billy_anorak59

Nope - abject failure...

Just checking... (first time with an .mp3)

J3836 is on the Kirkoswald Road (A719) I reckon David - somewhere round about the position in the link below:

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.3356543,-4.7998344,3a,75y,277.78h,93.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUxGfCj6I9rW9xbARh75WRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The railway crosses L- R 'somewhere' behind the huts! Not easy to spot.

6 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

’m no expert but I thought they had two goes at class numbering for the DMUs, and what we are familiar with now is the second attempt. Didn’t each car type have a different class number originally?

Ooh! Don't know, not heard of that - interesting.

I’m familiar with the TOPS class allocation rationale for pre-TOPS locomotives whereby the TOPS class number allocated roughly increased with the power output of the locomotive, but does anyone know the rationale regarding the class allocation numbers for 1st generation DMUs?

It would seem that there is a broad demarcation (this from Wiki), but not down to the specifics of why one class got a particular number over another:

Class 100 to 114    ‘Low Density' passenger units (i.e. few doors per carriage) - mostly short (57'0") frame

Class 115 to 127    Mix of 'High Density' (i.e. doors to every seating bay) and 'Cross-Country' (long distance) passenger units - long (63'6") frame

Class 128 to 131    Parcels units

I’ve looked, but I can’t find anything more on this.

For example, why was Class 100 allocated to the Gloucester units, and Class 109 to the Wickhams? Both introduced 1957-58, both with a power output of 2x150bhp. Both ‘Low-density’.

There must be a reason, probably obvious, but I can’t work it out. Area of operation based, or was it actually pot luck?

There’s probably a similar story for the pre-TOPS EMUs too, but with the added complication of pre-nationalisation units.

No reason for knowing BTW, I’m just intrigued - the question occured to me while browing the latest 'Diesel Dawn' bookazine on DMUs...

I’m sure someone here will have the answer!

As inpiration, how about a bridge along the lines of the one over the Lever Brothers (Port Sunlight) internal railway at Bromborough, Wirral? Built in the '20s, I believe, and carries a two lane road over. I took the photo in 1987.

21 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

22 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Isn't that where the bloke with the Wolseley 1500 lived?

 

21 hours ago, DaveF said:

 

Indeed it is.

 

David

Do tell.

Just for completeness, here's a link back to some of Dave's pictures in question (2017):

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/85326-dave-fs-photos-ongoing-more-added-each-day/page/481/&tab=comments#comment-2973235

9 hours ago, Budgie said:

Apart from that, there's not much wrong with what you said

Only virtually everything!

Thanks..

4 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

So the EP should have been 4-8-4 on one side, 4-4-4-4 on the other ..... what's the correct way of expressing that combination in Whyte format??

...and black on one side, green on  the other...

AFAIK, the locomotive is a 4-Do-4 in all guises - even though the centre coupling rod was removed later, the driving wheels were still coupled via the gearbox.

28 minutes ago, GWR-fan said:

One side shows four grilles each end whereas the opposite side shows doors as shown on the image supplied by Phil Parker from a recent show.  Were both sides different?

I think we pretty much reached a consensus a couple of pages ago that the locomotive was symetrical? - see the photos in my post at:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/149392-kr-models-announce-the-fell-in-oo-and-n/page/21/&tab=comments#comment-4524215

Two sets of photos which show both sides of 10100 on the same dates (dates would appear to be 1954 and 1956-ish). I'm hoping that this is indeed just an EP, because it's not correct for the green version.

On 30/10/2021 at 19:26, Phil Parker said:

Spotted at the Great British Model Railway Show earlier today:

On 30/10/2021 at 19:26, Phil Parker said:

 

 

Don't want to open a can of worms again (but probably will), but shouldn't the green version have 4 bonnet grills in each corner? (and the numbers weren't in that position either when green...)

The latest: Yet another pipedream? They seem confident enough it's going to happen, even if past experience says otherwise.

https://theguideliverpool.com/theres-a-new-transport-museum-opening-in-birkenhead/

Resurrecting an archaic thread, but it's really starting to look like a Baby Deltic now...

https://www.babydeltic.co.uk/news-17-september-2021

Both Gaeity and Budgie did push along tanks in OO in the 50s/60s - the Gaeity was an N2 (and maybe did a Pannier too), and Budgie did a Jinty. You can pick the Budgie version up on Ebay quite cheaply (there are some on at the moment for less than a tenner) but the N2 might be a bit more difficult.

Just a thought, I don't know if they could use proprietry track, however.

41 minutes ago, caradoc said:

Sorry to be pernickety but there were still a few Warships in service in 1972; The only one I ever saw working was 807 Caradoc (hence my user name) on our summer holiday that year in Weston-Super-Mare. You were obviously very unlucky !

 I thought I'd read that the last ones went around March 72 - a few months before the July I was there, so thanks for that. Yes, I was very unlucky that day...

St Blazey was nearly as bad - two 08s I think. I came away from the the holiday very disappointed with the Western Region! To add insult to injury, on the trip home, a Western kept pace with our car for a mile or so somewhere near Taunton (Whiteball?) - just too far away to get the number!!

On 29/08/2021 at 23:31, Tankerman said:

Truro, the 'big' station to train spot

Ah, Truro - scene of my worst spotting experience*

As a lad from Wirral, to find myself on holiday in Cornwall was a chance of a lifetime to spot the exotic - Warships, NBL 22's, Hymeks - that sort of thing. However, this was July 1972, and unbeknown to me, all the Warships had gone just a few months before.

Anyway, while my parents and sisters walked round Truro, I said I would wait on the platform at the station. Two and a half hours I was there, and nothing.

No trains what-so-ever. Zilch.

Couldn't believe it. Still bemused to this day - I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Sunday.

*Except perhaps persuading my Dad to take me to Newton-le-Willows Motorail terminal, expecting some massive hub of locomotives and cartics. Erm, no...

Rod - spotted this on a local FB page, and thought it might be of interest here - pleasant little film, right from my era. West Kirby makes an appearance at about 11:11, but the closed joint line station is also there a few seconds earlier. WK itself only makes a fleeting appearance but is good as it shows the Class 503's to the fore! Worth a watch anyway.

I think anyone can view, so visit: https://www.facebook.com/merseysideinfocus/videos/1086233605516296/

12 hours ago, AndyID said:

What are the approximate dimensions of your layout? I'm assuming it's 00 is that correct? What's the longest train you run (number of coaches?

Hi Andy - the layout is approx 12' x 8'. The longest train will be limited to only 4 (maybe 5 at a push) coaches - mainly because of the physical size constraints, but also due to the 1 : 30 incline from the through station to the terminus.

Thanks to all who have responded, it's all very much appreciated!

2 hours ago, Phil Himsworth said:

he controller is reversed, but the power is now fed from the loop on which it is now running in the opposite direction, so the two reversals cancel each other out and the train keeps going the same way.

Ah-ha! The light is slowly dawning...

Thanks for that - much appreciated!

Thanks for the reply Andy. I think I am getting somewhere, as I have now got the +ve and +ve rails aligned everywhere on my plan (with the caveat that the reversing loop switches polarity somewhere along its length) so your reply is quite timely.

The only thing that I don't get is if the controller is reversed, doesn't that mean that the train then goes backwards? Or does the relay take care of things? Apologies if this is basic stuff.

10 hours ago, Phil Himsworth said:

I'm not quite sure how applicable this is to your layout but I'll post anyway in the hope that there might be something useful in it.

Very useful Phil - it's going to take some mulling over, but its good that you've had some experience of a similar plan and it's challenges, although I think having a double track to the terminus increases the complexity somewhat for me.

10 hours ago, Phil Himsworth said:

My double track main lines are wired so +ve is clockwise on one, and anticlockwise on the other; this means no electrical trickery is required to use the crossover. This is the key bit. The feed to the terminus however has a DPDT switch used to flip the polarity so +ve is outbound when connected to the up loop of the main line but inbound when connected to the down loop.

This bit interests me, thank you - I'll take some time now to see how it might help me in my application.

And thanks to all who have taken the time to write thus far - it's appreciated.

11 hours ago, Theakerr said:

If I were doing this I would go back to 1st principles.  First, I would decide that I am going to use cab control.  Then I would decide how many cabs - I think you will need at least 4.  Decide which is up and which is down.  Next is to divide the layout into blocks such that each block is physically independent of each other.  Note: you can use multiple blocks to achieve continuous running through the reverse loop.  For example I see the loco yard as one block,  The green and orange is possibly 4 blocks.  A quick look says a redesign of the terminus may be necessary.  It will take a bit on mental doodling time but I think at first glance you can do everything you want

Thanks - some interesting ideas there, although I'm not 100% sure why 4 cabs? (It's not you - it's me ).

Also, I'm curious as to where and why a redesign of the terminus might be necessary?

I'd be loathe to do that by the way, as it matches my prototype (...to a degree anyway - it's been flipped and mirrored, and lost one platform road - further mangling might mean its unrecognisable).

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

Do you intend putting in any more crossovers between red and yellow loops? If no you can simplify the wiring significantly.

