Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control - discussion - merits of wire in tube
-
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm
Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control - discussion - merits of wire in tube
I'm hoping to control my Kyle layout through old style rods and levers between lever frame and turnout operating units, and signals. I thought initially it would be easier than lots of electric/electronic gadgetry, but actually it requires quite a lot of thought at the baseboard planning stage to work out where I mustn't have baseboard supports getting in the way, or must make suitable gaps, and designing the linkages with their various changes of direction.
Does anyone have any photos they could share, or anything written, of how some of Morgan Design bits and pieces available from the Stores look when they are made up? Jeremy Suter has kindly sent me these photos so I am most of the way there already, but I'd be interested to see what the other bits look like when assembled. I'm hoping I should be able to design the controls around what is available from the Stores.
So the specific ones I'm looking for more clarification on are DN 6070 signal levers, DN 8060 signal base, and DN 6080/90 assorted levers.
Thanks if anyone can come up with anything!
Edit - changing the thread title to reflect the useful nature of the posts subsequently made.
Does anyone have any photos they could share, or anything written, of how some of Morgan Design bits and pieces available from the Stores look when they are made up? Jeremy Suter has kindly sent me these photos so I am most of the way there already, but I'd be interested to see what the other bits look like when assembled. I'm hoping I should be able to design the controls around what is available from the Stores.
So the specific ones I'm looking for more clarification on are DN 6070 signal levers, DN 8060 signal base, and DN 6080/90 assorted levers.
Thanks if anyone can come up with anything!
Edit - changing the thread title to reflect the useful nature of the posts subsequently made.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Julian Roberts on Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm
Re: Mechanical underboard signal and point control
My "Burford Branch" layout is controlled by means of hand-driven under-baseboard mechanical rodding and home-made cranks (with micro-switches for changing crossing vee polarity). It is a simple and very reliable method of point control.
For what it's worth, it can be seen in under-baseboard shots shown on my 'Burford Branch' layout thread on this forum in the second half of 2020.
I have used locally situated push-pull knobs (small brass drawer knobs) on the front of the baseboard frame, which avoids the need to arrange cross-baseboard joints in the under-baseboard rodding, but cross-baseboard joints (with a sprung return) were used by Peter Denny on his 'Buckingham Branch' layout 70 or more years ago, and so far as I am aware are still fully functioning now. So even this is not really a problem.
I would definitely recommend this method of controlling points.
For what it's worth, it can be seen in under-baseboard shots shown on my 'Burford Branch' layout thread on this forum in the second half of 2020.
I have used locally situated push-pull knobs (small brass drawer knobs) on the front of the baseboard frame, which avoids the need to arrange cross-baseboard joints in the under-baseboard rodding, but cross-baseboard joints (with a sprung return) were used by Peter Denny on his 'Buckingham Branch' layout 70 or more years ago, and so far as I am aware are still fully functioning now. So even this is not really a problem.
I would definitely recommend this method of controlling points.
-
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm
Re: Mechanical underboard signal and point control
To save having to scroll through the thread in order to find these photos, here are a couple of shots that show my system clearly:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm
Re: Mechanical underboard signal and point control
You don't need to make anything as the model aircraft folk have a range of precision components available and they're inexpensive.
Alternatively go to MRJ 58 and see how ChrisP did it. It still works and he goes across baseboard joints.
DaveB
Alternatively go to MRJ 58 and see how ChrisP did it. It still works and he goes across baseboard joints.
DaveB
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 2424
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am
Re: Mechanical underboard signal and point control
My take on this is shown in the pictures below. Both are of mechanical linkages connected to a point motor but the same method could be used on an entirely mechanical system. I did just that many years ago on a demonstration board and the same methods were used on the first layout built by the mid-Sussex group.
The first picture shows the arragements on Elcot Road The motor on the right operates one turnout whist the other one works both ends of a crossover at the same time.
The second picture shows what is used on Longcarse West. Very similar to the one on Elcot Road but a bit more robust and made mainly in steel, probably because I did not have brass of the appropriet sizes to hand.
The lack of an omega loop on the second system does not seem to be a disadvanatge. There are diferent holes in the lever on the motor and on the crank so this allows for adjustment. In both cases the 3mm brass rod through the baseboard is turned down at the end and a functional crank soldered to the top which connect to the stretcher bar on the turnout. Since these pictures were taken I have fitted external microswitches to the Tortoise motors which are operated by the lever on the motor which does away with the need to use the internal contacts. Some adjustment is possible by moving the square block at the end of the rod on the screw thread.
Whilst you can buy the bits to do this sort of thing, making your own does not take very long and it is cheaper.
Terry Bendall
The first picture shows the arragements on Elcot Road The motor on the right operates one turnout whist the other one works both ends of a crossover at the same time.
The second picture shows what is used on Longcarse West. Very similar to the one on Elcot Road but a bit more robust and made mainly in steel, probably because I did not have brass of the appropriet sizes to hand.
The lack of an omega loop on the second system does not seem to be a disadvanatge. There are diferent holes in the lever on the motor and on the crank so this allows for adjustment. In both cases the 3mm brass rod through the baseboard is turned down at the end and a functional crank soldered to the top which connect to the stretcher bar on the turnout. Since these pictures were taken I have fitted external microswitches to the Tortoise motors which are operated by the lever on the motor which does away with the need to use the internal contacts. Some adjustment is possible by moving the square block at the end of the rod on the screw thread.
Whilst you can buy the bits to do this sort of thing, making your own does not take very long and it is cheaper.
Terry Bendall
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm
Re: Question re Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
Thank you Martin and Terry for sharing these photos. I'm encouraged Martin that the system doesn't have to look as pukka as Terry's to work perfectly well, which is all that matters to me too! By the way I have no cross-baseboard problem, as I presently envisage the lever frames will be discrete to each board, and if I decide I want some interlocking I'll arrange later an electric system to give a warning light if a conflict is set up. Basic outline of the two boards below, showing lever frames between baseboard edge and backscene - viewers look over from main line side.
Not being that practical, I'm not convinced Terry that it would be easier to make those parts! The Morgan items available looked more my kind of level even if it means spending a bit, which is why I was after some more info on the bits that aren't made up on the OP.
Dave, thanks, our group layout Calderside was controlled with a by now quite ancient system using RC stuff but I'm told the holes wear too much and the whole thing becomes too sloppy, so it has been upgraded gradually with parts made by individuals with lathes and milling machines. So that's why I wasn't pursuing that line, but maybe things have moved on?
Not being that practical, I'm not convinced Terry that it would be easier to make those parts! The Morgan items available looked more my kind of level even if it means spending a bit, which is why I was after some more info on the bits that aren't made up on the OP.
Dave, thanks, our group layout Calderside was controlled with a by now quite ancient system using RC stuff but I'm told the holes wear too much and the whole thing becomes too sloppy, so it has been upgraded gradually with parts made by individuals with lathes and milling machines. So that's why I wasn't pursuing that line, but maybe things have moved on?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 3921
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Re: Mechanical underboard signal and point control
davebradwell wrote:You don't need to make anything as the model aircraft folk have a range of precision components available and they're inexpensive.
That's what I have used, I'll look out some photos later.
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
I can't help specifically on the MD parts as I made my own but I would say that for any mechanical system, planning ahead is vital. Even for a simple layout, there is a lot going on in a confined space - so make sure it all fits together without it all getting in the way of something else; not forgetting - it is going to need maintaining from time to time so bear in mind the need for access etc.
Sorry the photos are not of the best - quick snaps with flash!
It is a bit of a truism that the mechanical bits and electrical bits are competing for the same space!
Hope that helps
Howard
Sorry the photos are not of the best - quick snaps with flash!
It is a bit of a truism that the mechanical bits and electrical bits are competing for the same space!
Hope that helps
Howard
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 3921
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Re: Mechanical underboard signal and point control
grovenor-2685 wrote:davebradwell wrote:You don't need to make anything as the model aircraft folk have a range of precision components available and they're inexpensive.
That's what I have used, I'll look out some photos later.
As promised, first two are Grovenor sidings.
Remaing 3 are part of loco yard.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
Howard, Keith, that is most helpful, thank you.
If you bought those parts Keith they look just the job. Are the cranks nylon? If so have you had problems of wear/slop? What is the name of the parts that link the rods to the cranks?
Yes Howard I'm trying to design the baseboard supports to give room for the mechanism, without having made such a mechanism, so it's a bit of a guessing game. Progress so far - first image is baseboards without mechanism. Second image is a print out, coloured to show the crossovers (but far right turnout is off the page). Catch point isn't shown on map, nor is ash road turnout at the front.
With track plan below
If you bought those parts Keith they look just the job. Are the cranks nylon? If so have you had problems of wear/slop? What is the name of the parts that link the rods to the cranks?
Yes Howard I'm trying to design the baseboard supports to give room for the mechanism, without having made such a mechanism, so it's a bit of a guessing game. Progress so far - first image is baseboards without mechanism. Second image is a print out, coloured to show the crossovers (but far right turnout is off the page). Catch point isn't shown on map, nor is ash road turnout at the front.
With track plan below
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 3921
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
Julian Roberts wrote:If you bought those parts Keith they look just the job. Are the cranks nylon? If so have you had problems of wear/slop? What is the name of the parts that link the rods to the cranks?
All bought from Model Aircraft suppliers, I think the cranks are nylon, certainly that sort of slippery plastic. There have not been any signs of wear.
The rod ends are called "Clevis".
Makes I have used are : Great Planes; DU-BRO Products; Pylon Brand; Radio Active; JP Accessories.
I have quite a collection of spares that I won't use now if you want some.
-
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm
Re: Question re Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
Julian Roberts wrote:I'm encouraged Martin that the system doesn't have to look as pukka as Terry's to work perfectly well, which is all that matters to me too!
Yes, my point operating methods are crude by comparison with Keith's beautifully neat workmanship. I'm just a rough and ready bodger, but this system has proved to be completely reliable, so maybe I don't need to be too ashamed about its unprepossessing (and mercifully hidden) appearance.
-
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:19 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
Julian,
I have hesitated to ask this until now, but what's wrong with wire in tube? Sounds significantly simpler to me.
I have hesitated to ask this until now, but what's wrong with wire in tube? Sounds significantly simpler to me.
-
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
The aircraft people are ahead of you, Julian, and can supply nicely flexible braided wire running in fetching colours of tube made of slippery plastic. I've made my own in the distant past using copper tube (scrounged from Gas Chromatography) lined with ptfe tube (from electronics workshop) and thin piano wire (workshop) doing the business. It can be soldered to pins to keep it in lace. Expect the aircraft stuff will work better as they'll be concerned about stiction affecting their neutral position.
DaveB
DaveB
-
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:19 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
Or MSE/Wizard do it Code SM4
5m of nickel silver 24swg wire and 1/32" bore low friction tube £12.30
I've googled some aircraft RC stuff and a quick look reveals it doesn't come in long lengths, the longest i found is 36" for £6.20, so comparatively expensive although it does come with fittings https://www.arrowmodels.com/dubro-db343-36-snake-kwik-link-bowden-cable-engine-pushrod-kit-for-rc-model-aircraft.
A more thorough search will probably provide better alternatives.
5m of nickel silver 24swg wire and 1/32" bore low friction tube £12.30
I've googled some aircraft RC stuff and a quick look reveals it doesn't come in long lengths, the longest i found is 36" for £6.20, so comparatively expensive although it does come with fittings https://www.arrowmodels.com/dubro-db343-36-snake-kwik-link-bowden-cable-engine-pushrod-kit-for-rc-model-aircraft.
A more thorough search will probably provide better alternatives.
Last edited by Winander on Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
I suppose the issue is whether it can be connected to the rather nice clevises/cranks that the aircraft folk supply. It still needs the metal tube exterior to keep it in-line.
DaveB
DaveB
-
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:19 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
davebradwell wrote:I suppose the issue is whether it can be connected to the rather nice clevises/cranks that the aircraft folk supply. It still needs the metal tube exterior to keep it in-line.
DaveB
I bought some MSE wire in tube following the recommendation of John Elliot of Leeds City the Midland side on RMWeb. The fixing down of the wire seems to be minimal as shown in the picture in this post https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index ... nt=3192322, but more would be required when it bends.
Being nickel silver wire it should solder well.
-
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
Winander wrote:Julian,
I have hesitated to ask this until now, but what's wrong with wire in tube? Sounds significantly simpler to me.
One word - FRICTION.
My experience with wire in tube was admittedly a long time ago, and it was wire running in brass tube. It was too stiff for practical use, especially when curved. Plastic tube might be a lot less abrasive, but I have felt a great deal happier using thicker wire 'in the open' with minimal supports.
-
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:26 am
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
martin goodall wrote:Winander wrote:Julian,
I have hesitated to ask this until now, but what's wrong with wire in tube? Sounds significantly simpler to me.
One word - FRICTION.
My experience with wire in tube was admittedly a long time ago, and it was wire running in brass tube. It was too stiff for practical use, especially when curved. Plastic tube might be a lot less abrasive, but I have felt a great deal happier using thicker wire 'in the open' with minimal supports.
I think that the original Mercontrol system used copper tube with which friction seemed less of a problem, however, when using tube I have always just used short lengths, say no more than 10-15mm long, soldered to screw heads and spaced (and lubricated) as necessary. The use of clumps of three polished steel nails works well too, with perhaps a fourth nail hammered flat in the centre of the clump to just lift the wire clear of the surface.
