A new lever frame design

JFS
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby JFS » Tue May 01, 2018 9:48 am

John Palmer wrote:Whilst I intend to remain loyal to my Bill Strickland-inspired design of lever frame (I don't like catch handle mechanisms!), this looks like a brilliant way at last to bring a properly interlocked frame within the reach of anybody who wants one.

So far as I can see, movement is imparted to the tappets at beginning and end of stroke only, which leads me to think that the design may not lend itself to representation of the Stevens push-pull lever commonly found on the S&D and LSWR - is that the case?

I'm also intrigued to know how the function of the det. placers will be simulated in 4mm scale!



The locking can be added to the older design and the instructions describe how to do this.

I have given thought to Push Pull levers (as a mate of mine has them!) and it can be done - however, the lock does not hold the lever until it has moved from the middle to the "3/4" position.

That said, if I were modelling a Stevens Frame, I might be tempted by the Scale Signal Supply version:-

http://www.raymondwalley.com/misc/other ... ug2NX8h2Ht

But it is about 5 times the price... and designing the locking is a right pig of a job with full travel tappets!

Re the Detonators, one suggestion is to use them to short-out the relevant DCC power zone - that will make the b****y drivers stop at the signals!

Best wishes,

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Forum Team
Posts: 3370
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby grovenor-2685 » Tue May 01, 2018 9:01 pm

Re the Detonators, one suggestion is to use them to short-out the relevant DCC power zone - that will make the b****y drivers stop at the signals!

But that is not the function of the detonators :)
Install a vehicle spot detector at the det location, eg an IR or LDR type, then connect to a sound player so that lever reverse + detector activated plays a sound file of a pair of dets. (Merg has proven designs for all the bits escept the actual sound file, could be a challenge to find a suitable recording).
Regards
Regards
Keith
Grovenor Sidings

User avatar
Flymo748
Forum Team
Posts: 2415
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby Flymo748 » Tue May 01, 2018 10:11 pm

grovenor-2685 wrote:
Re the Detonators, one suggestion is to use them to short-out the relevant DCC power zone - that will make the b****y drivers stop at the signals!

But that is not the function of the detonators :)
Install a vehicle spot detector at the det location, eg an IR or LDR type, then connect to a sound player so that lever reverse + detector activated plays a sound file of a pair of dets. (Merg has proven designs for all the bits escept the actual sound file, could be a challenge to find a suitable recording).
Regards


By coincidence, yesterday was the first time that I have ever heard detonators used...

The EMU that I was on home from work failed at Cheshunt. Well, it failed a couple of miles earlier, but coasted into the station. To clear the line, they had to run the following unit up behind us, couple and push us dead towards Cambridge. The second unit was called forward with the driver of the failed train holding a red flag and running over a couple of detonators as a final warning.

I have to say, good communication and very professional behaviour from all railway staff involved :-)

Only an hour late home for me...
Cheers
Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

John Palmer
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby John Palmer » Wed May 02, 2018 12:27 am

JFS wrote:... however, the lock does not hold the lever until it has moved from the middle to the "3/4" position.

Aye, there's the rub, since a very common arrangement with push-pulls is for them to operate signals controlling movements in opposite directions over the same route, eg a crossover, and ideally for this you need a nib that holds the push-pull in its normal mid-quadrant position until released, for example by reversal of the points over which the push-pull pair of signals read.

It hadn't occurred to me that full travel tappets are more difficult to lock - the release locking I've mentioned for a push-pull must be an exception to any such general principle, albeit one of fairly minor significance.

Keith's suggestion for the dets is the kind of thing I had in mind. An excursion to Youtube quickly brought up a source for a suitable soundtrack, with a bit of editing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x-FKMYJYP8.

JFS
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby JFS » Wed May 02, 2018 7:20 am

John Palmer wrote:
JFS wrote:... however, the lock does not hold the lever until it has moved from the middle to the "3/4" position.

Aye, there's the rub, since a very common arrangement with push-pulls is for them to operate signals controlling movements in opposite directions over the same route, eg a crossover, and ideally for this you need a nib that holds the push-pull in its normal mid-quadrant position until released, for example by reversal of the points over which the push-pull pair of signals read.

It hadn't occurred to me that full travel tappets are more difficult to lock - the release locking I've mentioned for a push-pull must be an exception to any such general principle, albeit one of fairly minor significance.