Another question, do you think you might consider DCC in the future - this could make a big difference in how you wire this layout.

Thanks for the reply. No, the only crossover is that marked 'X' and ther return loop itself.

Of course, there are crossovers in the terminus itself, which I'm hoping 'could' be powered by the red or yellow loop controllers, so that a train could directly leave the terminus, and proceed around the red loop (e.g. cab1), leaving me to 'potter' in the terminus (e.g. cab2), until it was time for the train to 'reverse loop' to the yellow (another train could depart the terminus at this stage). The train could then proceed round the yellow loop (e.g. cab3), until time to be driven directly back to the terminus. Cab 2 would be switched out (or restricted) if cab 1 or 3 was in operation. I was hoping cabs 1, 2 and 3 would be interchangeable with what block they were controlling.

In answer to your second question, although I can fully see the benefits of DCC, I can't justify the expense of chipping up to 60 locomotives, plus the control systems, plus the technical challenges of DCC comes into play as well - I'm not at all au fait with the technology. Really, I just want to get things working on DC properly, so I can concentrate on what I enjoy - the scenic side of things.

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Firstly the reversing loop. As its so long, you can arrange to break the track up into sections so that relays flip the points and the power. Someone here will have done this, for certain.

Thanks RobinofLoxley! I'm hoping someone might tell me how! (not that relays aren't a mystery to me too...)

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

you dont say if they are motorised, but its either a switch or hand one way or another

They are motorised.

I understand I am restricting myself, but DCC doesn't stack up for me (price-wise, and at my age), tempting though it is.

Appreciate the replies thus far though, thanks!

Can I ask for some help with this one? I just can’t work out what I need to do to make my layout work as I want it to. As the son of an electrician, you’d think I’d know better, but no – I followed the path of mechanical engineering and the nuances of electricity just don’t sink in I’m afraid. I’ve not been lazy – I’ve tried, really I have, but I just can’t work things out, and a solution must be possible? I wasn’t sure whether to put this in the ‘Help and Tips’  area, but here seems a better bet, so here goes…

My track-plan is an old C.J.Freezer favourite - an ‘out-and-back plus continuous run’. All points are PECO Insulfrog to keep things as simple as possible for my feeble mind.

As you can no doubt work out by this stage, I’m not very good at anything electrically technical, and I don’t want to get involved in the expense of converting my locomotive stock (coming up to 60 years worth in places – I started out when I was 3) to DCC (but I do realise how nice it would be – sound especially).

I suspect that my main existing feeds can be used, but I’m not sure – I’m quite prepared to re-visit those, as everything needs reappraisal – and I hope this is where someone here can guide me or at least clarify? It’s probably best to show the track-plan at this point:

The main part (the continuous run bit) of the layout is complete and ‘sort-of’ operational (in a very rudimentary fashion), but the high-level terminus has been used for many years as my workbench, and I really need to get things to how they were always intended to be and build the thing! Therefore, now that the upper board containing the terminus section is to be added – well that’s where my difficulties start, as that section needs to be bi-directional, and the circuits ‘come together’ so-to-speak following a ‘reversing loop’ change of direction on the main layout. The point at ‘X’ is where I get confused. If I was to use a common return as I intended, this will lead to a ‘clash’, and I can’t get my head around a solution. Perhaps, I’m over-thinking, but I very much doubt it!

The layout is analogue and I would like to work out the wiring requirements for a ‘cab control’ system of working using a common return bus (although the common return bit is not mandatory, it’s just what I have read as being desirable). I hope to use rotary cab selection switches (in order to get a visual feedback on what controller is switched in for any specific section, and I anticipate that any one of three controllers can control any cab on the layout (either main circuit or terminus). I always intended that, in practice, controllers one and two would be used for the main circuits, and controller three could be used for terminus ‘pottering’ movements. But any controller could be used to start/terminate trains in/out of the terminus.

It would be good if the ‘reversing loop’ (effectively a long crossover) could be used without having to stop the train in order to throw a DPDT switch, but I’ve got a complete blank on that too.

At present, I have two (double Gaugemaster) panel mount controllers using separate transformers, but one question that I also can’t resolve is if a third transformer would be required for the third (a single Gaugemaster) controller, as I have seen various references stating that a short could/would occur if the same power supply is used between sections that could overlap.

To see me into my dotage, I would really be most appreciative if someone could spare the time to give me some help with a wiring diagram that shows feeds and (types of) switches - something ‘done proper’, in order that I will have something reliable and properly designed for the future. Something where I wouldn’t have to crawl underneath the layout to correct faults that I had built in years before - ‘cos I can’t bend like I used to…

Sorry for being a numpty.