-
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:49 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
I've used old Code 100 rail, spiked or pinned to either the top or u/s of the baseboard. A railjoiner part way along can be used as an adjuster, soldering to one end, setting the throw and then soldering the other end. I've got a couple of GEM lever frames 'in stock' which I would like to use someday. Several old layouts of mine from the past used them with cranks cut and drilled out of brass of varying thickness. A plain triangle with 3 holes works just as well as an 'L' shape and is a lot quicker and easier to make..
-
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
bécasse wrote:The use of clumps of three polished steel nails works well too, with perhaps a fourth nail hammered flat in the centre of the clump to just lift the wire clear of the surface.
Yes, I can vouch for the use of nails, as shown in the photos I posted here the other day. Crude, but very effective. (As you can see from those photos, you don't necessarily need groups of three nails. Just a single nail often suffices at intervals along the wire.)
-
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
Enigma wrote:I've used old Code 100 rail, spiked or pinned to either the top or u/s of the baseboard. A railjoiner part way along can be used as an adjuster, soldering to one end, setting the throw and then soldering the other end. I've got a couple of GEM lever frames 'in stock' which I would like to use someday. Several old layouts of mine from the past used them with cranks cut and drilled out of brass of varying thickness. A plain triangle with 3 holes works just as well as an 'L' shape and is a lot quicker and easier to make..
Enigma's comment was posted while I was replying to Bécasse's contribution. Part of the rodding under my layout is old Code 100 rail, and my cranks are mainly triangular (rather than 'L' shape) cut from aluminium sheet, with three holes, one for the pivot, and two for the rodding sections. (Great minds think alike!)
-
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
Many thanks indeed Keith for the offer, I have sent a PM to you.
So many really interesting thoughts here, thanks so much everyone. I'm innately suspicious of wire in tube after a life time of cycling for pleasure and to work. Fine for bikes if properly greased and renewed as necessary...but with DaveB amongst you as an advocate I'm not saying never and obviously the technology is on a totally different level.
Darn, I only threw away a load of old Peco FB code 100 rail a few months ago after 20 years of "it might be useful sometime"!
I felt embarrassed opening the topic in the "Control Concepts" section in the company of other topics of exalted cutting edge technology. But in fact this old style technology seems to require a daunting amount of brain-power!
So many really interesting thoughts here, thanks so much everyone. I'm innately suspicious of wire in tube after a life time of cycling for pleasure and to work. Fine for bikes if properly greased and renewed as necessary...but with DaveB amongst you as an advocate I'm not saying never and obviously the technology is on a totally different level.
Darn, I only threw away a load of old Peco FB code 100 rail a few months ago after 20 years of "it might be useful sometime"!
I felt embarrassed opening the topic in the "Control Concepts" section in the company of other topics of exalted cutting edge technology. But in fact this old style technology seems to require a daunting amount of brain-power!
-
- Posts: 1953
- Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:49 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
I have a number of old Hambling’s Addalever frames (similar to Gem) which I am going to use sometime, probably with wire in tube on the top of the baseboard. I have some copper tube and steel wire which I think I got from Eileen’s a long time ago, so this is the old Mercontrol system, but I am also interested in the R/C wire in tube components. I used Mercontrol on layouts in the dim distant past and I didn’t think there was that much friction but the recommendation was that the wire was well greased with Vaseline or similar during assembly. I also dismantled a layout which had this system for over thirty years and it still worked very well.
My system in the storage areas consists of thick steel wire (actually came from old Model Railway Constructor binders when I threw them out!) held in line with small screws and connected to a changeover switch for the crossing. Very easily adjustable especially when used on the surface.
Philip
My system in the storage areas consists of thick steel wire (actually came from old Model Railway Constructor binders when I threw them out!) held in line with small screws and connected to a changeover switch for the crossing. Very easily adjustable especially when used on the surface.
Philip
-
- Posts: 2524
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm
Re: Morgan designs for mechanical underboard signal and point control
martin goodall wrote:Winander wrote:Julian,
I have hesitated to ask this until now, but what's wrong with wire in tube? Sounds significantly simpler to me.
One word - FRICTION.
My experience with wire in tube was admittedly a long time ago, and it was wire running in brass tube. It was too stiff for practical use, especially when curved. Plastic tube might be a lot less abrasive, but I have felt a great deal happier using thicker wire 'in the open' with minimal supports.
Our Exhibition layout in the 80's used plastic tub and wire. This always worked very nicely thank you, didn't need lubrication, and had just enough friction to insured that the points stayed exactly where you put them. The main issue was that we had no simple way to get it across a base board joint, so our central "lever frame" was built over a central base board joint as almost all the points were on these two adjacent boards. The few points not on the two central boards were driven by point motors. For a permanent layout without base board joints I would use the system again, but perhaps not for an exhibition layout with points spread across a series of boards .
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests