Jump to content

Clay Mills Junction

Members
  • Posts

    388
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Posts posted by Clay Mills Junction

  1. A few more photos from the weekend works.

    I started with my core cutter. I did the first one without hammer action and it took a while. Tried the second hole at the other end with hammer and the join next to it immediately gave way, I guess from the vibrations.

    So having cut the other four holes I re-glued the join.DSC_0843.thumb.JPG.b6818deba7329db62eaf8d390514b578.JPG

    Once that had a few hours to set I started on the final hole. As I cut through, the join gave up again although with the hole done that isn't an issue now, I'll just settle them in separately.

    So on with sawing the arches.

    DSC_0844.thumb.JPG.94972207034c46775be1eb4121cb70ee.JPG

    DSC_0845.thumb.JPG.7db2205cde4ff4f70bd03dbb02f8631d.JPG

    DSC_0846.thumb.JPG.071d9c7c09d84a40266564c472cfbe86.JPG

    My brother-in-law decided that it now needed a flying blue Ford Anglia. I told him he'd have to make do with a blue Triumph 2000 from a distance. 😂

    IMG-20220611-WA0002.thumb.jpeg.0009c6f816ad8a5c3941aa474a43a6bf.jpeg

    • Like 3
  2. Quick opinion. On my curved viaduct, because the blocks are sawn at an angle the inner edge is 20cm and the outer 23cm. So with a 127mm core cutter (call it 13cm) the piers are going to be only 7cm thick at the front and 10cm thick at the back in a trapezium shape. So the question is should I go back to screwfix for a smaller core cutter?

    The next sizes down are 117mm and 107mm. So that would give 8cm-11cm or 9cm-12cm piers. There won't be any serious weight on them, the back end isn't seen and from the front at 7cm the piers will be way overscale compared to what a real one would be. Going bigger on the piers will look worse so I'd only go bigger if someone sees a real structural reason for it.

    I won't be drilling this week.

  3. Thanks Chris, that works far better for me.

    I initially wondered if the Bachmann 150 would be like that but there are definitely no pickups on the underside. I will use the supply from track as you suggest but I'm still thinking that I might be best with a separate two-pin for the track voltage just so it is separate and no danger of decoder frying connections being accidentally made. I could then use a 4-pin connector for the 4-function decoder (white, yellow, green and purple) to get head & tail and leave capacity to put interior and central locking lights on later.us

    I'm doing my second Bachmann 158 (old model) and also a really old Lima 156 with a CD Motor conversion. The 158 has pickups in the dummy car for the lights to start with and the pickups in the powered car are good enough so don't need the track voltage to come back through. The Lima 156 I'm thinking would benefit from having more pickups spread out over the length of the two cars.

  4. Thank you for the explanation Chris, I can follow from that how it would work now.

    Unfortunately, it would definitely be beyond me to recreate the H-bridge myself. I'm guessing from what you say that the resistor set up and values would need to be custom to the outputs they are controlling so there won't be an off-the-shelf solution available.

    I appreciate the answering of the question though, I had hoped that it would be simpler than that and could be recreated since the interconnects I have are 4-pin which could have carried track voltage one way and lighting the other. I think now I will go with a 4 and 2-pin solution, keeping the track voltage on its own 2-pin with the directional lighting taking three and a spare pin for interior lighting or something.

    Thanks both for taking the time to answer.

  5. Thank you.

    3 hours ago, Archie said:

     all the processing that takes these three outputs is done on the main PCB in the drive car and then the output is sent over the two connections to the dummy car.

    It is that processing on the main PCB in the powered car that I am interested in. I've taken some photos of the top of the PCB in my spare chassis. The CON3 and CON4 on the right are the two feeds for the unpowered car. The light connections for the powered car on the left are the regular Common positive and two switched negatives.

    DSC_0840.thumb.JPG.caff1394f1d9e3ebcf15af9569a20448.JPG

    DSC_0841.thumb.JPG.eddbf3421de9f170f3682bbb97f22549.JPG

  6. Thanks Archie.

    The unpowered car is fairly simple then.

    I should have specified wiring diagrams for both powered and unpowered cars. I'll try to open up my own at some point and take a picture of the PCB if that helps.

    For DCC you have a common positive (blue) and switched negatives head (white) and tail (yellow) which is reversed at the other end. Somehow that common positive has to go to both sides but the opposite to the switched negative that is on?

  7. My Bachmann Cl150 has a 2-pin connection on the drawbar for both head and tail lights on the dummy car.

    Do any of the electrical engineers on here have an idea how that is done?

    I'm guessing that it is a series of diodes so that the polarity reverses depending on the direction. But can anyone work out the wiring diagram for it in the powered and dummy cars please?

    Seconds question, if I was going to do night/day headlights, interior lighting and central locking lighting on one decoder plus bringing the track pickups from the dummy car back, would I be able to save on interconnection pins in any way using these techniques?

  8. I was thinking, that the difference between most indoor and most outdoor (by no means all though). Most indoor and exhibition layouts I can think of need interest, so people model a station, a depot, sidings or a junction - somewhere there is some operation.

    Outdoors, gives more opportunity to model the bits in between. Extended stretches of line with no interruptions, just letting a train get on with doing what a train does.

    The other thing I was thinking about on the back of Mick's comment in Ken's topic was staring me right in the face. I was looking at my Dad's Bachmann calendar with a picture of a Northern 153 and 158 coming into Kirkby Stephen (I guess thats on the Settle line) past a semaphore signal and the signal box. You could almost take that contemporary train out of there, put a BR blue loco with blue grey Mk1 or 2s and it would not look a bit out of place. You could probably put a BR Steam loco on there and it wouldn't look wrong.

    T get to a point, maybe the simpler things are, the more flexible they are in terms of time period or stock that can be used.

  9. Some good progress there and good that you have neighbours that will help.

    You'll soon be at track laying I'm sure.

    On Mick's point, I think the great thing about garden railways is they don't need to be set at a specific period and that seems far easier to do than on an indoor.

  10. I took the train from Edinburgh to Glasgow last night.

    Normally, the E-G services are made up of 7 or 8 car (2 sets of) Scotrail class 385s. At the moment they are just 4-cars and crammed at peak times. Standing all of the way.

    I can't see the connection between a driver shortage or work to rule and the trains being short formed. But maybe someone with better knowledge of the workings can throw some light?

  11. 4 hours ago, Loco Hauled said:

    Great stuff! Need some Lima engines so they make a nice growl 😁

    Lol, I do have some Lima in my "secondary" Fleet (old stuff not for YT). The Class 37 has had a CD motor replacement and runs quite well to be honest, still not quietly though.

    The Lima 156s have yet to have their CD motor conversions.

  12. On 5/11/2022 at 10:53 PM, Loco Hauled said:

    Probably hoping that somewhere along the line the vibration was going to bring out a nice juicy worm! LOL

    Hi, Your question on Youtube, that video is unlisted but can be found on near the top of page one of this journal.
    I'm going to re-make it with all of the wagons and locos stored at Dad's but in my garden.

    • Like 1
  13. I've just posted a video on my main garden railway thread. I think what I notice from watching the action camera in a wagon views is that good flat trackbed laying isn't noticeable, but bad track is really noticeable. Though, in my defence, it was just mocked up and will be properly done in the future.

  14. I was hoping to get some video today using my camera wagon. Unfortunately, after trying to charge up the Mobius camera I found it wasn't accepting a charge. Fortunately, replacement cells are not expensive and a bigger one can be fitted 820mAh instead of 520mAh (more than half as big again) costing only £7.

    In the mean-time I have my other action camera (a Drift2) which is bigger and isn't quite as suited to sitting in the wagon.

    Why do I have two? One for the front of my bike and one for the back. Yes, it has caught some bad driving and some quite close passes. Neither has been much use since I don't commute since Covid came along, other than on the model railway.

    I have got some footage so I'll try editing and get a video update for the weekend.

    • Like 1
  15. The longest ever extension to the railway happened today, 4.5metres more than yesterday! That is, however, not properly laid and using my indoor test track for 3.5m of straight track. So the track was too lumpy for anything but the Class 20 and some short wagons to run successfully.
    More of that in the main thread when I can get the Mobius2 camera to work again.

    The point of this post, I was joined by a Mr Blackbird in the garden who seemed quite intrigued by the class 20 running along on it own. Not sure if he wanted me or the railway out of "his" garden.

  16. I glued the second group of three blocks on to the first group. The first four blocks are perfect. Four to five has a slight lip and five to six is perfect too. I think I was too ambitious getting all six together - should have done two groups of three then put them together as I said I would.

    It isn't a massive lip. Options are to cut through the glue between four and five and re-glue or file five and six until I get a flat top?

    In terms of strength, I could lift the six blocks together as they are now. It might be a different story when the arches are cut and the mating surfaces are much smaller.
    Block 1 is on the right.

    DSC_0835.JPG

  17. 52 minutes ago, Loco Hauled said:

    May I ask why you didn't cut the arches into the blocks first? The height of the arches is going to be set by the flat top of the plywood and the blocks would have been more manoeuvrable when you're cutting. They also would be lighter to lift.

    Hi, the arches will go with the join on the block at the highest point of the arch. It just makes the join between blocks a little less obvious than having them all the way down to the ground. For that I need to join them first before getting the core-cutter on them.

    The other, more honest answer is "copying Mick." 🤣

     

    • Like 1
  18. DSC_0834.thumb.JPG.266c4cebaa119d1d3630a413cf0ff1e7.JPGThe first three blocks glued by this method. Everything that follows depends on the success of this stage.DSC_0833.thumb.JPG.13d0d5813650d6290d865c02227e81db.JPG

    There are seven blocks, the leftmost I'm not putting an arch in due to its shape. That leaves six blocks with five arches.

    I'll glue them in two sets of three to make them manageable and do four of the arches.

    I've got a few ideas for putting them together. Either turning them over on the 12mm ply then sliding them off into position or leaving them upside down and using my supply of massive zip ties to brace them tightly to the ply and lower them into place.

    Edit: I've been out to check, six do fit on that strip of ply and feels like they are within my lifting capacity so one helper should be enough. I flattened the tops of the first three before gluing and they fitted together much better than the next three, so obviously the filing first is useful.

    • Like 1
  19. I had a thought. Why don't I just turn the blocks for the viaduct over onto their top sides onto a flat surface and glue them together like that. Then I can core cut the arches and settle them all in at the right height and level together. Filing any high spots after.

    That would seem easier than settling in every block to the right height as I glue.

  20. 1 hour ago, Loco Hauled said:

    One of the reasons I plan to work in wood is that I imagine maintaining the permanent way and the structures that hold it are going to be an ongoing constant demand and I'm guessing that will be something easier to rectify in wood rather than concrete or blocks - although I have no experience of either to back that up.

    Concrete blocks, depending on how they are founded, shouldn't move and by their nature can't warp over time. Once down, there should be a good few years before any maintenance is needed.

    Wood will need more maintenence but is easier to build with and can be used where concrete block cannot. Like crossing an area with roots sticking through the ground.

    Wood will also be better for building above ground level, if you don't want to be kneeling constantly.

     

×
×
  • Create New...