Graham R

Hi Ross, How interesting that the coach survives. Yes, of course you are very welcome to use the photo and thanks for bothering to ask. I’ll see if I can make a sharper scan (but the original was probably blurred). Good luck with your restoration, I hope to see the final result one day. Graham

If you really can’t fold the ledges, at least you now have consistent rebates to take pieces of microstrip, tedious though adding them might be.

Hi Alan, After a bit of googling, it appears that FPGA means field-programmable gate array, MCU means microcontroller unit, and jtag is used in this context as shorthand for a way to update the onboard memory of a programmable chip through its data interface. So the jargon translates as "The firmware we shipped you has a bug which means the 2k screen flickers when you use it. The screen is controlled by a chip which can be reprogrammed (the FPGA). It can't communicate directly with the USB key, but the main controller chip (the MCU) can, and we can reprogram the MCU so it can in turn reprogram (flash) the FPGA using the JTAG protocol." That explains why three separate firmware upgrades need to be applied one after the other I guess ... It seemed to do the trick. I'm glad you asked because otherwise I would not have properly understood what I'd done regards Graham

How did you know? I wondered why the printer came with a huge metal scraper ... I found out when trying to get the base of the test piece off the build plate! But then it suddenly came off very cleanly. It is a nice feeling to have got it to work (the results even impressed my kids, briefly).

Thanks Paul. I upgraded the firmware with the three files Photon sent, to v0.1.7, and took the printer to bits following their instructions to check the UV cable connector was correctly seated (which it was). I started the test print and this time it has worked; it has another 40 minutes to go or so but is looking pretty good. So it must have been the firmware. According to the Chinese-language release notes, with the help of Google Translate, the problem with the old version was "The FPGA firmware drives the 2k screen, and there is a flickering screen during the user's use. But the firmware cannot be upgraded through the U disk [i.e.the USB key], only the machine can be returned or the motherboard can be replaced", and the new version solves two issues: "1. Improve the overall stability and solve the phenomenon of abnormal lines in printing. 2. Added the function of MCU to upgrade the firmware of FPGA through jtag, which is convenient for users to update the firmware in FPGA chip on the motherboard through U disk, and solve the abnormal problem in 2K screen exposure. " And indeed it seems to do what it claims to. Thanks very much again to everyone who responded for all the hand-holding advice ... it definitely made the process less intimidating. Onwards and upwards ... regards Graham

Thanks Monkeys and njee20. Photon tech support responded promptly, and has sent me a firmware upgrade and instructions on how to check the UV cable. I'll report back once I do that ... but first, work ... Graham

That's what I did ... the screen lights up .. the mask for the start of the print (a circle) is displayed on the LCD. Using the Tools > Exposure menu, the three patterns (fully blocked, partly blocked, fully exposed) are shown as expected. Is the exposure test meant for testing the screen or testing an exposure with resin in the tank?

Thanks very much to Mike, Paul and njee20 for your suggestions above regarding my attempts to get a test print out of the Photon Mono SE. Having promised to report back, i had better do so ... I found time to try another test print yesterday but got the same result as before: nothing at all on the build plate and no trace of any hardened resin anywhere. Going through the issues which were suggested as possible problems: - Levelling: I don't think levelling is the issue (the Mono SE has a spring-loaded platform and pretty much self-levels; the plate is orthogonal to the LCD and grips a pieve of 0.13mm paper evenly and firmly; I have secured the clamp bfore starting and tightened the set-screw while pressing it gently to the paper). - Resin temperature: I warmed the plate, tank and resin on a radiator before starting: they were warm to the touch. Room temperature was 18°C. The resin flows freely. I shook the bottle for 30 seconds before filling the tank about half full. Resin lapped slightly above the build plate while printing. - Base exposure: I did not modify the test piece settings supplied by Anycubic. The 6 bottom layers get 45-second exposures, subsequent layers are 1.5 seconds, exposure off for 0.5s. - Bottom lift speed: Rising and retract speeds are 3.0mm/s, rising height 4.0mm. The firmware accelerates and decelerates gently at start/end of lift using 0.1mm increments. I left the print running for 3 hours and found nothing at all on the build plate when I had a look. After cleaning everything up I checked what is going on without the tank or build plate in the way. The layer masks are displayed on the LCD for each exposure and the UV lamps are operating. The layers in the test piece are 0.05mm according to the Photon Workshop slicing software. All I can think of is slowing the rising speed ... but that does not explain why I don't even get a bottom layer print. I've opened a new ticket with Anycubic technical support ... meanwhile, any suggestions from the group? If you think I should move this to a separate thread such as "Photon Mono SE print problems" let me know, I hope I am not hijacking this thread with a purely personal concern, but maybe I am not alone in having beginner difficulties. thanks again Graham

