RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted December 1, 2019 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, 31A said: Some signals at Finsbury Square: They all work, but not by electricity and have now been properly 'planted' as per the last two pictures. This has been done by roughly cutting pieces of sandpaper to fit round the post & ladder and gluing them above the signal base plate, then painting to (try and) match the surrounding ground. Almost as niggling as the lack of working signals, is exposed base plates in holes in the ballast! I'm soon going to have to face up to making working discs .... Great work, Steve. 'Almost as niggling as the lack of working signals, is exposed base plates in holes in the ballast!' And, guilty as charged. However, until the Veissman motors have been proven not to fail (and it's being worked-on), we need to be able to remove the signals with ease. Regards, Tony. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted December 1, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 1, 2019 Thank you, Tony. They work by weighted cranks under the baseboard: The weighted arm of the crank is connected to a lever frame by braided fishing line; the "pull" includes a child spring (from an old ball pen will do); the short arm is connected to the signal arm. If the proportions are correct the arms bounce nicely! The one above was unfinished when I took the picture; the finished article includes 'on' and 'off' stops either side of the long arms so that any strain is taken by the mechanism rather than the signal itself. It got a bit complicated for the six arms on the signal bridge: The idea behind covering the base with a piece of sandpaper is that it could be peeled off and replaced fairly easily if it were necessary to uproot the signal. It is glued down with Woodland Scenics "Scenic Cement", which looks like a diluted form of PVA. I sincerely hope it won't be necessary, however! 7 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted December 1, 2019 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2019 24 minutes ago, 31A said: Thank you, Tony. They work by weighted cranks under the baseboard: The weighted arm of the crank is connected to a lever frame by braided fishing line; the "pull" includes a child spring (from an old ball pen will do); the short arm is connected to the signal arm. If the proportions are correct the arms bounce nicely! The one above was unfinished when I took the picture; the finished article includes 'on' and 'off' stops either side of the long arms so that any strain is taken by the mechanism rather than the signal itself. It got a bit complicated for the six arms on the signal bridge: The idea behind covering the base with a piece of sandpaper is that it could be peeled off and replaced fairly easily if it were necessary to uproot the signal. It is glued down with Woodland Scenics "Scenic Cement", which looks like a diluted form of PVA. I sincerely hope it won't be necessary, however! What a delightfully simple system, Steve. Simple, yet in its way rather sophisticated. I think what I admire more than anything else about your approach to model-making is that you've done everything yourself. I wish I were more 'rounded', but I most enjoy building locos and stock. Tony Geary used lead pieces to give a 'bounce' to Stoke Summit's signals, but they were worked electrically. Regards, Tony. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Edmund Kinder Posted December 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 1, 2019 38 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: What splendid signals. Thanks for showing us. How have you made them work, please? Regards, Tony. Hello Tony Yes, they're all operational with servo motors and operated from an MSE leverframe with electrical switches at the back. Some examples below of the cantilever signal under construction, an Alan Gibson Junction Signal, and a reduced height Post (for sighting purposes) with the servo arrangement underneath. Edmund 14 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killybegs Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Tony Wright said: Beautiful signals. Thanks for showing us. Have you had many (any) of the Seep solenoids fail? I've had over a dozen failures of them in as many years operating the fiddle yard points. Regards, Tony. Not on the signals but a couple on the turnouts. Mind you, as an exhibition layout that was only out on the circuit three or four times a year over a twenty year period, it's not surprising that there weren't too many failures. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BMacdermott Posted December 1, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Tony Wright said: Hello Tony Some 'wagon observations' to consider... Those packing cases in the wagon in the middle foreground look precarious. And the same goes for the load in what looks like a Lowfit behind a Shocvan in the crane dock to the far right. Brian 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted December 1, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Tony Wright said: What a delightfully simple system, Steve. Simple, yet in its way rather sophisticated. I think what I admire more than anything else about your approach to model-making is that you've done everything yourself. I wish I were more 'rounded', but I most enjoy building locos and stock. Tony Geary used lead pieces to give a 'bounce' to Stoke Summit's signals, but they were worked electrically. Regards, Tony. Thank you Tony! I like making things (even if most of my locos come from China these days) and like to try and keep things simple, there seems to be a trend towards over-complication and fascination with tecchy gadgets these days; I'd like to think the way my signals work is in keeping with the real thing, even if the mechanism is underground. Whether they bounce or not seems to depend on the relative lengths of the crank arms with the weight arm needing to be quite long relative to the other one; something I didn't appreciate at first but never mind - real signals don't always bounce and some say, shouldn't bounce. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted December 1, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2019 On 30/11/2019 at 11:37, Compound2632 said: If it's pug-ugly 2-8-0s you're after, you can't find more hideous than LNWR classes E and F - Whale's addition of a leading axle to Webb's 4-cylinder compound Class B 0-8-0s, to relieve the weight on the leading coupled axle. I believe these were the only British 2-8-0s to have more than two cylinders? Looking through the 2-8-0s listed above, is one forced to the conclusion that the S&DJR 2-8-0s were the least successful? They were certainly found unsatisfactory for the long-distance Toton-Brent mineral trains on the Midland. The Derby-emasculated Garratts that were considered satisfactory for the Toton-Brent traffic didn't turn out to be a whole lot better. However, where almost everything else deemed non-standard by the LMS got turned into razor blades during the 1930s and replaced with Stanier 5s or 8s, the S&D 7Fs soldiered on long enough for most to carry the second BR emblem. Reason? They worked a heavily graded line with single-line sections that needed to be cleared quickly. For that they were almost perfectly suited; their extremely effective engine brakes ensuring that whatever they could pull uphill, they could control going down the other side at speeds that couldn't be countenanced with what should have been their logical replacement. Combining 8F haulage capacity, with 7F stopping power would have created something worth seeing, but that had didn't happen until locomotives with an extra pair of wheels came along in the 50s, though their abilities were initially needed elsewhere for much heavier work than the S&D offered. John 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted December 1, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2019 17 hours ago, Tony Wright said: And even more.............. Pity about the lack of loco/tail lamps on some examples. Though the shot of Bude, evidently heading along the North Cornwall, does illustrate a great reduction in bother enjoyed by Southern modellers, that of (for most) all trains carrying the same headcode. John 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold queensquare Posted December 1, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said: The Derby-emasculated Garratts that were considered satisfactory for the Toton-Brent traffic didn't turn out to be a whole lot better. However, where almost everything else deemed non-standard by the LMS got turned into razor blades during the 1930s and replaced with Stanier 5s or 8s, the S&D 7Fs soldiered on long enough for most to carry the second BR emblem. Reason? They worked a heavily graded line with single-line sections that needed to be cleared quickly. For that they were almost perfectly suited; their extremely effective engine brakes ensuring that whatever they could pull uphill, they could control going down the other side at speeds that couldn't be countenanced with what should have been their logical replacement. Combining 8F haulage capacity, with 7F stopping power would have created something worth seeing, but that had didn't happen until locomotives with an extra pair of wheels came along in the 50s, though their abilities were initially needed elsewhere for much heavier work than the S&D offered. John Talk to any ex S&D driver and they will tell you that the braking ability of the 9Fs was inferior to a 7F. Sustained steaming on passenger trains or running at anything approaching passenger speeds was a different matter.....! Jerry 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 6 hours ago, 31A said: ....... the "pull" includes a child spring ..... Bounces pestering kids into oblivion? Great! Readily available in ball point pens too? Fantastic! 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John Isherwood Posted December 1, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 1, 2019 3 hours ago, queensquare said: Talk to any ex S&D driver and they will tell you that the braking ability of the 9Fs was inferior to a 7F. Sustained steaming on passenger trains or running at anything approaching passenger speeds was a different matter.....! Jerry I believe that the 7Fs had special Ferodo brake-blocks. Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post LNER4479 Posted December 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) On 30/11/2019 at 16:48, Tony Wright said: ... why is signalling such an 'Aunt Sally' in the hobby? Too difficult? To hard to make? Too hard to make them work? Too fragile? Too expensive if built by others? 18 hours ago, micknich2003 said: The British Railways drawing I have, Arm length 41 3/4 in, stripe 7in wide, leading edge 12 1/2in from end of arm. Good to have a discussion going about siggernals. First of all, I have to bow to Mick's knowledge in terms of the positioning of the stripe. I have been working to dimensions quoted in the former MSE instructions which are (for 4mm scale): stripe 3mm (9in) wide, 3.5mm (10.5in) in from the edge which appear to be at slight variance to officialdom. They have always, however, looked 'right' to me - too narrow a stripe really spoils the look of a signal arm for me. I shall henceforth, newly armed with official data, study prototype pictures and take stock accordingly. Now then, can I dare to court controversy (for once?), and postulate a further reason for folks being put off signals? As well as the above quoted reasons, I sense an element of people too easily being put off signals due to the perception of it being something of a 'black art'. 'I don't understand signals!' is the oft quoted cry. There have occasionally been threads on this forum attempting to explain the whys and wherefores of signalling that all too often get embroiled in debates featuring signalling experts quoting this that and the other exception to the norm and complex sounding 'rules' that makes the whole thing sound daunting and unfathomable to the novice. Such interventions are, I'm sure, invariably well-meaning but can make the whole subject look and sound like some exclusive 'club' open only to signalling specialists. I've worked in the railway industry over 30 years ... but not in signalling (I've been a rolling stock man). My interest in signalling is that of an enthusiastic amateur and my introduction to it was the seminal work by Kitchenside & Williams - according to Mike the Stationmaster, said work was written partly with railway modellers in mind. Once you get your head round the fundamentals, it really