Keith's suggestion for the dets is the kind of thing I had in mind. An excursion to Youtube quickly brought up a source for a suitable soundtrack, with a bit of editing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x-FKMYJYP8.


Hello John,

Not sure if we misunderstand each other here John (and I do know how they work for I have worked one in a real box!). The lever would be retained by its catch handle in the mid position, but - if it were locked - for example by the non reversal of the points) then the lever could be moved SLIGHTLY before encountering the lock but not enough to "work" the signal. The movement from the mid to the 3/4 position being quite only 1/4 of the lever stroke. Fair enough if you find this an unacceptable compromise weighed against the need to make all the locking by hand!!

Full travel tappets are a pain because of the need to avoid "false locks" where ports pass through intermediate tray slots ("troughs" in Stevens-speak)- any bridles in these trays (which are obviously intended to engage with other ports in the same tappet) must be made a different size (larger) so that they will not engage should two levers be moving at once. Not sure how many of these locking trays you have looked in, but the range of shapes and sizes is wonderful to behold, but a real pain to make! Such potential conflicts need much more careful consideration and avoidance. I agree that Push Pulls are but a minor compensation for this!!

Stevens, having invented tappet locking, were rather saddled with quite old fashioned locking arrangements consisting of a series of two-trough trays each with three bridles, spaced along the height of the lever. Thus each tray had a different locking pitch - and "mass producing" an etch is impossible. Worse, the tappets must be curved to the radius of the lever at the point of attachment - again different for each tray. In bigger boxes these were supplemented by a much larger tray at 45 degrees driven by a bracket off the lever - for the modeller, these have the disadvantage that the leverage from the signalman's "pull" is very great, necessitating some pretty hefty locking if it is not to break under an over-scale pull. Perhaps such challenges were the reason why they went for economising devices in quite a big way - such as "Route" levers and "Russel" levers, which would certainly be an interesting challenge!

To look at the locking in a largish Steven box (one or two of which still exist / existed until recently in Scotland) and compare it with that in a Westinghouse box (some excellent examples of which still exist in Sri Lanka) is to see what a difference reduced travel locking makes.

I did quite a bit of work to investigate etched catch handle locking - including all four of the most common patterns on the Real Thing - but all foundered on the rock of creating a strong enough catch handle, not to mention the extra precision which is implied by some types.

But of course, none of that applies in the case of a small box - which are "easy" enough to do by hand-methods, and small enough to adopt the beautiful but expensive SMS frame. But if you had more than say, 25 levers, it might focus the mind ;)

Just in passing, it is interesting to note that lever frame types which do not exist in museums here can be seen in museums overseas - for example, there is a Saxby Dog and Rocker in Lousado (Portugal), a Saxby Duplex in Madrid, and M & H Cam and Soldier in Perth, W. Australia.

There - now I have revealed just to what extent I need to get a (modelling) life... :D

Best Wishes,




Interesting ideas about the dets - making a big bang might be reserved for the co-acting dets at the Homes!! If trains get to the locations of the worked dets, they need stopping!

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby Terry Bendall » Wed May 02, 2018 7:39 am

JFS wrote:The question of what value all this adds to a model railway is personal and dependent on circumstances,


Very true and the same comment could be applied to other aspects of layout design and operation. Having helped to operate Barry Luck's layout Plumpton Green, including spells on the lever frame, which like Miniories is at the front of the layout, this arrangement does create additional interest for the viewer and can lead to interesting explanations of what is going on.

The LBSC Niorth box at London Bridge until 1928 had 280 levers arranged in two back to back rows. When the signalling was upgraded in June 1928 there were 3122 levers which controlled around 2000 trains each weekday. Anyone for a challenge? :)

Terry Bendall

John Palmer
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby John Palmer » Wed May 02, 2018 10:34 am

Hello Howard,

My acquaintance with the innards of Stevens lock troughs is very limited, although I did a little work (none of it very good) on the locking for the S&D Trust's representation of Midford Box, including the tappet for 5 Push/Pull with its elongated ports. That was the best part of forty years ago, and at about the same time I was making the interlocked ground frame for the model of Burnham which features a push-pull to control the Loop Home and Starting signals. The locking is a straightforward series of releases (3 releases 1 releases 2 releases 4 Push/4Pull), so 4 is held in mid-quadrant by a bridle from the FPL lever 2 in the same manner as the release for 11 Push/Pull in Trough 2 at Midsomer Norton, which can be viewed at http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/images/lock/msnorton-dc.jpg

As can be seen from the Midsomer Norton dog chart, 11 is positively held in its normal mid position until released by reversal of 10 Points. The reservation I have about being able to move the lever slightly before the lock is hit is that it might encourage the signalman to believe that the lever is free and that some tightness in the locking is preventing it from being pushed/pulled to its full forward or reverse positions – but I accept that on a model this is a minor niggle.

Yes, I was aware of range of nib shapes required to avoid the false locks you mention. I'd catered for this on the dog chart for my projected Aonach layout, but expected to take this in my stride since this was going to be a hand-made 'one off'. I planned to sidestep the need for curved tappets a la Stevens by making the levers drive straight tappets via an escapement slot in the lever. In the Strickland design the lever is displaced along its longitudinal axis to disengage it from its end-of-travel detents. An escapement slot in the lever was required for this in any event, so milling an additional slot in each lever for the tappet drive was a modest addition to the work required.

I'm not surprised to hear that you dismissed catch handle locking due to strength considerations; they were part of the reason why I opted for the Strickland design which doesn't make use of catch handles at all.

The complications of making a viable a Russell lever are quite mind boggling!

JFS
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby JFS » Wed May 02, 2018 3:27 pm

Terry Bendall wrote:The LBSC North box at London Bridge until 1928 had 280 levers arranged in two back to back rows. When the signalling was upgraded in June 1928 there were 312 levers which controlled around 2000 trains each weekday. Anyone for a challenge? :)


Hello Terry,

Perhaps even Westinghouse found this a challenge too far as they introduced the "L" style frame (electrically locked) pretty soon after!

As a fourteen year old, I went up in this box in 1969 with a couple of mates to watch part of the rush hour - amazing... But much more amazing was Borough Market Junction, where 2 men worked 26 levers. We watched for about 40 minutes, the two chaps hardly spoke to each other, and there seemed hardly a second without a lever being moved. It is the only time I have ever been in a signal box and not had any clue as to how what was going on inside the box related to what was going on outside! There certainly was no time at which there was not at least one train passing. Those chaps earned their money alright!

I will never forget the sight of a train approaching slowly from Charing Cross up to a Red signal, with one crossing over to Cannon St only a few feet in front of it. It never stopped - just before it reached the signal, it cleared as if by magic. So much for 440 yards overlap!

That, of course, was in the days when British Rail thought it worth while to allocate a Signal Inspector to three teenagers for a whole rush hour. Must have worked because two of us went on to work for the Railway!

Best Wishes,

JFS
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby JFS » Wed May 02, 2018 3:43 pm

Hello John,

In truth, the reduced travel locks are very positive and pretty strong, but I agree that once a signalman has a lever on the move, he takes a bit of stopping!

If you have not already got your Strickland frames, you might want to take a look at the new design - I did quite a bit of work on the catches and the result is strong, accurate and easy to build. One of the potential issues of reduced travel locking is that it needs accuracy in the N and R positions and this was one of the challenges of fitting locking to the older design.

Many thanks for the sight of the Dog Chart - all looks straightforward apart from the first 2 locks in Trough 3 - I take it that 4 is released by 10 OR 11 Pulled, but what about 3? Is it 6 locks 3 when 12 NOT pulled?

Best Wishes,

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby Paul Townsend » Wed May 02, 2018 3:51 pm

John Palmer wrote: In the Strickland design the lever is displaced along its longitudinal axis to disengage it from its end-of-travel detents. An escapement slot in the lever was required for this in any event, so milling an additional slot in each lever for the tappet drive was a modest addition to the work required.



I had hoped someone else would jump in and ask " what is the Strickland design ?"
Ah well, my signalling ignorance is already known here so its me again asking!

JFS
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby JFS » Wed May 02, 2018 6:21 pm

Paul Townsend wrote:I had hoped someone else would jump in and ask " what is the Strickland design ?"
Ah well, my signalling ignorance is already known here so its me again asking!


Hello Paul,

I think John has already published on this:-

viewtopic.php?t=2393

Best wishes,

John Palmer
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby John Palmer » Wed May 02, 2018 9:42 pm

Paul, Bill Strickland's lever frame design was for a model, rather than the prototype, and was described in three instalments in successive issues of MRN from December 1967 to February 1968. I did an article in the News about manufacture of such a frame which includes better illustrations of the mechanical principles involved than the drawing in the topic to which Howard has linked. The article is available online at https://www.scalefour.org/members/newsarchive/dl.php?f=s4news186.pdf. As can be seen from that article, my frame is built but not yet locked: a project on the back burner whilst I build the townscape backing the Burnham layout :cry:.

Howard, I've struggled a bit to follow the workings of the Midsomer Norton dog chart. It helps to be able to refer at the same time to the signalling diagram at http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/images/sb-diag/msnorton-49.jpg showing 6 and 10 as Down Line trailing connections into Norton Hill Colliery and the station goods yard respectively, whilst 12 and 11 are the push-pull levers for the ground signals controlling movements over these connections. 3 and 4 are the Down Starting and Advanced Starting signals.

I am only able to make sense of the Trough 3 lock for lever 3 on the basis that it is designed to pivot upon the two bridles to which it is attached. If so, then 6 Points locks 3 when reversed, but 12 Pull then frees 3 so as to permit clearance of signals for a movement out of the colliery and continuing past the Down Starting signal. This release for 3 is provided by 12 Pull only because allowing 12 Push also to supply such a release would permit clearance of signals for conflicting movements.

In the case of the Trough 3 lock for lever 4 I am wondering whether the chart is in error because 10 and 4 are locking each other normal, meaning that you have no way of clearing your Down line signals or reversing 10 Points. However, if the lock on 4 were to be shown standing clear of the port (as for the lock on 3), then the locking seems to achieve the same result as that for 3: 10 reverse locks 4, but 11 Pull then supplies a release for 4 so that both 11 Pull and 4 can be cleared for a movement out of the goods yard and continuing past the section signal 4 – perhaps the way in which the 3/45 Down Goods ex Bath was sent on its way to Chilcompton. Again 11 Push can't be allowed to supply a release for 4 because these control signals for opposing movements.

That's my best assessment of what the locking was intended to achieve, but I may have got it completely arse about face. Where's that chap from the IRSE who properly understands these things?

JFS
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby JFS » Thu May 03, 2018 8:58 am

I just posted a reply to this but have deleted it as I realised it was not quite right! - I will get back once I have got my brain back in gear!!

More later...

JFS
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby JFS » Thu May 03, 2018 9:15 am

... right - second try at getting my logic straight :D

John Palmer wrote:
I am only able to make sense of the Trough 3 lock for lever 3 on the basis that it is designed to pivot upon the two bridles to which it is attached.

In the case of the Trough 3 lock for lever 4 I am wondering whether the chart is in error


Hello John,

That is my understanding for lever 3 as that is a standard way of providing conditional locks.

Regarding 4, I think this is a "Lifting tappet" (or nib) which means that 4 can be pulled or replaced as drawn, but, once 10 is pulled, 4 is released by 11 Pull as you suggest. I think the reason it is done this way is to allow 11 to be "thrown back" in an emergency without having to first replace 4 (by the nib sliding under the tappet on 4) and without that then causing a back lock on 4.

This way of "counter sequentially" locking the main arm by the shunt signal in rear being "on" seems a strange way to do things and I have not come across it before. I wonder if it was a standard LSWR practice elsewhere?

A post in John Hinson's forum might help - and be a better place to discuss the detail than here :D

Best wishes,

John Palmer
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby John Palmer » Thu May 03, 2018 2:21 pm

JFS wrote:Hello John,

That is my understanding for lever 3 as that is a standard way of providing conditional locks.

Regarding 4, I think this is a "Lifting tappet" (or nib) which means that 4 can be pulled or replaced as drawn, but, once 10 is pulled, 4 is released by 11 Pull as you suggest. I think the reason it is done this way is to allow 11 to be "thrown back" in an emergency without having to first replace 4 (by the nib sliding under the tappet on 4) and without that then causing a back lock on 4.


Thank you Howard, that's fascinating! Obviously the possibility that 4 might be a lifting tappet or nib was one that never crossed my mind.

JFS wrote:This way of "counter sequentially" locking the main arm by the shunt signal in rear being "on" seems a strange way to do things and I have not come across it before. I wonder if it was a standard LSWR practice elsewhere?


I have no idea - might even have been another of those peculiar practices on 'the Dorset' - FWIW treating the shunt signal as a release for the running line signal does enforce authorisation of the movement through the connection before the main arm is cleared.

JFS wrote:A post in John Hinson's forum might help - and be a better place to discuss the detail than here :D
Best wishes,


True, and I am probably guilty of a thread hijack here. However, I hope discussion of interesting conundrums that can arise in locking design will help to stimulate the interest in the product that it richly deserves.

CornCrake
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 2:03 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby CornCrake » Thu May 03, 2018 3:51 pm

Back to the MK II lever frame..
In case it's of any use, I managed to source some 1.4mm Nickel Silver rod here http://www.hobbyholidays.co.uk/products.php?cat=68&pg=2 as well as some of the other additional materials eg 8BA studding.

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby Colin Parks » Fri May 04, 2018 9:18 pm

I have been out of action but still following this topic.

The discussion on locking has made me wonder if there are going to be instructions for the Society locking frame etch? Are there basic priciples for the design of such things or is each lever frame uniquely set out?

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby Paul Townsend » Fri May 04, 2018 9:38 pm

Colin Parks wrote:I have been out of action but still following this topic.

The discussion on locking has made me wonder if there are going to be instructions for the Society locking frame etch? Are there basic priciples for the design of such things or is each lever frame uniquely set out?

I asked Howard at Scalefour North for advice on how to get from the track plan/operational moves to be allowed to the locking design and he referred me to the IRSE publication " British railway signalling practice:mechanical. I couldn't find a second hand copy but got it quickly from IRSE for £23 incl postage. Its the dog's b(*&^cks for this task.

JFS
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby JFS » Fri May 04, 2018 9:55 pm

Colin Parks wrote:I have been out of action but still following this topic.

The discussion on locking has made me wonder if there are going to be instructions for the Society locking frame etch? Are there basic priciples for the design of such things or is each lever frame uniquely set out?


Hello Colin,

90% of the locks in a typical frame are very simple; the complexity only comes when you need to cram a lot of them into the smallest possible space! The remaining 10% include the more esoteric types such as we were discussing above. These are great if you are interested in such things, but can safely be ignored for typical layout applications. There are a number of publications which detail these principles - particularly the one Paul refers to above - and quite a few on-line resources such as this:-

http://dickthesignals.co.uk/onewebmedia ... ocking.pdf

(which includes a lot of stuff you won't really need!). Of course, in terms of how to translate this into the hardware on the etches, the instructions do describe this. If you have not already seen them, you can download them from here:-

http://www.blockpostsoftware.co.uk/L_frame.html

Pages 5 and 20 both contain drawings with examples of the two most important lock types.
That said, a lot of the info from the real railway assumes a fair bit of knowledge and falls into a bit of jargon, and if there is a need to put some of this into simpler language then "someone" (ie me) will have to put pen to paper - if there is a demand...

Hope that helps for now,

Very Best Wishes,

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby Colin Parks » Sat May 05, 2018 10:05 am

Thanks Howard,

The first link gives plenty of information on the practicalities of locking. I have also downloaded the lever frame instructions from your website.

All the best,

Colin
Last edited by Colin Parks on Sat May 05, 2018 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JFS
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby JFS » Sat May 05, 2018 11:08 am

Colin Parks wrote:Thanks Howard, The first link gives plenty of information on the practicalities of locking.


You are welcome Colin. Just to mention that the documents in the link cover a fair variety of different locking types and makes, and you will see a fair variety of terminologies! You might find it interesting to look through them and compare the differences, but easiest is to ignore the more complicated lever frame types...

You might also notice that in many of these prototype designs, the nibs are made in different shapes according to whether they locks or releases. For our purposes, this is not necessary and for ease of manufacture in the "model" locking, they are all the same shape - with a 45 degree leading and trailing edge - Saxby and Farmer / Westinghouse catch-handle locking was always done like this.

Good luck and please post back how you get on!

Very Best Wishes,

junctionmad

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby junctionmad » Wed May 23, 2018 2:08 pm

HI it is intended to keep the old version going as well, Im about to order several of the old units , will they be available long term ?

However this project is a 40 lever frame for a club 0 Gauge layout , with electrical interlocking ( and LED and buzzer sound for incorrect movements )

perhaps the newer mK2 frame is a better bet given the comments about long lever frames of the MK1

Im not sure I want catch handles , Im concerned that damage might ensue from members forgetting to release the catch etc

any advice , I was thinking of scratch building a frame with no catches, Ive no experience of the Societies lever frame to date

JFS
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby JFS » Wed May 23, 2018 4:27 pm

junctionmad wrote:HI it is intended to keep the old version going as well, Im about to order several of the old units , will they be available long term ?

However this project is a 40 lever frame for a club 0 Gauge layout , with electrical interlocking ( and LED and buzzer sound for incorrect movements )

perhaps the newer mK2 frame is a better bet given the comments about long lever frames of the MK1

Im not sure I want catch handles , Im concerned that damage might ensue from members forgetting to release the catch etc

any advice , I was thinking of scratch building a frame with no catches, Ive no experience of the Societies lever frame to date



Just to mention that I have never heard of any problems with catch handles - with either version of the frame. They are very robust and it would take a lot to bust them! I did make the MkII design slightly stronger and more robust around the catch itself, but that is not to say that the Mk I has any problem. The handle can be a bit weak on the Mk1 which is why the Mk 2 has it in one piece - handles are an option. Also, the Mk1 and MkII are completely compatible - you can stand them next to each other and - though they are slightly different in detail, they are so similar that you would find it hard to tell them apart at a glance. The maain difference is that for a frame as long - such as you are talking about - the Mk1 is quite difficult to assemble as you have to build the whole frame at once. The MkII can be built in 5 lever units, then put together - this is MUCH easier believe me - I have done both and I know!!

Also, the switches for electrical operation are mounted at the back of the frame on the MkII whereas on the MkI they are inside. This is also pretty difficult on a long frame.

Hope that helps.

Howard

junctionmad

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby junctionmad » Wed May 23, 2018 4:43 pm

JFS wrote:
junctionmad wrote:HI it is intended to keep the old version going as well, Im about to order several of the old units , will they be available long term ?

However this project is a 40 lever frame for a club 0 Gauge layout , with electrical interlocking ( and LED and buzzer sound for incorrect movements )

perhaps the newer mK2 frame is a better bet given the comments about long lever frames of the MK1

Im not sure I want catch handles , Im concerned that damage might ensue from members forgetting to release the catch etc

any advice , I was thinking of scratch building a frame with no catches, Ive no experience of the Societies lever frame to date



Just to mention that I have never heard of any problems with catch handles - with either version of the frame. They are very robust and it would take a lot to bust them! I did make the MkII design slightly stronger and more robust around the catch itself, but that is not to say that the Mk I has any problem. The handle can be a bit weak on the Mk1 which is why the Mk 2 has it in one piece - handles are an option. Also, the Mk1 and MkII are completely compatible - you can stand them next to each other and - though they are slightly different in detail, they are so similar that you would find it hard to tell them apart at a glance. The maain difference is that for a frame as long - such as you are talking about - the Mk1 is quite difficult to assemble as you have to build the whole frame at once. The MkII can be built in 5 lever units, then put together - this is MUCH easier believe me - I have done both and I know!!

Also, the switches for electrical operation are mounted at the back of the frame on the MkII whereas on the MkI they are inside. This is also pretty difficult on a long frame.

Hope that helps.

Howard



Sounds like Ill be ordering 8 mk2 kits soon, can I still use the turned handles , I really liked them on the Mk1, even if they did detach now and again ! ( from the ones Ive played with )

JFS
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: A new lever frame design

Postby JFS » Wed May 23, 2018 5:17 pm

junctionmad wrote:

Sounds like Ill be ordering 8 mk2 kits soon, can I still use the turned handles , I really liked them on the Mk1, even if they did detach now and again ! ( from the ones Ive played with )


You can indeed use the turned handles - there is a provision in the kit specifically for this and it is quite a bit stronger than the previous arrangement.

You can download the instructions here.

http://www.blockpostsoftware.co.uk/L_frame.html

... you will find the fitting of the turned handles on page 8.

Best wishes,


Return to “Operating in Practice”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest