 4mm throw).
     
    Please feel free to play though I would warn that I am new to this CAD for 3D printing activity, so there are no doubt some features which are "sub-optimal"
     
    I've had an inspiration regarding making a generic configurable stand-a-lone Arduino driver sketch which could make going forward with this type of solution less involved and result in a more "traditional" operation mode.
     
    Hmmmm...
     
    Jeff
    PointActuatorRod.stl PointActuatorSwitchFrame.stl ServoCamWheel4mm.stl ServoCamWheel10mm.stl
  11. jeff_p

    Point motors, re-invented

    By jeff_p,


    Point matters
    Well, I guess I ought to have known that I would end up doing this, so, yes, wheel re-invention was the order of the day.
     
    Putting that to one side I think I have come up with something a little different, perhaps more flexible while being simpler to print and deploy (though that last point really will have to wait until I have actually installed one and got it working).
     
    I have chosen to divide the whole "model railway point motor" thing into two distinct parts:  The component which interfaces to the point itself, and the component which provides the driving force to actually move the point.  So, following the picture painting a thousand words ethos:
     
    The point interface:

     
    and the Point Actuator:

     
    I'll quickly point out that I realise that the the interface unit only catches the "bottom" switches, I have to extend the 3D model and raise the post up another 4mm.
     
    How would they work (I can't say "how do they work", yet )?  Hopefully it's obvious they screw up under the base board, where a suitable metal pin inserted into the post of the interface unit would engage with the point itself.  The interface unit can be aligned and positioned such that it is centred lined up with the tie bar of the point.  This interface unit (in deed both units) have a maximum 10mm swing which should be way more than required for normal usage.
     
    The actuator unit clips onto either side of the interface unit and (with the servo motor in it's "zero" position, as per above photo) moved until the point is accordingly set.  The 3D printed "springs" allow for both some freedom of alignment and also a little extension or compression hopefully making the whole arrangement easier to install and set up.
     
    So how do you adjust the "throw"?  Two ways:  Firstly you could simply drive the servo through a limited arc rather than a full 180 degrees and 10mm of movement.  Or, secondly, change the offset of the hub in the actuator wheel for one where the centre of rotation is closer to the centre of the wheel.  At the moment I am thinking that a combination of the two is the best approach.
     
    What I like about this design are the following:
     
    The servo is not actually attached to the component interfacing with the point, in the event that something needs doing to he servo there would be no need to fiddle with the point and risk upsetting something that can be tricky get right (not to mention a whole bunch of wires) There is no direct mechanical linkage between the servo and the point roding.  To remove the servo simply unscrew it and drop it off its actuator rod.  SImples.  
    Of course this is all, currently, hypothetical.  I think I shall have to make up a small "plank" test bed to see just how this is actually going to work. The best laid plans and all that stuff.
     
    The switches on the actuator will perform the normally anticipated "frog polarity" thing.  "But wait", you say, "that only needs the one switch".  Yes is the reply, however, the software I have been writing can accept confirmation signals (in the electrical sense) that the point movement has completed, and this is the purpose of the other two switches:  they will pull down Arduino pins to earth allowing the software to know  when a point is set (and which way) and also when it is "in motion" between states.
     
    Anyway, some more images:
     

     

     

     
    For info:  CAD done using FreeCAD 0.18.4 exporting to STL and into Ultimaker Cura 4.4.1 under Linux Mint 20 Cinnamon.
     
    Been trying to get these all "lined up" for a while now.  Some of my issues were software related, but there's been a fair amount of mental re-alignment required as well
     
    Jeff.
  12. jeff_p

    I've come up for air

    By jeff_p,

    So here we are, again, in more than one way.  It's been an interesting summer with the easing of lock down and some fine weather, but changes are afoot (on both fronts).  So things have slowed a little on the layout, but mostly because the work on the Arduino concept has been trundelling (?) on with progress on both the hardware and software fronts.
     
    The hardware is migrating off the bread boards onto something that can be attached to a layout and the software is becoming more flexible and forgiving.  It's almost working.
     

     
    I'm reaching the point where I actually need to get myself making the mounts and brackets for servos and stepper motors  (after a look to see what's about first, no point in re-inventing that wheel).
     
    There's some (rough) video of some blurry fingers, lights and a screen here (if you're interested): https://photos.app.goo.gl/hWoegsf2sFvarwov5
     
    Onwards and ... well, onwards...
     
    Jeff.
  13. jeff_p

    Design and Goals

    By jeff_p,

    Now would seem like a good time to outline what the goals of Lyghtondown are, and how we might hope to achieve them.
     
    It would be fair to say that my wife and I are approaching the hobby from opposite ends of the spectrum.  I'm very much of the "as realistic as possible" frame of mind, working to the best of our abilities within the limitations we either had to, or choose to, accept.  We've called this the "model railway" approach.  On the other hand, and a perfectly valid alternative view, is my wifes desire to recreate the hobby of her past where historical or practical accuracy is second to simply getting on and seeing lots of trains moving about.  We've called this the "train set" approach.  This opposition of views has been the cause of lots of discussion and suggestions countered with an alternative approach that took weeks to get (mostly) sorted out.
     
    So what is the resulting objective?  We're trying to do both, after all, compromise is necessary in every marriage
     
    Lyghtondown has been laid as through station within a continuous loop (through the traverser) such that we can play and allow trains to roll round and round to our satisfaction.  Sometimes it's just nice to watch the trains moving without have to be directly involved every second.  Having settled on this decision the next obvious one was "one or two tracks".  The board has space, just, for a dual track loop but I felt that using the space for this would have consequences for how realistically the station could be represented and on a practical note how easy and reliable the traverser alignment would be.  I won that point, eventually, and so the station is an attempt to represent  the style of station that might have been found on the Cuckoo Line.  Which raises another question.
     
    Why not model a real location then?
     
    Good question, but actually not such a good answer.  I spent a fair bit of time trundling through the Signalling Record Society Website virtually walking up and down the branch lines looking at the options like, for example, Rotherfield:
     

     
    But eventually I think a couple of things steered us away from this:
     
    The layout would be, regardless of what we did, be very tight, and sticking to a sensible minimum radius would be challenging.  Taking even a small station plan (as above) and condensing it into the space available would result in something that would only be "representative" of the named location. I'm rather proud of the name "Lyghtondown", entirely made up but with a feel of authenticity, which allows us to model whatever we like (rule #1).  
    I brushed against a couple of points there: the track plan itself and track laying choices.  I'll add a few words on that subject.
     
    All the track is PECO Code-75 flexi-track and electro-frog points.  At the time the track was purchased (back when the boards were actually made) the bullhead option didn't exist, so I felt this was the best option short of making track, and met the "train set" objective of allowing us to run anything we fancied including all the 00 RTR stock we had gathered over time.
     
    The plan itself is very much "in the style of" a number of the stations on the Cuckoo Line, though perhaps most like Rotherfield.  The track has been laid with a minimum radius of 0.5m, and this tightest radius has been almost exclusively reserved only for the curves behind the scenery.  In the scenic section the curves are mostly more open than this, aided by the fact that all but 2 of the points are curved.  From a strictly prototypical point of view, the track layout is missing some key safety features that would have been considered essential: Catch points.  These have been left out simply because their inclusion would have used up space forcing the station itself to be even smaller.
     
    So the final plan, agreed by the management, looks (something) like this:
     

     
    The aim was to capture a typical branch line station layout while keeping open as many options as possible.  Space everywhere is tight, the platforms are just long enough to get four coaches and a small engine in, but in reality the traverser is only long enough for three coaches and an engine, but does hold six trains.
     
    Here we are, having got the track down and working, unwrapping the toys for our first play.  The traverser is clearly just four long coaches long and basically defines the practical limits on over all train size.  Yes, that large blue loco in the middle of it is Tornado, one of my wifes engines.
     

     
    Happy days at last.
     
    Jeff
  14. jeff_p
    I believe my last words were "I need to focus", and in a sense I have, just not on what I thought I should be.
     
    The trouble with "playing with DCC control" is that once I had a proof of concept working with trains and points moving smoothly under my control I realised what was missing.  The result has been (and encouraged by the management) that I've re-written virtually everything but "properly" this time.
     
    But that's not all, oh no.  Looking forwards towards a more automated layout (and freshly encouraged by my successes with the tiny Arduino boards) I thought to pull together some form of networking for these devices such that a number of them could be "dotted" about the underside of the layout and control things.  Things can be lights, sensors, servo motors or even stepper motors (but not trains ).  Then, thinking to myself "do I need to use JMRI?" I've also coded up to use the DCC++ connection directly.
     
    So that's where so many weeks have slid past: 8K+ lines of Arduino code and about 15K lines of C++ "server side" code, and still growing though nearly completed.
     
    I'll work up to a proper update soon(ish), but here's what a ring of Arduinos looks like:
     

     
    All good fun.
     
    Jeff.
     
  15. jeff_p
    ..on the modelling.  But, to be honest, this really grabbed my interest as a bit of a technical "can I actually get that to work?" way.  The answer is "Yes", but what is it?
     
    I decided to see if I could make a simple hand held railway controller that be used to operate a DCC layout.  When I say "a" DCC layout, I really ought to be clear and say that I meant "our" DCC layout:  JMRI with a DCC++ interface.
     
    I wanted it to be as simple as possible to operate, and as simple as possible to configure, and this is the first completed prototype in a 3D printed case (a story in its own right):
     
     
     
    So how does it work?  Hopefully fairly intuitively.  The rotary knob will control the currently selected engine shown in the bottom box (faster/slower, forwards/backwards, etc).  Click the dial to change direction, long click to flip between driving mode and shunting mode.  The "cross" (actually a joystick component from an Xbox controller) is used to move up/down the menu, or left/right between menus.  Press to activate the selected item.
     
    Technically, it's not the handset doing the clever stuff.  All it does is manage its display and report buttons, dials or joystick activity communicating with a computer via a USB lead.  The fiddly stuff is done in a program on the computer which picks up a menu configuration from a text file and (for the moment) talks to the WiFi Service in JMRI to make things happen.
     
    So far I can turn power on/off, select and drive an engine and toggle points.
     
    One of the aims was to make it as easy as possible to "play" trains, so once an engine has been selected (and appears in the bottom of the screen) it can be driven while any other menu is shown (and used).  Here the points menu is active with Engine 51 moving forwards:
     

     
    Anyway, all I need to do now is make the management her own controller (no doubt in a different colour), and we'll be away and perhaps (with this now nearly out of my system) I can get back to what I ought to be doing: building the layout itself
     
     
  16. jeff_p
    Hands up, I know, it's a Great Western Railways 6 Ton hand operated crane ... but, well, it was calling to me so I fell for it and picked it up from eBay.  At the time I was having trouble finding Cambrian as a vendor which was why I was scanning through the many, many things eBay suggested I couldn't do without
     
    I have subsequently "found" Cambrian and now have a small set of SR bolster wagons to put together at some stage in the future.
     
    Anyway, a corner of the layout is destined to be some rural timber yard scene, and I thought (at the time) that a small crane would fit into that scope nicely.  The fact that it wasn't "home grown" could be explained away with something like "bought in cheap by the mill owner", and besides, "Southern Railways wasn't primarily goods focused, so perhaps they too bought in rolling stock appropriately".  I've spent some time looking (on line) for evidence of mobile cranes in Southern use, and some do turn up.  Obviously the "big" stuff for re-railing etc., but the occasional smaller one too.  I guess they were not that photogenic at the time.
     
    This one is certainly interesting, found in Flickr, a picture posted by "Les Chatfield" (probably somebody here, thank you Les):
     

     
    Great, so there is some form of precedent, that's good enough for me.
     
    From a blogging point of view, I've missed out on some of the build steps (as I simply didn't think to photo them at the time).  So we catch me here with the two bases formed and me (behind the camera) scratching my head about how the rest of the pieces fit together:
     

     
    I had re-invented the "block of metal and magnets" trick for holding things firmly and square.  I'm sure this has been done many times before but, for me, it was bit of a light bulb moment and delayed building the kit while a pile of blue fridge magnets were delivered and I hacked the end off a piece of steel and squared it off.  This made piecing together all the big sections much simpler.  Here it can be seen holding the start of the frame for the crane while the glue does its stuff:
     

     
    So, progress being made, but the jib itself took a little while for me to convince myself I had it right, and that I'd got the necessary pieces fitting together fairly well.  The jib half built, as is the body of the crane itself:
     

     
    ... closer ...
     

     
    Now here is the point where I grabbed the managements glasses; they're thicker than mine:
     

     
    This last picture covers some significant work, the obvious ones of sorting out the hooks and cleaning them up but also, less obviously, repairing two of the long thin links from the jib to the top of the crane body.  The molding process had fallen just shy of fulling forming all four of the pieces, so two of them needed pieces of spru (?) grafting into the missing space and then the reformed piece gently working back to size(ish).  Bit of a challenge, but rather satisfying when completed.  Final result, unpainted, thus:
     

     
    Many extra steps and fiddly things have been, erm .. glossed over, to get to this point.  For example, side running boards stowed or out?  What I did forget, was to place some weight inside the crane counter weight.  Without it the crane naturally rests jib down.  Later on you'll see a small square hole in the bottom of that area through which I rectified that omission
     
    Prime with grey:
     


     
    Now try and pick a colour.  I know what, how about grey, but dirty:
     

     
    Then finally, for the moment that is:
     

     
    Some things remain to be completed:
     
    The ride height of match wagon and crane seem slightly out.  This is almost certainly because I have used the same 8 spoke wheels for both, but the instructions which came with the crane definitely mentioned the crane itself using larger wheels.  I need to find some. I have the three link chains to go between them, just need to  fit them. Couplings at the ends?  Yes, definitely.  Almost certainly going to settle on Spratt and Winkle couplings, but until we've undertaken some trial conversions and seen how these cope with the many curves on the layout that's not a 100% decision yet. Ballast? Yes, definitely.  Both wagons are inevitably light and need weighing down.  I need to find a source of clean lead (or something) and some guidelines for how much. Tie down chain and other match wagon additions.  When the crane is on the move the tip of the jib should be chained securely to the corners of the match wagon for obvious reasons.  The chain an other pieces are awaiting some painting and placement. Some more detailed weathering of both chassis with both grease and rust marks required.  
    I'll call this a day now, and pick out the typing mistakes tomorrow
    Jeff
     
    [Edit] It's tomorrow.  Lesson from last night: Don't write a blog into the night - my writing skills are definitely diminished.  Also forgot to mention that I did fit brass bearings into the wagons.
     
  17. jeff_p

    Just do it.

    By jeff_p,

    I once worked in a company where the phrase "JFDI" was occasionally fired at you.  Essentially it means "stop procrastinating and Just Do It", I'll let you workout what the 'F' stood for .
     
    Happily, for me (and possibly them too), I no longer work for them so having this expression thrust at me has become a rather rare experience, but the other day I found myself thinking, "You can't avoid it, you're going to have to JUST DO IT", so what was I thinking about?
     
    A bit of an embarrassing admission really, I have had this white metal kit for a number of years now that I started, badly, then stalled as at that time of life work was ... difficult.  I realised the other day that now was a good time to take it out of storage, give it a good long hard looking at, and start it again.  What is it?  It's one of South Eastern Finecast LBSCR I3 kits.  Digging the box out (it was sitting next to an untouched H2 kit I bought before the RTR versions were even an inkling of a thought of an idea), I was presented with a box of bits still wrapped in tissue paper:
     

     
    .. and the standard "exploded" diagram of how to build it:
     

     
    Unfortunately the chassis lurked in there and when extracted looked like this:
     

     
    A little pause for mentally working out how to approach "un-building" the chassis then an hours patient application of flux and hot soldering iron resulting in a pile of detached, but messy parts:
     

     
    One screw gave me particular issue as at least on this one I'd managed to solder not just the two parts together, but the thread on the screw too.  Four or five attempts later (and one or two "damn" moments with the fingers) and this part too surrendered to the inevitable (something was going to give, and it wasn't me!).
     
    That was yesterday.  Today I reviewed the parts, thought about what was needed to make putting this together simpler, and vanished into the garage. I've made myself another block of steel with one critical dimension being the same as the distance between the two halves of the chassis.  Now I have a extra pair of hands in the same way I did with the crane, and these hands don't mind getting a little hot
     
    Anyway, some time spent removing old solder and cleaning up the bits and pieces.  You might notice that I have also started clearing out the axle boxes to allow some compensation to be fitted on the driving wheels (the two "bone" shaped pieces between the files).
     

     
    ...then I started with the front bogie chassis.  Filed off some surplus tabs (EM specific) so that it was easier to jig the pieces together:
     


     
    Finally drilling out some 0.8mm cross bar holes, fitting the bars and feeling satisfied with not making a mess of it:
     

     

     
    Enough with the soldering today, so finished off by dry running the main chassis together:
     

     
    I stopped short of soldering this together because I'm not sure how rigid it will be.  It must be fine, many people must have made this before, but it feels "flexible" laterally.  Is this even a problem?
     
    Time for a drink,  more to follow.
    Jeff.
     
    [Edit] Still haven't learnt not to post last thing in the evening.  I'm definitely a morning person.
  18. jeff_p
    And fill up the gaps in the layout (and that's everywhere at the moment ).
     
    But, specifically this time, I mean the bridge across the left hand entrance to (exit from) the station.  This, with primer just applied, looked like this:
     

     
    Shiny new paint, though fuzzy as this image was cropped from a larger picture.  The arch over the track is the access through the back board of the hills.  I had thought to cut it open "to the sky", but a few things stopped me:
     
    The board with the back scene still needed a hole for the trains the travel through The arch would add some strength the relatively small hill is the corner of the board There would be a bridge pretty much immediately in front of it, so mostly hidden  
    To the managements surprise (almost despair) I had no plan to look for something that could be purchased and "made to fit".  Scratch building was my chosen way forward.  She had a single word reply to that: "How?". Oh dear, I thought , best get on with it then.
     
    I chose to take small steps in making the bridge, not because it was difficult, but rather that as this was my first run at building anything for the layout  I wanted to leave myself plenty of check points that I could roll back to if I made some ghastly mistake (which I thought quite likely).  My starting point then was to make two templates for the front and back of the bridge which captured the curvature of the sides with respect to the rails.  Finally one of those cereal boxes I've been saving for a while now found its calling.  The result of this is shown here:
     

     
    These fit nicely across the track and against the side of the cutting.  From these templates were made for the two sides of the bridge.  These then allowed all of the most awkward pieces of rolling stock to be checked for clearance and to "get a feel" for the general look of the resulting bridge before too much effort was invested into it.  These templates looked as follows:
     

     
    The reference to the rails was maintained to help keep things lined up.  The piece in the middle is a combined "arch template" from a Scale Scenes brick paper.  None of the arches fitted what I was looking for, so combing pieces of two of them in three bits ("A", "B" then "A" again) gave the curve I was looking for.
     
    Construction of the bridge was pretty simple in reality (fortunately), some 1.5mm artists card was bought form a local Paper/Book/Hobby store (long before the lock down), I think the sheet was A2 size.  Two pieces of this made the sides, two pieces of cereal box glues together made the road surface and another made the inside of the arch.  Finally two more smaller pieces of the artists card were used to make the walls either side of the road realistically thick.  Once the structure was completely dry everything was, very carefully, papered in bricks.  As is typical of me, I didn't think to photo the intermediate stages (probably because I had glue on my fingers, so here is the best "in progress" view I have, an internal view:
     

     
    Finally with the bridge in position, thought not fixed yet (front then back):
     


     
    You can see how close this is to the back of the layout as the top edge of the plywood arch clips the corner of the last picture.
     
    All in all this didn't take that long to make, which was a good thing, as this is the second one I have made.  The first I thought to spray with Matt Varnish to give the printed paper some protection, but successfully managed to make it look like it had been sitting in the sun for years and faded.  Too heavy handed with the spray, obviously, so all the prep work at the start of the build paid off.  I suspect that I shall be keeping to this style of methodology as while I am happy to learn from my mistakes I hate having to redo more work than necessary as a result.
     
    I suppose the final step should be to glue this in place, but my hand always pulls back at that point.  There's no need to make this permanent yet, and while I think this looks pretty good, especially for a first go (reaches round and pats self on the back ) it's not actually based on any specific bridge or style, I just made it up.  There's a good chance I'll try something more accurate in the future.
     
    That's the bridge done, for now.  Next the Cambrian GWR 6 Ton Crane, though I am still finishing that off.  Here's a peek:
     

     
    Jeff.
  19. jeff_p
    On the last entry I had started filling in the gaps where the hills were going with pieces of Celotex cut (or broken) out of a full size board.  We must have drawn some strange looks at the builders merchants when we bought it as we stood by a rather tiny car (only marginally bigger than a Smart for 2) with a 8'x4' sheet of this stuff leaning against it.  The solution for us was simple: use a Stanley knife to score the board into 2'x2' sections and snap it into manageable pieces.  Still filled the car up though.
     
    Anyway.. Filling up the hills and shaping them worked well with this foam, it's light, tough but easy to handle.  I was initially  a little worried about sticking it down but polyurethane expanding glue is good stuff and, as long as you weight things down, expands out to get a good grab on the various pieces.  Progress looked like this as this point:
     

     
     
    .. and looking the other way ..
     

     
    The bag of ballast in this picture reminded me to say "yes, I remembered to ballast and weather the track inside the tunnel".  The tunnel itself was made using Das modelling clay formed round a buck I made from foam that followed the track line and defined the shape of the tunnel.  I covered the foam in cling film first then molded the clay over it.
     

     
    Took a couple of days to dry, but fairly light and amenable to tweaking and rubbing down.  Not perfect, but I am learning as I go, fortunately.  The tunnel itself is only about a foot long, so shouldn't provide any insurmountable problems in the future but only time will tell.  I suppose that if the worst happens and I need to re-engineer that area I'll have to extend the cutting back towards the back board.  I'd rather not, the curve pulls in tighter in there and it wouldn't look right.
     
    A couple of cycles of paring back with a sharp knife and coarse sand paper, along with filling in areas that needed modification, resulted in some flowing hills and the feeling that everything was following some sort of plan.
     
    The next step was to try and create a working surface to the new hills, something that would follow the shape well, be easy to put down and subsequently modify if necessary.  I chose a rather old fashioned approach, and using something like 60:40 PVA and water mix, covered the hills in pieces of news paper, hundreds, possibly thousands of tiny bits of news paper. At least twice.  This worked rather well to my mind, looking like this in mid application:
     

     
    Applying the paper in pieces around the size of my thumb made it easy to follow the contours of the foam and once fully soaked there was some flexibility in the paper itself.  The result is a light, smooth, hard surface that feels like it will be easy to work with.  The final step, mainly to over come the "Dazzle Camouflage" effect of the print on the paper, was to prime everything grey so that the real shape of things became obvious.
     

     

     

     
    The grey paint has done its job nicely, there are obviously a couple of places where the lines don't run into each other quite right, but we're happy with over all result.  We now feel that another milestone has been reached, and that it's time to begin some "proper" modelling (eh? What have I been doing so far? ).

    Finally, we had to make sure we hadn't glued the boards together, so it was time to ease (pry!) them apart:
     

     
    Hurray!
     
    As can be seen in the pictures other modelling has begun; bridge at the left end, tunnel entrance at the other.  Next major step is to draw out the edges of the platforms and build these up so the ballasting can begin.
     
    Fairly soon I also need to finalise the detailed plan of the layout, small details like where the building are and how big they should be (indeed, what they are actually going to look like).  A signalling plan needs to be established so that details about point rods and signal cables can be established (I don't want to have to chip out ballast between sleepers to get these details in place).  Where is the signal box going?  This is an area where my wife and I are most at odds; I like to plan things out and know where I am aiming and what the hurdles ahead are, she likes to evolve and develop ideas on a just in time basis.  It's going to be a delicate discussion .
     
    Next time there is the matter of the bridge and tunnel entrance, and (while I was doing all the above) building the crane kit from Cambrian.
     
    Jeff.
     
  20. jeff_p

    Getting the hump

    By jeff_p,

    To this point in the process, Lyghtondown has been rather two dimensional. Flat, even.
     
    "Hardly a surprise", would be fair response.  At the end of the last blog entry the Management and I had got as far as playing trains on a flat rectangular area of plywood with a rectangular hole in the middle. I don't wish to minimise the mile stone that represented, we had a great evening unwrapping the toys at last.  But in real terms this much less than half way, there's a lot still to do.
     
    What the railway always required (an indeed all layout require) is a third dimension: height.  The railway needs bumps, contours, shape and ultimately some context in which the railway "paraphernalia" would sit in. Something to make it believable.  The best way of getting some of that third dimension going was to start planning the hills, and when this began something really became obvious: Corners do not look right.
     
    For a layout this size it seems like it has quite a lot of corners, and from most angles when looking at the layout (rather than looking into your hands ) there's a corner making its presences felt (either on the inside or the outside of the boards).  This is predominantly caused by the scenic area being maximized by forming a "U" shape round the centre access hole.  It was inevitable, but how to mitigate this.
     
    The answer was hardly rocket science, but did require additional in-fill boards to be fabricated:  The back scene behind the scenery will be (more or less) continuously curved from the extreme left to the extreme right.  Something like this:
     

     
    So the blue line represents the outline planning permission for the back scene, and the turquoise bits the new boards.  I picked up some flexible plywood to assist with the fabrication and the back scene itself.  Strange stuff is all I can say.  I am happy with it for the more structural pieces, but for the back scene I am having second thoughts.  More of that another time.
     
    I could try to describe the build process from here forward, but photos during fabrication are better. So:
     
    Infill corners just made and sitting roughly where they would be placed.
     

     
    Then, and a little frustratingly later in the process, the corners are fitted and the "backs" of the hills fixed and glued into place.
     
    Left:

     
    Right:

     
    Finally the whole thing:

     
    So this set the basic outline of the hills along the back.  The next job is to fill in the hills.  So, voila!
     

    ... and ...

     
    The building insulation foam was used to fill in the hills.  One 2.44m x 1.22m x 60mm sheet provided enough material for everything, just a pain trying to remove all the foil before gluing it into place.
     
    That's probably enough of this for the moment.  Next time finishing the hills and bringing the blog pretty much up to date.
     
  21. jeff_p

    Power!

    By jeff_p,

    One of the least appreciated aspects of our hobby (by those outside it) is the opportunity to expand your knowledge and experience into areas that simply hadn't crossed your mind.
     
    For us controlling trains on your "Model Train Set Railway" soundly fell into that category.  With both of us having a rudimentary understanding of electricity (management more so than me; she's the smart one), the wiring and potential issues with signal data and power being pushed through hap-hazzardly fabri-cobbled together birds nest of wire didn't cause much concern.  Generating those signals did in the first place did.  We're both a little old fashion in many senses, and bought (again back when the board were being made) into a system which seems solid, functional, simple.  We bought one of these:
     

     
    Actually (and this is whole different story), her old loft space did have a quite sizeable Train Set installed and in reality the Prodigy Advance 2 was bought for this with two handheld controllers and a booster pack too.
     
    Now this system worked well enough for us at the time and once the move to consolidate our assets had been negotiated and approved (thanks to a trip in the West Somerset Railway), this controller and its accessories came along too.  "Sorted", I thought, "One less thing to worry about".
     
    However, if truth be told, both of us found the use of the system a little cumbersome, and once Lyghtondown had reached the "functional testing" phase (i.e. lets play trains) these little issues seemed to grow.  Thinking back, the fiddly nature of the system was far less apparent in her loft because the layout was so much bigger: the time spent driving the trains about was much larger than the time spent setting points, selecting a loco and moving away.  With Lyghtondown the journey time from the traverser to the station is best measured in seconds than minutes (even at a realistic pace), and so it now it took much longer to set things up for the next train than it took the train to move.  Suddenly we're not "playing trains", we're primarily playing with technology.  Not what we wanted.
     
    It was about this time that we felt that joining the local club would be appropriate, we'd been to a couple of their local shows (very good), and thought to show our faces.  We got a very warm welcome, and in that frenzied bout of questions during that first evening ("What scale do you model?" "DC or DCC?" etc) a young chap (younger than either of us) called Gary (BlueLightening) said something like "I use and Arduino and some software".
     
    There was some dumb struck awe at that point.  Was that even possible?
     
    As I guess everyone here is aware, this is of course eminently possible, and indeed really not that difficult.  I think it took a week to order the necessary parts and find the right software to drive it (JMRI), some fiddling to get the DCC++ sketch operating.  I'm an old hand at programming and computers but this micro-controller stuff was all new to me.  So here is our trail blazing Arduino, now in standby mode as I've accidentally bought a few more :
     

     
    We took our lead from Mr Heath-Robinson and cobbled this together with a small 15 volt power brick from some defunct piece of kit that had long since made it to recycling and, amazingly, it worked!  An old laptop furnished the computer power to run JMRI being installed on top of Linux.  Further investigation of options available in JMRI found the "Wifi Server" and suddenly a couple of old smart phone became mobile controllers.
     
    Fan-tas-tic!
     
    Several things quickly came to notice:
     
    The Phone interface is cool (to us at the moment) and being wireless is great, but not necessarily faster in use than the Prodigy kit.  This, though, is a function of which Application you use to make the connection to JMRI, and so is subject to change and update, unlike the Prodigy kit. The speed control though the phones was much smoother and lost some of the "stepiness" that seemed apparent with the Prodigy system. You don't have to remember the numbers of things any more  
    We might have gone over the top a little, but seeing that we were going to stay with the Arduino based solution, it made sense to build something more .. permanent.  So we built this:
     

     
    We built the box under the stand. It features:
     
    Mains powered (fused at case socket) Red 240v LED to indicate supply on 15 volt 4 Amp switch mode power supply 4 Amp breaker on output of PSU Volt and Amp meters giving output of PSU Switched supply to Arduino motor shield Green 15v LED to indicate supply to the Motor Shield Arduino with 4 Amp Motor Shield installed  
    The analogue meters were surprisingly expensive given that a combined digital one was about half the price.  Sign of the times I suppose.  The old Compaq laptop (and that name gives away its age) serves this purpose well, and generates its own Wifi network, so we don't have to try and work through the house one (two floors down).  The only downside really is that the laptop battery has long since retired from active service, so pulling the power on it will turn it off quite quickly.
     
    As I said at the start .. an opportunity to learn new things.
     
    Having grasped some of the possibilities of the of the Arduino loads of ideas bubbled up.  More of those another time.
     
    Jeff.
  22. jeff_p

    Making connections

    By jeff_p,

    Our intention with Lyghtondown has always been to operate it as a DCC layout, and the consequences of this choice were largely explored prior to the track being laid.  As a result much of this Blog entry really overlaps the previous entry as track laying and train control happen hand in hand. But to continue ...
     
    In hindsight some inevitable inexperience crept into the decision making progress, though largely nothing which cannot be carefully re-examined if necessary.  Our thinking broadly touched upon the key "advertised" benefits of DCC:
     
    A two wire Bus architecture for power and control No need for isolated sections of track Point motors driven and operated from the bus Accessories (signals etc) driven from the bus  
    So (we thought) in the catch phrase of that advert: "Simples".
     
    Step one was to convert all the points from DC function to DCC only: Short bridging wires were soldered onto the underside of each point so that the point blades ceased to be a functional electrical switch and the over centre springs on the tie-bar were removed (in preparation for the point motors):
     

     
    in addition to this all the conducting fish-plates we used in the track had drop lead soldered onto them and fed down through the base board:
     

     
    Then, where the track crossed base board boundaries, we put in small brass screws and used these to both fix the rails in position and also to supply power to the rail ends:
     


    This being done with the rail continuous across the gap, then slitting the rails with a 0.5mm Dremel diamond wheel.
    Then, finally, wire the whole lot up into some electricians idea of a nightmare birds nest of wires:
     

     
    Actually, I like to think that is a little better than that.  At the moment the infamous "choc blocks" have been used as these are easy to undo or extend while we have been "developing" the wiring solution.
     
    A key early decision was to have the capacity to route six wires between all the boards.  The rational for this was simple:
     
    DCC to rails for engines (blue/yellow) DCC to accessories (purple/grey) Pure DC 15 volt power (red/black)  
    These six wire use some readily available automotive 4 amp connectors to bridge the boards:
     

     
    However as can been seen from the photos above, so far we have only connected and utilised the track DCC bus (blue and yellow wires).  We have found that even with all the point motor attached and two engines running the whole system only draws 0.5 amps. There seems to be little reason to to make it more complex than it needs to be (but being prepared is never a bad idea).
     
    What else to say of note?
     
    The point motors are all from DCC Concepts.  Like the track these (quite a lot of them) were bought when the boards were built.  There is much I could say about them, but not here.  In simple terms they do operate the points under DCC control, and they do supply the frog with a feed from either the blue or yellow wire they are powered from (this is probably a very good reason to run them off the track bus). It's tempting to think that as the track is a complete loop and that the DCC bus will be too.  It is not.  There is a clear electrical break at one end of the traverser with power supplied into the bus next to that break. I have not installed any DCC bus terminators or suppressors .. yet.  The system seems to be operating reliably over all the track.  This could be a function of the size of the whole layout (being smaller giving less opportunity for issues) or just the equipment being used.  
    For practical purposes the layout has stayed at this point, electrically speaking, since this time.  Once some of the more interesting ideas we've had brewing on the back burner get some time "up front" then I expect some changes and extensions to the wiring will be required, but all hopefully within the scope of what's already in place.
     
    All this, of course, is of no value without a source of power. Coming next.
     
    Jeff.
     
  23. jeff_p

    In the beginning ...

    By jeff_p,

    ... long, long ago, in a far off shed, in a garden many miles away a railway started taking shape.
     
    I suppose it's a little too much to expect yellow lines of text rolling up the screen getting smaller as they go backed by some triumphant rip roaring sound track, and in reality that would be substantially over the top
     
    So, about eight years ago (I had to check the date on the pictures) when I lived elsewhere I had a dream about restarting that childhood hobby I looked about the house for space to put a model railway.  Deciding that the spare bedroom was just that, spare, I elected to re-designate it as the "hobby room" and started building base boards for a model railway.  For reasons which I can't remember now (perhaps I just realised that I wasn't going to live there forever) I chose not to make the construction permanent, and built the boards free-standing and capable of being dismantled.
     
    The shed/workshop saw a frenzy of activity, and eventually a number of base boards were produced.  Construction was using 9mm plywood giving seven components which when assembled produces a nearly square layout 2.4m wide by 2.1m deep with a hole in the middle 1.2m wide by 0.75m deep.  For those that (like me) still think in the old fashioned way that's a layout approximately 8' wide by 7' deep with a hole 4' by 2'6", but the boards are metric   The list of boards making up the whole structure is:
     
    Front centre: 1.2m x 0.75m Sides, left and right:  1.5m x 0.6m Rear left and right: 1.5m x 0.6 Traverser: 1.2m x 0.6m  
    A quick look at the numbers gives away that something doesn't add up across the back, which is true.  The two rear boards support the central traverser section and in order to form a stable and rigid platform for this they extend under the traverser section to over lap and interlock.  All the board are located with pattern makers dowels and are held together with bolt and wing nuts.  This all felt over the top at the time though in hindsight my efforts have been repaid with interest.
     

     
     

     

     
    As is so often the case with life, spare capacity and opportunity for developing the newly started model railway dried up during the creation of the initial track plans and the boards were stored away.
     
    ... and time rolled by, as it does.
     
    Six years ago my partner and I got married (there does seem to be something wrong with calling a lady past a certain age your "girl friend") and we moved to a new town.  Lots of changes happened about that time, but the bare baseboards made it through the consolidation process as the content of two houses were merged into our new home, and early last year we both thought it was time to rekindle the modelling hobby.  The house has that stereotypical "room in the loft" and after lots of "what if we did this" questions we realised that the old layout base boards, then in storage in the garage, would fit nicely saving time and money and still leave room for desks and storage of other things.  The baseboards were extracted, cleared and erected in their new home.  Thank goodness for marine plywood, everything just slotted together.
     
    This last picture shows track being laid after literally weeks of pushing points and flexible track about, and so "Lyghtondown" was begun.
     

     
    Much to do ahead.
    Jeff.
×
×
  • Create New...