unravelled

I know this is a long shot, but has anyone a damaged bullhead slip they want to sell? Single or double will do, I want to harvest some components for a project. Thanks Dave

Over the years my layout has been in constant reconstruction, I have come up with some designs for manual point operation, using dpdt slide switches. My first attempt was a variant of the common arrangement, with the operating rod connection using a hole drilled through the slider. Not eally much new here, except that the omega loop substitute is part of a relay clip. One of the issues I found with this basic version was adjusting it to get the throw just right, so I came up with this design, which I think looks neater, and is easier to adjust. It also was suitable for positioning further from the point. In this version, I had a faceplate which could be screwed down, which the switch was fixed to. Spacers held the switch away from the faceplate allowing an operating slide to fit round the switch slider. A section of choc bar connector allowed easy adjustment of the operating rod length. Yes, a lot of my offscene track is screwed down. I may fix it with pva once yhe layout is certain... These have worked well but I thought I could improve on them. The latest version is essentially a 3d printed redesign giving a direct drive which turned out to be nice and compact. I've only used this on code 100 points, as it is really only meant for off scene areas. As made, it might be a bit tall for code 75fb , unless the track is on cork. As well as allowing a choice of position for the assembly, the double headed actuator plate is reversible to allow a choice of how the movement of the switch affects the path set. In my case moving the switch in the toe to heel direction changed the points from normal to reversed. The unused side can be trimmed off if space is tight.The straight slot was to allow for a hold down screw, but this hasn't seemed necessary. The operating slots have been given plenty of play, as the intention was to nudge the spring over centre, and allow it to do the work as designed. A different approach will be needed for the Peco bullhead points, as they have holes not pegs at the ends of the tiebar. Thanks Dave

I have successfully cut the joins with an xacto type saw blade, but this was with the track soldered too pcb either side of the cut line, so firmly held. The ends were cut at an angle to help clearances. There has been at least one other thread on here but images may have been lost. Early in my "wylde" thread, (link in sig), I described my build of an off-scenelifting flap. I used furniture connectors to help aignment. One thing I did was to provide separate adjustments for level and side to side alighment, wood swells throwing things off, so some adjustment is essential. If you want a scenic lifting board, some company produces sections of sleeper base in pcb which interlock across a Join, and which the rail can be soldered to, providing a better looking result. I will try to look out the name later. Edit: the sleeper pcb is Modeltech ProTrack rail aligner from www.modeltech.uk, available in several types Dave

Looking at a map, I think that at the angle the photo was taken, the footbridge would have been hidden by the building. One detail of the building which differs from its final state is that there are notice boards at the right hand end of the building, where later there was a window. Is there a known date for this alteration? What seems to be the same tree is present to the end, by which time it was the height of the building.

This link was posted on a thread yesterday. http://www.bwwmrc.co.uk/bricks/ It can do all sorts of proper bonding, various arches etc. Well worth a download. The results aren't as photorealistic as scalescenes, but it will produce accurate brickwork. What it outputs does need resizing at the print stage for the scale you need. I'm just playing with it for a project which has stalled on the brickwork stage. Dave

PM sent

Just a thought about gaining every mm. Have you allowed for a slope across the patforms,? This could allow the station building to be another 1mm higher than the platform edge, helping, (a little), the articulation between train shed and building windows. Dave

A solid run of magazines will probably weigh considerably more than a layout. I would want to mount the uprights so that they extend well above the layout level, to give the best strength My experience is that the screws do the smaller part of the supporting, and it is the friction between channel and wall which contributes most. Try to position the uprights so that there is a screw just above the basboard height, to make the baseboard brackets less able to dip or twist. Also don't trust the brackets for level, make provision for levelling up the baseboard independent of the brackets. A final thought, while bodern diy store offerings are compatible with the original "Spur" brand, some competing systems have been made. I came across one where the channels were shallower, and the ears on the brackets slightly shorter, which meant that, although the slots were the same, spur brackets would hit the wall and couldn't be used. Hth Dave

The station area has been dismantled again. I had compressed the Oxford end to get in a tight off scene curve, and as a result the point at the end of the platform loop was so near the platforms that a down train would have fouled it. I didn't want to shorten the station, and the goods yard area was already shortened, so I needed to gain some room. The solution I decided on was to take the track into the wall cavity, which gave me about 5 more inches. I also made the radius a bit tighter, and used a medium radius point as it would now be off scene. This was not as major as it sounds. When the cellar was dug out, stud walls, (non load bearing), and faced with ply, were installed. I was able to messily cut through the ply and tunnel through the studs to achieve this. Clearly, there is still some neatening up to do. In order to save having to cut more than was necessary, I needed a way to lay the track accurately in an area of poor accessibility. To do this I drew up and 3d printed track base sections which would hold the peco code 100 firmly. These are a couple of failed prints, to show how they locate to each other. They were joined together by careful melting with a soldering iron. This rejig also allowed me to use up some small radius points to access an unused bit of baseboard, and install a storage yard for locos or railcars. I am now working on the pointwork for the east end of the station. More soon I hope Dave

Two bodyshells, and a couple of removed sides. All hacked about and used for paint test The blue shell has had detail removed, and a couple of cast roof ends added. The grey shell went through a harsh paint strip, and the cab front has disintegrated Thanks Dave

Thanks, tweaking the timbering is planned. I think some playing round with templates will be required before any pointwork is harmed. Dave

I knew I should have looked it up. I think I forgot to add the rail head width when adding up. AlthoughI zoomed out for the photo there might be some parallax issues on the picture. I think I managed 47 using paper templates, but 48 might be a more realistic target. Thanks Dave

Apologies if this has already been covered in this topic, but I'm trying to reduce the track centres for a crossover. Before I do anything expensive, I'd like some opinions on whether my thoughts are OK. Even though the large radius point are curved throughout, a pair used as a crossover can be trimmed equally to reduce track centres. My problem is that I want to make a crossover using a large radius and a single slip. Because the slip is straight at all ends, I can't trim the point, as that would mismatch the angles. So I am left with trimming the single slip. It looks as if I can trim the slip by two timbers, bringing the rail joiner close to the slip's checkrails. Picture as bought. 51mm track centres Picture with intended modification, about 47mm (2 timbers overlapped) While this is half way to the minimum 43(ish)mm, is this the best I can do? I suppose I could overlap another sleeper by trimming the point, and accept a slight angle mismatch at the join. Otherwise I might have to introduce a slight joggle into one track to get down to the centres I want. Or build the platforms further apart which might throw other things out. Thanks Dave

Re the gunshot. I haven't gone back to count shots in the earlier scene, but was he disposing of the one last round? Dave

One of the things which I have found can damage switches, especially the smaller ones, is soldering on the leads. A little too long on the terminal, because of lead free solder or an underpowered iron, might damage something. Not meaning to criticise anyone's soldering except my own, butit may be a possible failure mode. Dave

OK, not Endeavour, but there's always something which has niggled me about Morse's Jag, and it's probably a personal prejudice. Moving from the books to tv, he was downgraded(?) from a Lancia, fair enough for all sorts of production reasons. The thing that has never seemed in character is the choice of a vinyl top model. As I said, this is probably personal prejudice, as I've never owned a car new enough to have a vinyl roof, and I've always assumed them to be another unnecessary problem waiting to happen. Apologies to owners and maintainers of vinyl roofed cars, is it just me? Dave

I don't know if these will be of interest, they are scans from Modern Railway Working, from 1912 Dave

This is a repeat post, it's been on here a couple of times, but the riverside site has been cleared some more recently, (and the old pics might be gone) This is the google maps view, showing the tracks on the jetty they connect to https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4939105,0.0278764,99m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-GB . The jetty was there and connected on the 1948 aerial survey, now available as an overlay on NLS maps Dave

I treated my layout to a Morley controller last year, and almost the first thing I did was to make a stand to put it at the same angle as the old H&M I use for part of the layout. Some thought went into the old designs. Dave

I'll occasionally unintentionally click on a blog with an interesting title from VNC, but usually back out again. I find them too much effort to work through further. I think they are a bit better than some of the earlier iterations, but they still don't suit me. Dave

I have some Railway magazine issues to dispose of. There are two batches of magazines. One is a full run from May 1937 to April 1939, plus an odd copy from February 1940. The second starts with the November and December 1944 issue and finishes in 1951. Issues are complete, but showing sighns if wear, (but no tears). The 1944/5 issues are in worst condition, with separating spines, and the lower grade paper showing more damage. Any interest? Obviously I'd prefer these to go as one or two batches, but if no takers I will send individual copies, before I recycle the rest. I'd be happy to make a handover of a large batch at any station on the freedom pass map, for those in, or commuting to, London. Contact me if you want further information. Thanks Dave

View Advert Gaugemaster Power unit EN60 742 Gaugemaster Power unit EN60 742. In use until recently. 220-240v in , 2x16v out Older style, probably 1990 vintage Used, but not modified £20 UK postage £2.85 RM tracked 48. Paypal preferred, will send PP invoice. Advertiser unravelled Date 23/01/23 Price £20 Category Other scales  

View Advert 2x Gaugemaster handheld electronic feedback controller 2x Gaugemaster handheld electronic feedback controller. In use until recently. Older style, probably 1990 vintage £36.00 or will split at £20 each. UK postage £2.85 RM tracked 48. Paypal preferred, will send PP invoice. Advertiser unravelled Date 23/01/23 Price £40 Category Other scales  

Might that have been 1964? Christopher Trace was there when I first visited. I remember that some of the carriages were off limits because of the filming. Dave

That's very kind, and I may take you up on that offer later. In the meantime, I willI will do some work to define/refine the problem, and make sure I ask for the right thing. Thanks Dave