Atlantic's works: Portable layout - Scenic details next

[Hatfield Shed]

... Mr Kohler, formerly of Louth ...

That made me grin. Years ago I heard SK addressed as "a Lout, boy", and rather wondered how offence had occurred, as the conversation otherwise appeared good natured. And now my understanding is improved.

[Atlantic 3279]

Glad I could help!

I wonder whether Louth's station buildings were selected purely at random to appear in the Skaledale range?

[Atlantic 3279]

Beware! This post does "go on a bit", but there's a serious question in it...

In preparation for some permanent track laying I’ve started to convert some Peco Bullhead non-isolating, DCC oriented, “unifrog” points to self switching/isolating electrofrog form, properly suitable for reliable analogue operation without un-necessary additional wiring, sections and switches.

The way I’ve installed nickel-silver wire switching contacts, threaded through drilled holes in the tie bar and a nearby timber may not appeal to all, but that’s the way I’m doing it, having taken suitable precautions (or so I think) to avoid damage to the contacts or to hands when track-cleaning is done. Note that the free ends of the moving contact are flush to the point base with their tips bent downwards, and the fixed contacts on the sleeper / timber are square loops, not sharp ended stubs.

The thing is, that I am now less certain than I initially thought I was about the best way to deal with the frog / common crossing area of the points. It is certainly no problem at all to detach the built-in bond wires from the stock rails at the divergent end of the point, twist and solder these together with the wire under the crossing nose so as to make the whole of the “vee” on electrical unit, connected by an additional new wire to the moving contact on the tie bar. That demonstrably works well enough.

It is also possible, as I’ve already done on one point, to move the electrical breaks in the closure / wing rails well away from the common crossing to a more “historically conventional” position. That involves detaching the other pair of Peco’s bonding wires from the stock rails, grouping those with the rest of the frog wires, cutting the closure rails say four sleepers along from the crossing (so that both cut pieces of each closure rail still sit in a sufficient number of chairs to support them), adding new wire bonds to keep the switch rails live to the stock rails, AND, as I discovered, having to physically anchor the switch rails to stop them sliding along through the chairs. If this physical anchorage is not provided then the tie-bar over-centre spring slides the switch rails towards the frog, closing the new electrical gaps, and losing its ability to hold the tie bar and switch blades in the selected position. After trying out various ways of holding the switch rails in place to preserve the newly cut gaps, not trusting glue alone or slips of plastic glued into the gap, it seemed to me that providing the anchorage (and the new electrical bonds) inevitably involved soldering in close proximity to plastic sleepers or chairs, and probably cutting away pieces of the plastic webs between sleepers in order to get decent access to produce neat, discreet results. e.g.

Or..

Not being keen, for obvious reasons, to do un-necessary work that also risks damage to the point bases, I returned to the question of whether it really is necessary to move the breaks in the closure rails, or would it be just as effective to leave them where Peco have put them, right on the “knuckles” where the wheel-carrying parts of the closure rails meet the wing rails which should only guide flange-backs alongside the crossing. I instinctively worried about possible shorting through the flange-back of a metal wheel, to the opposite polarity closure rail, when a wheel passes through the crossing, but on repeatedly trying correctly gauged metal wheel sets through the crossing, with a multimeter connected across the stock rails to test resistance, I could not get the slightest flicker of the needle. The same was true when I was deliberately pushing the wheelset over towards the stock rail. As far as I can see, unless the wheelset was de-railed, or had such a narrow back-to-back setting that it would not clear the check rails, then a flange-back could not touch, or even get close enough to form an electrical contact with the electrically opposite closure rail. If the edge of the metal wing rail was worn back very badly the situation might change, but will that ever happen? As I’m using only low voltage DC, no high frequency contact maintaining devices, and I’m having nothing to do with DCC gimmickery, is there any real reason to move the electrical breaks? By simply converting to self-switching /isolating electrofrog I eliminate any risk of the shorting “beyond the vee” problem that some have reported due to wide metal treads or due to overthrow of silly flangeless wheels in fixed positions under fireboxes. Without derailment, the only way I can imagine that I might get a short circuit through wheels at the crossing would be by means of running something with a very long rigid wheelbase, including flangeless rail-borne middle wheels, through the curved side of the point. I cannot imagine why I would do that. What do others think?

[Atlantic 3279]

I think I can now answer my own question. I tested a couple of Hornby's long locos with fixed, dummy "Cartazzi" trucks and broad tread flangeless wheels through some test-laid, unaltered Peco large rad BH points, and although I got no interruption to smooth slow running on basic DC and no grumbling from the power controller, what I could see was that if the loco "crabbed" a little when running through the straight road and/or if the points were flexed to a slightly curved form (as opposed to a Y) then the width of those flangeless wheels displaced inwards from true rail-top is easily enough to bridge the narrowest part of the gap between the two closure rails. As I want to be free to run anything I like, whether or not it is historically and geographically correct for my intended location, there is therefore a risk of short circuiting by big locos at a later stage, when track is permanently laid and remedial access may be more difficult, so it looks like I should move all of the isolating gaps well away from the crossings now .

[Atlantic 3279]

After concluding that it would be best to go the whole way in each case with the point modifications, including re-positioning the isolating gaps in the closure rails, it occurred to me that when cutting webs beneath the rails to make way for soldering on my brass wire "goalposts" (which both make the necessary new electrical bond and prevent the switch rails from sliding through the chairs to close the new gaps) it made sense to stagger the cuts to avoid creating a concentrated weak/flexible area in the structure. The gaps in the rails of course can still both be cut between the same two timbers - in fact for the sake of leaving each cut piece of rail supported by a sufficient number of chairs it may be best to keep the rail cuts aligned.

I also decided that it would be better to re-arrange the way that the frog energising wire attaches to the moving contact on the tie bar, so that the wire can easily pass through the same small "hidden" hole in the baseboard that will be necessary for a vertical actuating rod engaging in the middle hole in the tie-bar. I did try to attach the wire to the part of the contact that lies directly below the tie-bar, but that tended to upset the ability of the visible part of the contact to lie flat, so I changed to this arrangement:

I'll probably crop the now redundant extra length from the tail of the moving contact.

[Atlantic 3279]

A temporary complete change of subject: Ex GCR Barnum coaches.

Alan Rose has now given the go-ahead for me to inform others about some 4mm scale Barnum coaches that he has been developing in the form of 3D printed kits consisting of very few parts. I got an example of both the saloon and the brake-end version from him at Immingham exhibition in mid-May. The crucial surface finish, in the examples that I have seen, is one of the best that I have encountered in models, although some modellers might consider that there are some areas in which the surface may benefit from careful preparation before painting takes place. My examples are not necessarily the final form of Alan's kits as he has been trying out design variations and refinements since he produced mine.

The following images show the 3D prints, in some cases in direct comparison with the models I built (up to 20 years ago it would seem) from Jidenco kits (with various additions and improvements). If anybody is interested in the possibility of getting some of Alan's kits and wants more information I can supply contact details by PM.

[Richard i]

Now that would have saved a lot of time over building my ones out of a 2d laser cut version.
The bogie would be a good side line fitting other matchboard stock if he is interested in doing a run of those.
Richard

[Atlantic 3279]

One can but ask.

[NZRedBaron]

I will admit, I'm a little tempted by those, just for the variety- something other than the usual assortment of Gresley and Thompson mainline coaches.

Also, just so as to be clear, these are specifically the Barnum (Diagram 5G1 and Diagram 5E1) coaches from 1910, right?

[James Harrison]

I'm certainly interested.

[Mercator II]

How are they planned to be glazed?

I'd be interested in a pair for variety on my layout, if the price is right

[jwealleans]

I have a pair of these and was very impressed by the finish and the overall look of them. I shan't get round to starting them for a few months but I'm looking forward to seeing how Graeme gets on with his.

[Atlantic 3279]

these are specifically the Barnum (Diagram 5G1 and Diagram 5E1) coaches from 1910, right?

Visibly so, confirmed by comparison with diagram.

Glazing provision - side thickness reduced (recessed inner face) from just below window level, for a long multi-window glazing strip presumably to be stuck in place. The high seat backs, if correctly fitted, assist in keeping the glazing firmly against the coach sides rather than being susceptible to being pushed in. Maybe the middle partition and toilet partitions will help to retain it too?

[Horsetan]

A temporary complete change of subject: Ex GCR Barnum coaches.

Alan Rose has now given the go-ahead for me to inform others about some 4mm scale Barnum coaches that he has been developing in the form of 3D printed kits consisting of very few parts. I got an example of both the saloon and the brake-end version from him at Immingham exhibition in mid-May. The crucial surface finish, in the examples that I have seen, is one of the best that I have encountered in models, although some modellers might consider that there are some areas in which the surface may benefit from careful preparation before painting takes place. My examples are not necessarily the final form of Alan's kits as he has been trying out design variations and refinements since he produced mine.

The following images show the 3D prints, in some cases in direct comparison with the models I built (up to 20 years ago it would seem) from Jidenco kits (with various additions and improvements). If anybody is interested in the possibility of getting some of Alan's kits and wants more information I can supply contact details by PM.
STA72213sm.jpgSTA72214.JPGSTA72215.JPGSTA72216sm.jpgSTA72217.JPGSTA72218sm.jpgSTA72219sm.jpgSTA72220.JPGSTA72221.JPGSTA72222sm.jpgSTA72224sm.jpg

I'd be interested, if only to have a chance at replicating the preserved examples.

[Paul Chappell]

I would also be interested as they would contrast with my existing Gresley and Howlden coaches. Would they have been seen with the ex ECJS clerestory composite dining car after it was cascaded to the GC section?