Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Of course, one can photographs trains from beneath bridges.......

 

 

 

 

As here, below the MR/M&GNR girder bridge.

 

Or even the 'ultimate' reverse cliche............

 

 

A bus below a bridge (even though it's heading the wrong way!). 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

3 minutes ago, Mark Laidlay said:

I've been on that bridge, apparently I wasn't supposed to drive a car over it.  Very confusing where we are allow to drive or not in the UK for us colonials.

 

Mark in Melbourne

Good morning Mark,

 

It carries a private road to a farm, though there is no signage. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

If the grease in the gearbox isn’t glued up as can sometimes happen

That would be my first place to look.

[lezz01]

I remember when DDC first came along there was quite a lot of talk about the chips damaging RG4 type motors. The general consensus was that coreless motors wern't compatible with DCC. So my first step would be to remove any chip fitted to a loco with that type of motor and test it on DC then if all is well fit a new chip that is compatible with the RG4 style of motor and try again. RG4s are changing hands for up to £75 and even higher these days so spending a few quid more for a compatible chip could save you north of 75 quid. I would also give the gearbox a good clean and re-lubricate with a suitable light grease as the RG4 is well known for the grease solidifying and gumming up the works thus burning out the motor.

Regards Lez.      

[Mark Laidlay]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Mark,

 

It carries a private road to a farm, though there is no signage. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Yep, Ross and I were running a bit early for a meeting nearby so parked the hired car up there for a few minutes, then a tractor arrived with the driver wondering what we were up to!  I've learnt to tell what's private or not within Australia but got caught a couple of times in England.

[Clearwater]

Thanks Tony - very useful pictures.  If I recall correctly from visiting, although the prototype is on a gradient, your track baseboard is actually level with part of the illusion of the gradient created by the different levels of the land as you move through the sections?  Unlike say Graham's Shap which is actually on a slope?

 

I've a plan in mind for what I'd like to have (albeit currently lack the space) but am using my mind to start to work out how I'd do it. Something I won't scrimp on is getting someone who knows what they're doing when it comes to woodwork.  Whilst my grandfather was a skilled crafstman, trained at MetCam in Birmingham in the 20s, I think its fair to say its not a talent thats passed down the generations!

 

Though I suspect that as with most craftsmen, you need to be quite clear about what you want to do and what outcome you're looking for.

 

David

Edited August 30, 2023 by Clearwater
Additional point

[jamieb]

30 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

I remember when DDC first came along there was quite a lot of talk about the chips damaging RG4 type motors. The general consensus was that coreless motors wern't compatible with DCC. So my first step would be to remove any chip fitted to a loco with that type of motor and test it on DC then if all is well fit a new chip that is compatible with the RG4 style of motor and try again. RG4s are changing hands for up to £75 and even higher these days so spending a few quid more for a compatible chip could save you north of 75 quid. I would also give the gearbox a good clean and re-lubricate with a suitable light grease as the RG4 is well known for the grease solidifying and gumming up the works thus burning out the motor.

Regards Lez.      

I've never had a Portescap motor,and given the price, probably never will, but I've always been under the impression that it's prime quality was the bevel  gearbox rather than the motor? To that end,could the motor part not be replaced with something more suited ( not coreless) to DCC?

Or am I oversimplifying things?

[lezz01]

10 minutes ago, jamieb said:

I've never had a Portescap motor,and given the price, probably never will, but I've always been under the impression that it's prime quality was the bevel  gearbox rather than the motor? To that end,could the motor part not be replaced with something more suited ( not coreless) to DCC?

Or am I oversimplifying things?

Not at all you can replace the motor on a RG4 style gearbox. You just have to get it to fit properly. You can also change the configuration of the gearbox with aftermarket parts. The problem with this is finding them although I remember seeing that they were still available just recently on the dart castings site. A good source of coreless motors is old printers. You can also get them dirt cheaply form China although I can't say how good they are going to be.

Regards Lez.  

Edited August 30, 2023 by lezz01

[Tony Wright]

37 minutes ago, Clearwater said:

Thanks Tony - very useful pictures.  If I recall correctly from visiting, although the prototype is on a gradient, your track baseboard is actually level with part of the illusion of the gradient created by the different levels of the land as you move through the sections?  Unlike say Graham's Shap which is actually on a slope?

 

I've a plan in mind for what I'd like to have (albeit currently lack the space) but am using my mind to start to work out how I'd do it. Something I won't scrimp on is getting someone who knows what they're doing when it comes to woodwork.  Whilst my grandfather was a skilled crafstman, trained at MetCam in Birmingham in the 20s, I think its fair to say its not a talent thats passed down the generations!