Thanks Mike. I’ll try that when I get time, maybe tomorrow, and will report back. What do you use for exposure times after the bottom layers? Graham

I read these responses from @MikeTrice @Paul_sterling and @tebee with interest since I ordered a Photon Mono SE directly from the anycubic.com website in early December, hoping to avoid any customs fees after Brexit. I have never used a 3D printer before and I did think hard about the Mars 2 Pro. i don't do Facebook and so most of my info came from the various RMWeb threads plus some distributor/vendor web sites. I eventually went for the Mono SE because it was said to have better build quality and odour filtering. The printer turned up within a week, but its touch screen was displaced sideways and the resin from the same order did not turn up at all. Repeated requests to the official@anycubic.com sales enquiry e-mail got no response. Eventually I tried Anycubic technical support which was excellent and responded in a few hours: they guided me through disassembling and fixing the touchscreen and they got resin to me in 48 hours. Apart from the touch screen issue, the Mono SE seems well built and i was able to level the platform, test its movement, and check that the UV exposure lamp is working. Yesterday I finally got round to trying a first print using the test file supplied (an open-lattice cube) using Anycubic Basic Skin resin. After close on 5 hours of whirring and smell, I was a bit disappointed to find nothing at all on the build plate, not even slightly hardened resin. The plate was dipping into the resin OK and the printer was going through the layers as expected. Before I contact Anycubic to seek their help, I wondered if anyone could comment from experience on what I may have done wrong? The ambient temperature was 15°C which I realise with hindsight is probably too low for success, but I thought I would have at least got some traces of a print. The printer used longer exposures for the first couple of layers then I think was using 10 seconds thereafter. Perhaps the resin will not polymerise at all at 15°C ? (the recommended range on the bottle is 25°C-30°C). Even with the heating up full I will not get the room above 18°C (high ceiling, snow on ground outside) so if temperature is the problem I will need to think of making some sort of heated enclosure if I want to print at all, since even in summer temperatures in our house never get anywhere near 25°C. What do you all think? thanks in advance and regards Graham

I thought that lime as a disinfectant was banned on health grounds in the early twentieth century because of the damage it did to the hooves of livestock? But anyway, regarding the infilled track, it does not look like a drain to me, there are no culverts or manholes at the ends. Is it not simply to allow dung and bedding straw which fell onto the track to be easily gathered up and removed by barrow? I think I can see brick courses rather than concrete, at least in the part next the running lines. It is certainly a nice “modelworthy” detail. regards Graham Edit: just found better info here

Indeed they did not. The CR general appendix instructs that “Fires are not to be made larger than absolutely necessary, and they must be made up in such a way as to last as long as possible. The ashes from all fires in offices, waiting rooms, &c., are to be carefully riddled and used again the next day. Inspectors have instructions to examine the ash heaps when visiting stations to see that this is done efficiently. Riddles with meshes more than 3/8” in size are not to be used. Stations having riddles with larger meshes must order new ones, on receipt of which the old ones must be returned to Stores Department.” I expect Jim will be etching up a fine scale riddle or two when he gets time, to the approved mesh size ...

Two other things I meant to add: - the sectional appendix mentions that propulsion of empty coaching stock is permitted in both directions between Banff and Tillynaught. The guard had to ride in the leading vehicle and controlled the train with his brake valve. This was not a random de-restriction, there must have been an operational reason for it - perhaps if there was a problem with the signal box, or later the ground frame, at Banff, meaning that it was not possible for the loco to get to the other end of the train; it would then have had to propel its stock empty to Tillynaught, run round, propel back to Banff, all so it could then leave loaded but with the loco at the correct, safe end. Crazy, but I cannot think of any other reason for this instruction. Suggestions welcome though! - I was interested to discover from the GNSRA Review that Banff was a popular destination for racing pigeon specials in the 1950s, bringing long trains (I think it said 11 bogies) of birds from England to be released at Banff. There were apparently several specials every year. What a fabulous excuse for a train of special luggage vans ! Graham

Hi Aardvark, The GNSR company's Appendix to the Working Timetables of 1898 says this: ""Double Shunts", whereby two lots of Waggons uncoupled from the Engine propelling them, are run on two different lines of rails by one throw of the Engine ("lots" meaning one Waggon, or any number of Waggons coupled together); and "Fly Shunts" whereby an Engine drawing wagons attached to it towards a set of facing points, the Waggons are uncoupled from the Engine and the Engine is run on to one line of rails, and the Waggons are run past the Engine, but onto another line of rails, are Strictly Prohibited." However, it gives detailed instructions for tail-roping, where a wire rope from the loco coupling hook was used to move wagons. The LNER and BR Sectional Appendices of 1947 and 1960 respectively continued to list Banff as a location where tail-roping was permitted. The GNSR Association Review, Vol 8 No 31 p544, has a personal memory of tail-roping taking place at Ladysbridge on the Banff branch (the appendices also mention that as a permitted location). It was also possible to move wagons by shunting horse, although I haven't come across any reference to that at Banff. Pre-grouping wagons had horse hooks on their solebars so the horse could walk alongside the wagon rather than on the track. And if the gradient was helpful, as at Banff, wagons could be moved with a pinch-bar (a long steel bar with an angled wedge-shaped end placed between wheel and rail, then one or more men would use their body weight on the other end of the bar to start the wagon rolling, and the shunter would control it with the hand brake). Regarding train formations, in earlier days at least, there were separate goods workings, and up to the 1950s only some of the passenger services ran as mixed trains. Here is the 1911 working timetable: and here for comparison is the June-September 1952 timetable: the Class B trains are passenger (mixed where marked), the K is a branch freight, the G is a light engine. It's interesting that the mixed trains were permitted to have up to 10 or 12 wagons attached. The 1960 BR General Appendix sets out the rules for allowing unfitted wagons in mixed trains: basically, up to 30 wagons with one brake van for every ten wagons, and the guard(s) to ride in the brake vans rather than in the passenger portion. It also states that on lines with speeds not exceeding 25mph, all trains could be mixed; but if speeds were up to 35mph, only half the trains could be mixed. The BR Scottish Region North sectional appendix supplement 1, in 1962, has a new instruction which is too long to list fully, but in summary states that up to 5 vehicles with automatic brake, including a calculated proportion of piped-only vehicles as long as the final vehicle has the automatic brake, could be attached behind the brake van in which the guard is riding of a passenger or empty coaching stock train. (On certain main lines the number permitted was increased to 20). There is a 1960s colour photo in the GNSRA Review Vol 43 No 168 (Feb 2006) p 20, of BR standard Class 2 loco 78045 at Ordens with a mixed train from Banff to Tillynaught. It is made up of two non-corridor coaches as you have said (an ex-LMS 9-compartment composite and an ex-LNE 5-compartment brake third), followed by five mineral wagons and a 4 or 6 wheel passenger brake van. Four of the wagons are in grey (which I believe means they had hand brakes only but may have been but through-piped) and one in red oxide (with automatic brake). You will see from the timetable that the mixed trains were allowed 25 minute instead of the 15 minutes allowed for passenger trains, presumably to give time for shunting and brake tests where required. I would imagine that, when starting a mixed train from Banff, it would have been formed up in the North platform before passengers were allowed to board and the brake test made there, rather than starting the passenger portion from the South platform as usual then setting back onto the freight portion in the North platform, since the time required for shunting and brake test would have been inconvenient. The train would not have shunted into the goods sidings with passengers on board since this would have involved passing over the unlocked facing point into the dead-end siding when leaving, which was prohibited. Sorry that this is all so detailed and heavily-referenced, but it saves time in explaining where I got my facts from (and also makes clear the limits of what I am able to tell you - I have no professional knowledge to contribute and others are very welcome to criticize or add to what I've said. Working practice did not always follow the letter of the regulations, but I believe most railwaymen of that era were very well aware of what these regulations were and when any departures might impinge on safety, through decades of hard-won experience). Hope that is of some interest anyway, regards Graham

Fair enough, happy to stand corrected! I had another look at the Tatlow book we used as a reference when discussing the etch and there is a photo of a van from a batch built by outside contractors (Charles Roberts) which appears not to have the loop. I agree that the loop is more substantial than I thought on the LNE-built vans which do have them. But am I correct in thinking it is on the push-rod from the brake lever on the side away from the vac cylinder? That is how I interpreted the various photos I have seen. Your model seems to show it on the central linkage from the cross-shaft to the brake yoke at the opposite end of the wagon. Maybe there was one there as well? Graham

Hi Angus, That is the safety loop provided on wagons so that if the cotter pin fell out of a pivot shaft and the brake rods were eventually shaken off the shaft, the rods did not drop to the track, potentially causing a derailment. They are virtually invisible in 2mm scale and would be very flimsy if modelled accurately. If you must add them, a single strand from fine multi strand wire would probably be more appropriate than an etched part, but I will happily live without them on my models. I drive through Glen Ogle a couple of times or so a month and every time I do so, I am now reminded of your project! Looking forward to seeing it advance. regards Graham

I have to admit I was a bit disappointed with these Albion Alloy filing sticks when I tried them a while back. I hoped they would be useful for removing rivet detail from plastic kits but found that the abrasive surface rubbed off more or less straight away. For some reason I had thought they would be made of solid material with embedded abrasive grit that could be carved away and reused but in fact only the surface skin is abrasive. Perhaps I was expecting too much but I think lolly sticks and glued-on strips of wet-and-dry would work better and cheaper.