isn't THAT difficult to understand the basic principles. Combined with careful study of the prototype, applying it to a layout should be quite logical. Each of Grantham's signals has been constructed with reference to the prototype. Some are faithful copies; others are compromises which still obey signalling logic but adapted to fit the layout's trackplan and the way it is operated. The distinctive 'Up' junction signal was the first one I built. It (correctly) has upper quadrant arms for our 1937-8 time period BUT there is immediately a compromise. It should have a distant arm on the lower (junction) post. I actually only spotted this after I'd built it(!) But I figured that - for the purposes of the layout and the way we operate it - we could do without it. It should also be FAR more dirty that this, due to countless locos standing underneath it over the years (it was in a state of near collapse when it was replaced by a colour light structure c.1954) This one is another compromise. All pictures I've seen of it feature additional subsidiary arms beneath the main arms (I assume for 'calling on' purposes - see, there's me starting to get all technical!) - again, we didn't need that for the layout so I didn't fit them. The North End 'Up' signals controlling arrivals from the ECML and the Nottingham lines - and the latter (right hand) one is complete fantasy! Well, clarifying that a little. The WAS a signal here but the associated facing crossover was not actually installed until 1942 as part of essential wartime improvements to speed up the flow of traffic. But I only discovered that some years after building the layout. I assumed that this arrangement must have existed in order to allow arrivals from Nottingham to arrive in the west side relief platform to avoid conflict with ECML traffic ... but in fact pre-war, all arrivals from Nottingham HAD to arrive in the main Up platform (plat.2) or the East side bay (plat.1). Once I became aware, I decided to stick with what we had as - again - it made it more practical from a layout point of view to keep the trains moving. The signal therefore indicates the two routes we use on the layout - across over onto the ECML 'Up' main (left hand, taller arm) or via the facing crossover towards the west side of the station (right hand, lower arm). A train taking the right hand route then encounters this signal controlling the actual entrance into the west side of the station. There was a signal here - but pre-war it featured miniature (shunt) arms. As we have adapted history a little then it features main arms. (post war it was a single arm with a route indicator). Signals like this read 'top-left to bottom-right' so it reads: top - left, into plat 4 (bay); middle - straight on, into plat.5; bottom - right into up/down goods line. There should also be a ground signal for a loco going into the down pilot siding (where the A4 is standing). On the 'to do' list... This one however IS exactly as per prototype and was one of my favourites to make. Not all the miniature arms are operational though. Yes, they are undoubtedly fiddly to do ... but compared to assembling outside Walschaert's valve gear? Edited December 1, 2019 by LNER4479 17 1 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Barry O Posted December 1, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 1, 2019 On 30/11/2019 at 17:31, TrevorP1 said: All this talk of dangerous trolleys, the NEC staff should take a look at out local supermarket. As well as the normal hazards such as absent minded octogenarians and young mums on the phone pushing supermarket trolleys there are staff with stacker trucks loaded with racks or boxes... Tony made the mistake of trying to leave the NEC before the Show closed. Their is a blanket ban on people doing so with or without a trolley. As it happens after 5:30pm (show close time was 5pm), the NEC staff were informed that people could leave the building with trolleys (I know because I was at the door when this message went out). It had nothing to do with trolleys - it was to do with leaving the NEC BEFORE the show closed. He could, of course walked out through the front door of the Hall. So please, please stop harping on Tony.... This is really starting to grate with the (up to the end of the show) the demo liaison officer of the Show. baz 6 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard i Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 Quiz question if I can to all who solder. i have fired up my temperature controlled iron after a 6 month hiatus. It would not solder joins. Why? i thought it was the heat setting, tried hotter and colder it did not affect it. I tried changing the tip i changed the solder and tried low melt too. i cleaned the brass with a file. all it would do was melt the solder into small balls but the iron would not tin or pick it up. If I fed the solder on to the brass it struggled to flow. Any ideas what what am I doing wrong? Many thanks Richard . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted December 1, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 1, 2019 3 hours ago, gr.king said: Bounces pestering kids into oblivion? Great! Readily available in ball point pens too? Fantastic! Oops! Apologies; I thought I typed "coil spring". Good idea, though! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted December 1, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 1, 2019 43 minutes ago, richard i said: Quiz question if I can to all who solder. i have fired up my temperature controlled iron after a 6 month hiatus. It would not solder joins. Why? i thought it was the heat setting, tried hotter and colder it did not affect it. I tried changing the tip i changed the solder and tried low melt too. i cleaned the brass with a file. all it would do was melt the solder into small balls but the iron would not tin or pick it up. If I fed the solder on to the brass it struggled to flow. Any ideas what what am I doing wrong? Many thanks Richard . The only thing you haven't mentioned is flux... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted December 1, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) All I can think is that for some obscure reason the supply voltage to the unit is low. If you can do this safely check the input voltage. I had the same problem on Green Ayre when I put it up in France. It turned out that the French Elrctrician had left me with only 144 volts coming into the layout. Jamie Edited December 1, 2019 by jamie92208 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted December 1, 2019 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2019 7 hours ago, BMacdermott said: Hello Tony Some 'wagon observations' to consider... Those packing cases in the wagon in the middle foreground look precarious. And the same goes for the load in what looks like a Lowfit behind a Shocvan in the crane dock to the far right. Brian Thanks Brian, but neither one is my work. I'll have a word with the builders! Regards, Tony. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted December 1, 2019 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Barry O said: Tony made the mistake of trying to leave the NEC before the Show closed. Their is a blanket ban on people doing so with or without a trolley. As it happens after 5:30pm (show close time was 5pm), the NEC staff were informed that people could leave the building with trolleys (I know because I was at the door when this message went out). It had nothing to do with trolleys - it was to do with leaving the NEC BEFORE the show closed. He could, of course walked out through the front door of the Hall. So please, please stop harping on Tony.... This is really starting to grate with the (up to the end of the show) the demo liaison officer of the Show. baz Baz, I haven't mentioned it for a while, though others have. I'll say no more. Regards, Tony. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted December 1, 2019 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2019 I've just spent a really wonderful afternoon in the company of members of the 2mm Scale Association, at one of their regular meetings at the home of Laurie Adams. I was the guest speaker, talking about Little Bytham. Thank all of you for being so generous with your praise of what I said and what I showed. It would appear I offended nobody (I must be slipping), and the whole thing went really well, with some very interesting questions and post-talk discussions. Particular thanks to Laurie for the hospitality. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted December 1, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2019 7 hours ago, BMacdermott said: Hello Tony Some 'wagon observations' to consider... Those packing cases in the wagon in the middle foreground look precarious. And the same goes for the load in what looks like a Lowfit behind a Shocvan in the crane dock to the far right. Brian He's not the only one, I remember seeing a well-known exhibition layout which had been featured in modelling press where a train was running with a single Type A container on one end of a conflat wagon. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northmoor Posted December 1, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said: He's not the only one, I remember seeing a well-known exhibition layout which had been featured in modelling press where a train was running with a single Type A container on one end of a conflat wagon. The modeller of goods traffic isn't helped here by relatively few published photographs of such trains being taken from a higher vantage point (quite apart from almost all photographers concentrating on the locomotive). While this doesn't excuse dodgy loads on a flat wagon, I often see mineral wagons - especially hoppers - so overloaded they would be dangerously unstable. I have seen a wonderful shot somewhere of Middlesbrough Docks where the caption notes that while the hoppers only appear about 1/3rd full, they are actually loaded to capacity. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Lecorbusier Posted December 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) Thought I would post an update on where I have got to on my first etched loco kit attempt .... the Craftsman 1F 0-6-0 tank (I have built an etched wagon and etched 3 wheel coach prior to this). Compared to Sir, the progress is shall we say leisurely !!!! .... but then all of this is pretty new to me and I can't dedicate as much time as I would like to modelling. The upside is that it is a great way of unwinding after a busy or stressful day As I am working to P4, the craftsman chassis was no good, so I am working from a pair of Gibson milled frames .... in the end the only parts of the original kit I have used for the chassis are the cast white metal sandboxes. I am using this as my first bash at CSB springing and have decided to have a go at building it as a set of sub assemblies so I can take it apart for painting and maintenance... the wheels drop out by sliding the CSB wire out of the horn-block tags. Here are the various assemblies. The brake gear springs into the capillary tubes set into the frames and the sand pipes locate into holes set in the base of the sand boxes. The ashpan and spring etches were kindly sent to me by John Redrup at LRM from his spares/scrap bin. I have made them into two separate assemblies which bolt directly to the chassis. The gear box is a high-level offering and the horizontal in line restraint a design suggested by Dave Bradwell. The horn blocks and guides are also by High Level. Here is a picture of everything assembled onto the chassis - I notice from the photo that the pull rods at the back need a tweak to set them level ... luckily this is easily done. The coupling rods are the universal inside motion etch which Dave Franks has recently added to his arsenal. And finally a couple of pictures with the body ... as far as I have currently got ... mounted on the chassis. In the second pic the chimney, dome etc have just been loosely placed in position. A bit rough here and there ... but overall I think its ok .... the photos are pretty unforgiving - which is why I find the work posted here by experienced modellers so inspirational. Edited December 1, 2019 by Lecorbusier 27 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard i Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 1 hour ago, polybear said: The only thing you haven't mentioned is flux... I always use flux . I am doing my normal technique and it is just not responding as normal. I have never known a tip to refuse solder once it has melted it. it has totally perplexed me. Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now