 

Though I suspect that as with most craftsmen, you need to be quite clear about what you want to do and what outcome you're looking for.

 

David

Thanks David,

 

The gradient profile going south through Little Bytham is about 1 in 200 (what's that to scale measured over 30'?). At the planning stage, this was never factored-in.

 

Shap is much steeper, of course.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[John Isherwood]

8 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

The gradient profile going south through Little Bytham is about 1 in 200 (what's that to scale measured over 30'?).

 

Tony,

 

1.8'' over 30'.

 

CJI.

[LNER4479]

34 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Shap is much steeper, of course.

1 in 75 to be exact!

 

I compromised a little - the model is actually set at 1 in 90 or 17mm per 5 foot long board (in a glorious mix of imperial and metric units!). It's steep enough with the long(-ish) trains we run.

 

The total height difference is 85mm - all of which has to be lost / gained on the other half of the circuit. Main issue with that is the 'Up' (downhill) trains starting away out of the fiddle yard, round a 3 foot radius curve to get on scene.

 

The main home 'Hills of the North' scheme has a total height difference of 200mm (@8"). But it wouldn't be the hills of the north of England / southern Scotland without a few gradients here and there?

[Clive Mortimore]

On 28/08/2023 at 21:55, Bucoops said:

They aren't my photos, but near where I live it is hard to get a photo when on the same level as the railway (and these days it is hard to SEE the railway)...

 

I was there yesterday, Victoria Road, Chelmsford, taking my son back to the station after a funeral.

[Tony Wright]

I've just received examples of Hornby's latest P2s to review for BRM.........

 

 

 

 

 

First impressions lead me to believe they are superlative models.

 

 

[Michael Edge]

5 hours ago, lezz01 said:

I remember when DDC first came along there was quite a lot of talk about the chips damaging RG4 type motors. The general consensus was that coreless motors wern't compatible with DCC. So my first step would be to remove any chip fitted to a loco with that type of motor and test it on DC then if all is well fit a new chip that is compatible with the RG4 style of motor and try again. RG4s are changing hands for up to £75 and even higher these days so spending a few quid more for a compatible chip could save you north of 75 quid. I would also give the gearbox a good clean and re-lubricate with a suitable light grease as the RG4 is well known for the grease solidifying and gumming up the works thus burning out the motor.

Regards Lez.      

We have well over a hundred locos running on Carlisle (NCE DCC) with Portescap motors, we've not had any motor failures yet.

[thegreenhowards]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

Quite a few of the prototype pictures I've taken (many of which have been published) were from an elevated position, often an overbridge. Such viewpoints gave an excellent view (less so now that rampant Amazonia restricts current photography!), with plenty of time to compose a shot (as opposed to an 'upshot', where a train might only be visible for a few seconds). 

 

With regard to photographing model trains on Little Bytham, I've tried to get as near a 'prototypical' view as possible, including balancing the camera (occasionally precariously!) from the overbridges. I hope the following shots of the afternoon 'Talisman' illustrate this (yes, I know the leading car should be a BSO, not a BSK). 

 

 

Taken from the footbridge.

 

 

 

And two views off Marsh Bridge (taken earlier, still with the original girder bridge in place). 

 

Do these 'work'? I hope so, even though the viewpoint is higher than a 4mm figure's eye (it's a big camera!). 

 

 

I still like 'eye-level' views.

 

P.S. I hope you sort your Portescap problems out. If it is the decoder, do tell!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Great shots Tony. I do love your high level shots on LB and certainly prefer them to the eye level ones - I just think one gets a better view of the train and the layout. I only mentioned PN because I’m a sucker for complicated pointwork and the throat heading north has points and a curve - perfect!

 

It was too sunny today to waste time on the Portescap. I concentrated on weathering with my airbrush and painting mini ‘Glenfinnan’ viaduct in the garden! I will report back tomorrow assuming the promised rain materialises.

 

Andy

[PupCam]

7 hours ago, lezz01 said:

Not at all you can replace the motor on a RG4 style gearbox. You just have to get it to fit properly. You can also change the configuration of the gearbox with aftermarket parts. The problem with this is finding them although I remember seeing that they were still available just recently on the dart castings site. A good source of coreless motors is old printers. You can also get them dirt cheaply form China although I can't say how good they are going to be.

Regards Lez.  

 

This might represent a bit of an "extreme" make-over for an RG4!     

 

It forms the core of a working faux Smiths Chronometric speedo for my 19389 BSA 250.    As you can see the original Faulhaber motor has been replaced (it was too big to fit) by one removed from an RC servo (Futaba IIRC), the output "shaft" is actually the shaft of a small feedback potentiometer (again from the servo) although the body of that and the corresponding servo amplifier board are hidden in this view.   An Arduino Nano and a dc to dc voltage converter complete the scene.    What is somewhat harder to spot is the last intermediate shaft in the gear train has been extended because that's what the speedo needle is actually mounted on.  Servo output shafts generally don't move more than about 180 degrees and I needed closer to 300 degrees in this application.       The basic concept is the processor measures the speed of the bike and generates a suitable servo signal to get the very much modified servo to move the speedo pointer.   Seems to work ....

 

 

 

And in action ....

 

 

A bit of a diversion but just shows what you can do with an old RG4!

 

By the way; no DCC was harmed in the making of this speedo.

 

Alan

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Main issue with that is the 'Up' (downhill) trains starting away out of the fiddle yard, round a 3 foot radius curve to get on scene.

Discreet "digital" assistance?

[Barry Ten]

10 hours ago, PupCam said:

 

This might represent a bit of an "extreme" make-over for an RG4!     

 

It forms the core of a working faux Smiths Chronometric speedo for my 19389 BSA 250.    As you can see the original Faulhaber motor has been replaced (it was too big to fit) by one removed from an RC servo (Futaba IIRC), the output "shaft" is actually the shaft of a small feedback potentiometer (again from the servo) although the body of that and the corresponding servo amplifier board are hidden in this view.   An Arduino Nano and a dc to dc voltage converter complete the scene.    What is somewhat harder to spot is the last intermediate shaft in the gear train has been extended because that's what the speedo needle is actually mounted on.  Servo output shafts generally don't move more than about 180 degrees and I needed closer to 300 degrees in this application.       The basic concept is the processor measures the speed of the bike and generates a suitable servo signal to get the very much modified servo to move the speedo pointer.   Seems to work ....

 

 

 

And in action ....

 

 

A bit of a diversion but just shows what you can do with an old RG4!

 

By the way; no DCC was harmed in the making of this speedo.

 

Alan

 

I guess there's no danger of hearing the Portescap whine😄

[30368]

Sorry to interupt the flow but a brief thanks to Tony, the two Jidenco kits purchased from him last week (Adams X2/T6 4-4-0) and a wonderously mad Drummond T14 4-6-0 (mad applying to both Drummond and the T14) have arrived safely but with a pleasant surprise a third etched kit an SR "BY" utility van as "compensation" for the very minor error that Tony made in the description of the Adams 4-4-0 kit. Thanks Tony, very kind.

 

Just like Christmas really although buy all accounts the Jidenco kits will be sods to build. The T14 has been part built to represent the first Urie rebuild which is not ideal as a BR modeller since this version where all re-built by Maunsell in 1930. I await the PDK version of the T14 which I believe will be the final re-build that just made it into BR and worked some of the Waterloo - Basingstoke services. What a well organised work bench I hear you say.......

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[LNER4479]

Well, I do know of at least one Jidenco T14 ... ahem ... successfully built.

 

 

[30368]

59 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Well, I do know of at least one Jidenco T14 ... ahem ... successfully built.

 

 

Wow, looks really wonderful, did you paint and line it too? Really first class. Mine, when finished will have to be in early SR livery so for my layout (70D, 1948-1967) it will have to be a preserved loco pulling enthusiast specials which is almost as mad as Drummonds original design. I must admit that Drummond's various designs of 4-6-0 are very distinctive and make interesting models.

 

Thanks, kind regards,

 

Richard B

[Tony Wright]

Two of Hornby's latest gangwayed Gresleys have arrived to be photographed...........

 

 

 

Had the bodyside profile been captured correctly on these models, sales of kits for the same would have plummeted, However, it's a shame they're too 'flat'. 

 

I've used them as donors when I make BR examples, fitting MJT, Comet or Kemilway sides..........

 

 

However, for use on the MR/M&GNR section of Little Bytham, all I do is chuck the tension-lock couplings away, make my own, add concertina gangways and weather them to represent the last year of the LNER/first of BR. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

 

I've added the extra bits to Hornby's latest P2.

 

It really is a striking model, with performance to match.

 

You can see how it runs (and PRINCE OF WALES) on WOR in due course. 

[gwrrob]

It's already out there to see @Tony Wright

[AdamOrmorod]

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I've added the extra bits to Hornby's latest P2.

 

It really is a striking model, with performance to match.

 

You can see how it runs (and PRINCE OF WALES) on WOR in due course. 

The front nem socket also comes off easily, just slide a flat-headed screwdriver underneath. Nice to not have to do surgery!