I passed Thornton Junction about a month ago and was disappointed to see the undergrowth as thick as ever on the track descending towards Cameron Bridge and Methil. However it seems the project is not dead: Network Rail feels confident enough to make a press release that the vegetation will be cleared to allow survey work to start: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/vegetation-clearance-heralds-start-of-work-to-get-levenmouth-reconnected/ That can only be good news, and hopefully the Scottish government will keep the pressure up (and the budget available) beyond the election next May. Regards Graham

Hi Jim, That is a nice wee detail. I remember there was a cart track like that up Union Street in Dundee, from the West station towards the jute mills. Unusually, it had attractive red granite slabs. The cart way seems to have been removed now in favour of a nice (for cyclists at least) smooth tarred surface but the slabs have been re-used to delimit parking spaces on the same street, as you can see in Streetview here. regards Graham Seems like the link only puts you on the right street, but does not point you the right way! You need to turn round and look to the street side ...

The First Minister has just updated the Scottish Parliament that the incident is west of Stonehaven (that is, between Stonehaven and Laurencekirk on the rail line) and unfortunately serious injuries are reported. The local Press and Jounal paper is updating a news item with photos from the scene: https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeenshire/2403055/emergency-services-called-as-train-derails-near-aberdeenshire-town/

I was sorry to see in today's (Dundee) Courier that the wee 10¼" railway at Arbroath is to shut down next month after 85 years, due to lack of custom. I used to look forward to a run on it as a bairn visiting Arbroath to see relatives, but I am as guilty as anyone in not taking my own kids more than once or twice, and not having stopped off for a look for years now. Does anyone know more about the line's future ? Graham

Indeed ... here is a more recent shot of Dyce ... Catch ‘em while you can ... Graham

My memory is that most wooden boxes on the Highland in the early to mid 1970s were painted light cream wood planking with mid grey framing and stair handrails, white window frames, and light red corrugated-iron roofs. I thought that suited them very well. By the start of the 1980s some had been repainted towards a starker colour scheme of off-white wood planking with black framing and white window frames, which grew more prevalent through that decade. Most brick boxes in east lowland Scotland at the time had mid-grey woodwork on upper stories or porches/toilets and stairs, and white window-frames. However, when I tried to back this up with a quick and unscientific trawl through photos, there were many exceptions to these rules, so as usual (if you care about it) you are best to find a dated colour view of a particular box and follow that. I don't suppose that's really much help! Sorry ... regads Graham

I asked the same question to a former West Highland line signalman, and his view was either fuel as you have said, or else to get a snowplough-fitted loco back to where it was needed for the Fort William - Crianlarich section across Rannoch moor.

Hi Bob, The Great North of Scotland Railway Association publishes a good book on the Macduff branch which, at £8.50, should be your starting point. It has a number of good photos. More details here. All the GNSRA books are well researched. The NLS map library site already mentioned is your best source for maps. The 1929 1:2500 survey is generally accurate for track and building positions but has two layout errors: the loco release crossover from the main platform is missing and the goods shed siding led off the platform loop, not the yard siding. These errors are obvious from photos. Unfortunately, by the time the survey was revised and 1:1250 maps published in the 1960s, the track had been lifted so they don’t add much. If you are a member of a Scottish line society you should be able to get online access to the FSLS photo archive which includes the GNSRA collection. It contains many excellent detail photos of structures at Macduff and is more or less essential if you want to make an accurate model. There are few drawings of Macduff layout or structures in public archives and what exists is of minor details only. However the two main structures -the loco shed and the station offices/train shed/goods shed complex - are still standing in relatively unchanged condition and can (if permitted by the usually very helpful owners, Seaway Group) be visited and measured up. I have not been there since the fishing net business which previously used the buildings and station yard was replaced by a cafe and shop, “The Platform”, but the new business seems very aware of the building’s history and well worth a visit. I am slowly trying to build Macduff in 2mm finescale but have not progressed beyond baseboards and Templot yet (and have taken longer to do that than it took the Victorians to build the whole line). I have gathered a fair amount of information though. If you are seriously interested in modelling the station let me know by PM and maybe I can help with details. Hope that’s of some interest and good luck with your model if you decide to make one. regards Graham