Heavy Electric Modular Group
#16
UGH! I feel like I lost the knack for catenary for a bit there! I let my rails get rusty.

It took forever to assemble the second and third pole. The fourth pole I banged out in no time. Practice makes perfect applies here!


So far, there is still a lot to do and there is little time. Here is the plan-

1.) Finish Cross-span assemblies
2.) IF THERE IS TIME, build the Hand Place Overpass "Skeleton", If not, skip to 3
3.) Construct the actual catenary spans. If the skeleton is in place, the catenary profile will need to be modified.
4.) fill in with REALLY basic scenery


My thinking here, is that if I can get the poles done, and there isn't time for the overpass, at lease I can string the catenary, and people will still have something to look at apart from a bare table.

In theory, there is enough time to get this done within a week, if I can sit and focus long enough (not an easy thing to do!).


Steel Wire Concerns

I've learned through past experience that Steel wire does not hold up well. Its hard to make a good solder joint, and it rusts easily. THAT SAID.... I've also been having problems with keeping the catenary stiff enough. Part of it is a lack of tension. The other part is the "super-powered' pantographs on most HO scale electrics.

In this case, that stiffness might be extra important. Since I'm using wire cross spans across FOUR tracks and prototypical pole spacing, I can see this easily becoming a situation where the pantographs will lift up the catenary severely. I might be able to modify my electric locomotives to no press so hard on the wire, but there is still some worry here.

While this is also a problem with a "K-Brace" span (where H columns and T beams are used to make a solid structure), Wire-spans will be even more inherently flexible, and putting to much tension on the wires will deform them. It is also very difficult to really apply tension to the cross spans themselves. This pressure generally does not agree with solder joints, even when the joint is VERY strong. Its a sure fire way to end up with a broken wire.

Steel wire is stiff enough to hold, but then the week solder joints could be its undoing.


Does anyone have any suggestions?
Modeling New Jersey Under the Wire 1978-1979.  
[Image: logosmall.png]
Reply
#17
Some pictures!

It looks like the steel cross-span is holding for now. Some of the joints didn't stick well, but others seem solid. I made sure to really heat up the pieces and tin the parts good.

To construct the cross-spans, I went through the following process-

1.) bent and cut the wire to match the "master" drawing
2.) sketched out the Cross span drawing on a piece of wood
3.) Cleaned the wire, then taped it to the wood in the proper spot
4.) Tinned and soldered with plenty of heat, stringing on the Insulators as I went.

I left short pieces of excess wire on the cross spans. The plan is to mount the poles into the module first, anchor them, and then place the cross span in. That way, I can finely adjust the placement to make sure the hangars are position properly above the track centers. I will use an old Passenger car truck with a slotted dowel to be an alignment tool.


As you can see, my planning has paid off, and the hangars are directly over the track centers when laid down upon them. Only Track 2 (third track from the left) might need to be adjusted, but this one joint won't be so bad.

[Image: P5052761.jpg]

Here we can see the overall assembly. The cross spans are "strung" into the pre-drilled holes in the pole. Though I am tempted to just solder the cross-span in and be done with it, I worry that it won't come out right when I actually install the poles in their places. Tomorrow morning I'll try to install the proper mounting equipment on the module so that the poles will be anchored in place. If that goes smoothly, I can solder the cross spans into the poles relatively easily, especially if I can get my 140 Watt Solder gun working (it needs a new tip as well, but the 40-watt is doing the job for now).

[Image: P5052760.jpg]


Speaking of anchoring the poles, I found some 3/16" brass "square" tubing, which VERY snugly fits over the poles, which are 5/32" wide (a scale 14", exactly PRR spec).

The plan is to solder some brass sheet to these square tubes, and drill holes in the sheet for screws. This will be the "mounting bracket". I'll slide this onto a properly positioned pole, and then install a wooden block or cleat onto the module so that it holds everything in the right position. Finally, I will drill and tap a hole through the square stock AND the pole, and install a long screw through it. This will securely hold the catenary pole so it doesn't slide up and down.

Alternatively, some kind of pin, or nut/bolt arrangement might also work.

You can see how snug of a fit it is! I almost wonder if I could get away with just "clamping" the poles into this square tube, instead of drilling all the way through. Still, this will be better in the long run since it will guarantee a solid foundation.

[Image: P5052769.jpg]

Here is a rough MS-paint drawing of the plan.

[Image: Catenary%20Pole%20mounting.png]


Also, I have the supplies I need to build the "Hand Place" bridge skeleton.

A combination of these angle pieces and some brass or phosphur bronze sheet will make a broad channel, to which I can solder on the catenary supports, and also lay a scratchbuilt "body shell" for the bridge. These will be supported by thick Brass square tube stock on the ends. the "feet" of the bridge will be soldered to some Brass sheet, and then screwed into the module.

[Image: P5052772.jpg]


A rough schematic drawing. Once its in place, I can build styrene bridge on top of it, scratchbuilt to match the prototype of course! The "ends" of the bridge will be concealed by the retaining wall and extruded from hill that will make up the terrain.

[Image: Hand%20Place%20Bridge%20Skeleton.png]


In the mean time, these poles also need their cross span, which I will do either tonight or tommorow morning.

[Image: P5052770.jpg]


Things are moving along!
Modeling New Jersey Under the Wire 1978-1979.  
[Image: logosmall.png]
Reply
#18
I think a Heavy Electric Modular group is a great idea
As a matter of interest, what is the track height above floor you are using? If you have gone for the same as Free-mo or NMRA you could join to those modules at a junction board. It wouldn't matter what the Heavy Electric Module standards are, you would just need a junction or converter module.
For example you could build a module with an 4 track electrified straight through, with two Heavy Electric Modular standard ends, and a junction leading off to a non-electrified single or double track Free-mo Modular standard end. Assuming your standard is using DCC then it is really only height that could be a stumbling block.

Edit: just re-read your OP and noticed had witten the height, 40" or 52". Is that to top of rail? Free-mo is 50" and NMRA seems to be 1250mm (or 49.2"). I suppose if you had enough length in a module you could have a down grade from the junction with the electric mainlines to the third end built to another spec.

I'm not saying you should, or you have to do this, just pointing out that even with your own, seemingly incompatible spec, it would still be possible to build an interface with other specs
Tim David
Reply
#19
talltim Wrote:I think a Heavy Electric Modular group is a great idea
As a matter of interest, what is the track height above floor you are using? If you have gone for the same as Free-mo or NMRA you could join to those modules at a junction board. It wouldn't matter what the Heavy Electric Module standards are, you would just need a junction or converter module.
For example you could build a module with an 4 track electrified straight through, with two Heavy Electric Modular standard ends, and a junction leading off to a non-electrified single or double track Free-mo Modular standard end. Assuming your standard is using DCC then it is really only height that could be a stumbling block.

Edit: just re-read your OP and noticed had witten the height, 40" or 52". Is that to top of rail? Free-mo is 50" and NMRA seems to be 1250mm (or 49.2"). I suppose if you had enough length in a module you could have a down grade from the junction with the electric mainlines to the third end built to another spec.

I'm not saying you should, or you have to do this, just pointing out that even with your own, seemingly incompatible spec, it would still be possible to build an interface with other specs

Ideally, but perhaps too ambitiously, I'd LOVE to do a few modules depicting Union Interlocking, where the North Jersey Coast Line connects with the Northeast Corridor. Another Prototype possibility is "Lane" interlocking, in which Track 1 "jumps over" a track connecting Waverly Yard with tracks 2 and 3. This was because freight typically traveled on the middle 2 tracks (2&3), while commuter/passenger traffic stayed on Tracks 1 and 4.

In general, those PRR style "flying junctions" would definitely make life easier if they worked, though I'm not sure that is practical in modular form.

The real problem with these are the grades involved, and I'm sure it would take a few extra modules to do it right.


That said, the modules can "squat" a few inches. I'll have to measure it out to be sure, but the "feet" of the module are actually I-bolts, which we can twist one way or the other to raise or lower the modules to account for uneven floors. lowering it 2" might not be an unobtainable goal.


Connecting our Prototypical Electrified lines is something a lot of groups are interested in, so I'm hoping we can "bridge" that gap soon.
Modeling New Jersey Under the Wire 1978-1979.  
[Image: logosmall.png]
Reply
#20
Its been a few days since I updated this, but work has been going on-

Cross-spans

Both cross spans are done, though I am concerned over the strength of the steel construction. The solder joints do not seem to be holding well. If I have time after everything else, I might make new ones with Phosphor Bronze, and then pray I can "swap" them easily. if it doesn't work out. If it weren't so close to show time, I probably would re-do it. I might replace the vertical portions of the Cross-span with phosphor bronze (one at a time to maintain shape), so that I can keep the horizontal strength of the steel wire, while still being able to attach the catenary wire easily to the span.

I might install the the "steady Rods" on the cross span before I install them into the pole. This would be a departure from the recommended practice, but in this case, I have my catenary so thoroughly planned out, that soldering them on the work bench would be MUCH easier then attempting to solder them together in the air.

I will let there be excess on the steady rods, and slip the catenary wire onto them. Once its soldered, I'll cut off the excess. the steady rods will naturally intersect exactly where they should, since I'll solder and adjust them based on the drawings I've made. I just hope that the phosphor bronze steady rods will solder to the steal cross spans easily.

This a photo of the second span. Notice that the horizontal insulators are positioned differently than in the first. This was also the case on the prototype. It seemed that in most cases, all insulators faced the same direction, with the petticoats point towards one pole, EXCEPT for the last insulator on the other side, which would point towards the other pole.

In this case, the insulator between tracks 2 and 1 faces to the right, instead of the left as it does on the other installation. Normally, such details wouldn't make a difference to me, but then again, catenary is a very "repetitive" piece of infrastructure, and sometimes those little difference stand out.

[Image: P5082800.jpg]


Catenary Wire

This has turned out to be one of the more time-consuming tasks. My original jig was simply not up to the task of constructing 5' lengths of catenary wire. The original jig was built with my 4x8 in mind, and is great for constructing wires up to 4' long, with 2' catenary pole spacing.

I wasted considerable time trying to make it work for my 5' spans, before I gave up on it. This necessitated the construction of a new longer jig, which took a couple hours to complete, as the guiding "pins" needed to be installed properly so that they spaced the wire without being in the way of clip and hangar soldering joints.

Construction was further hampered by the nature of the materials used. For the Auxiliary and Contact wires (the pair of parallel wires in the PRR system), I used 3' lengths of 0.020" Phosphor Bronze.

In order to avoid weak "butt joints", I overlapped the wires. However, because of the length, these 3' pieces only overlap for 1'. This requires two 2' pieces.

This means that while there was technically over 20' of Phosphor Bronze in the tube, some of that wire could not be utilized for this purpose, resulting in the necessity of additional wire. Fortunately, my hobby shop had one last pack of straight Phosphor bronze.

In this photo, you can see the "overlap". The precise locations are marked by the vertical lines with the dashes next to them, indicating the overlap zone. This is so that I can position my wire precisely in the jig and tape it down so that it doesn't move while I solder them together. As it worked out, the "butt" joint between individual wires were not near any other major soldering joints, so they have a low risk of "popping" under heat accidentally. so far, they have not broken, but they might need to be polished smooth to promote better pantograph travel.

The jig is built on a 6' 1x4 plank. Straight pins are used to space the wire and retain them within distance of eachother. Tape prevent the wires from moving significantly. A drop of Tix Flux and a quick blob of solder does the trick. In the future, it may be "cleaner" to actually use small wires as clips, but this is faster and effective, if a little messy. If I have time, I'll file down the clips before installation.

[Image: P5110001.jpg]


The next step for the catenary wire is building the "messenger and Hangers", which are the "suspension bridge" components supporting the auxiliary and Contact wires. This step would normally be done the same time as the other parts, except that the Hand Place Overpass with interfere with the "typical" Profile of the wire.

The "Profile" is the actual spacing to the hangars, and the precise positioning of the messenger wire.

The PRR actually kept detailed drawings of all profiles of its catenary sections, however, I could not find one for North Elizabeth. Still I have plenty of examples of various situation from other parts of the Northeast Corridor, so it is easy to make some educated guesses, and photos help considerably.



Hand Place Bridge

I have finally settled on a bridge width of 27' 6". The way I figure it, this will allow me to closely approximate the dimensions of the prototype.

Using Google Street View as a guide, I assumed the pedestrian overpass was about the size of a standard sidewalk, and then I assumed the roadway had about enough space for 2 cars traveling side by side, with no shoulder. Next I guessed that the bridge girders were about 1/4 the width of an automobile. This let me get a "close enough" idea, and so even if it isn't perfect, those relations will probably work out and most people won't notice.

The other dimensions, such as length and height, were No-Brainers. The height would be determined by the distance between the bottom of the bridge and the catenary wire at a scale 22' off the rails. I sketched this out to actual size on the back of my Catenary pole drawing to ensure all things were lined up the same. The 1' length of the brass pieces conveniently allows space for the platforms and stone abutments, but doesn't go so far as to interfere with the scenery.

I cut the brass sheets and began soldering them to the brass angles to make the "deck" supports of the bridge. Today when i get home, I will make the catenary anchor brackets, and then build the "legs" and base. The majority of the work will be over once these components, and the catenary wire is done.

Anchoring and Final Assembly

Tomorrow, I plan to anchor the catenary poles to the module, and then assemble the catenary. I am not quite confident in my plan to anchor the poles, but at this point I'll have to figure something out or be out of luck.

Once the poles are anchored in, I can install the cross spans permanently into the poles, and then I will solder the wires to the cross spans and bridge anchors.

So far as I can tell, this might take all day, but it is entirely achievable. It also helps that I will be able to leave work early tomorrow, and will have most of the day to finish this.

I will definitely be packing most of my soldering supplies with me to make repairs at the show, since I'm sure there will be damage. Hopefully, nothing too severe!
Modeling New Jersey Under the Wire 1978-1979.  
[Image: logosmall.png]
Reply
#21
Hand Place Bridge Study

In this current day prototype picture, we can see the catenary supports attached to the bridge.
The current challenge will be constructing those anchor points. I will probably have to do this carefully by hand with a jeweler's saw. I think I will need about 8 of these, two for each side. If possible, I'd like to add a flat "bend" to it, so that it has a better surface to solder to the main bridge. On the "tips", i'll just use a short length of phosphor bronze with an insulator casting strung through it. This should be a relatively straight forward installation.

[Image: north_elizabeth6.jpg]

The pedestrian overpass appears to be a separate structure built right up next to the road way bridge, but unless it becomes an issue, I'm not sure its necessary to accurately depict beneath the bridge. If it is, I'll glue some styrene in. Also visible is the extended abutment, which appears more complete on the east side of the tracks than the west side.

[Image: north_elizabeth1.jpg]

A picture looking straight down the pedestrian overpass-

[Image: north_elizabeth9.jpg]

On this view of the other side of the bridge, We can see that a similar system is used to anchor the catenary. We can also see that the abutments were likely planned to make a larger roadway, but this never happened.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gULpuFVBmjc/maxresdefault.jpg
Modeling New Jersey Under the Wire 1978-1979.  
[Image: logosmall.png]
Reply
#22
Somewhat disappointingly, I was not able to get the Catenary on my module.

All the catenary spans were complete, but time and transportation issues came up. It occurred to me, that even with a large van, I'd need people to help me load the module.

I have not yet built a "box" for it, and even without that weight, it would be hard to load by myself without damaging it. For this reason I decided against finishing it. Right now, my target is to get this module complete for the NMRA regional convention in October, and the NJ Layout Design/RPM that is sometime afterwards.


I'm thinking about remaking the cross spans in Phosphor Bronze, as the steel spans did not hold up well. That said, many of the East Penn Traction Convention Attendees insisted that greater heat would do the trick. They independently confirmed my own thoughts that I should probably invest in a resistance soldering set, but they may be out of my price range at this moment.

On the other hand, if I'm going to continue down this electrified road, it may be worth my money.


I will attempt to post some pictures soon. At least now I can take things easy, though I'm going to try to make the effort to work on the module more frequently so that I don't get caught in a bind like this time. I had a fair excuse in that my module was left with a friend for a year, but now that it is back, I've gotta stick with it.

My friend who constructed this module seems interested in building me another one to get the layout growing. Two 5' modules will be a transportation nightmare for me, and after this I think I'll go to 4' modules. Whenever my income improves, I think I better buy an SUV or something with a lot of space in the back!
Modeling New Jersey Under the Wire 1978-1979.  
[Image: logosmall.png]
Reply
#23
Even if you did not meet your time deadline, your catenary looks to be coming along nicely! I'm not sure that I have ever seen anyone model a wire-style cross span in HO. It always seems to be the K-truss style, probably because they are a little more rigid in HO. But your's looks great!

Are you building your catenary poles to "Rubbo specifications" or are you using a mix of techniques? There is not very much info out there, so I'm sure you have to improvise sometimes.

Also, how do you guys connect your catenary wires when you put all of your modules together? I would imagine that you can't solder them. So how do you keep the pans from coming off the wire when you switch modules.

One last thing...do you have any pics from your group's setup at the East Penn meet? I would have liked to go but I had a conflict.
Reply
#24
acelaphillies Wrote:Even if you did not meet your time deadline, your catenary looks to be coming along nicely! I'm not sure that I have ever seen anyone model a wire-style cross span in HO. It always seems to be the K-truss style, probably because they are a little more rigid in HO. But your's looks great!

Are you building your catenary poles to "Rubbo specifications" or are you using a mix of techniques? There is not very much info out there, so I'm sure you have to improvise sometimes.

Also, how do you guys connect your catenary wires when you put all of your modules together? I would imagine that you can't solder them. So how do you keep the pans from coming off the wire when you switch modules.

One last thing...do you have any pics from your group's setup at the East Penn meet? I would have liked to go but I had a conflict.

Well, its been over a year since this post, but things have occurred since, unfortunately not so much on my modules.


I am trying to get my catenary close to scale, but I'm building it heavier than Andy's catenary. This is because its needs to travel, and it needs to stand up somewhat better to "factory" pantographs. For instance, a Proto Metroliner train would wreck Andy's catenary. In fact, it still does mean things to mine. Even so, my wire is still fairly fine, and I think its an acceptable trade off considering what we're trying to do.

One of our other members has a plan for that. We've had a few new modules go up, but very few with wire yet. The main issue on my end is just time and space. I am hoping to get my modules back on track starting this winter, sooner if I can complete some other obligations I have. I assume that we can start playing with it once we get a more than a few modules with wire set up.

Lastly, Another one of our members is looking to post some of our videos. I assume maybe its being moderated? In any event, we hope to have them posted shortly. There is some very impressive work being done by our other members, Chief amongst them a few modules representing Frankfort Junction, which may allow us to connect with Free-Mo clubs.
Modeling New Jersey Under the Wire 1978-1979.  
[Image: logosmall.png]
Reply
#25
This is a test response. I can't seem to post the youtube link without the connection being reset.

https://youtu.be/S7J03D8QI6g?list=PLq0aP...J2iKiX6iOf

This is our setup at the 2015 East Penn meet.

--Drew
Reply
#26
Posting of the link worked well.
Reinhard
Reply
#27
talltim Wrote:I think a Heavy Electric Modular group is a great idea
As a matter of interest, what is the track height above floor you are using? If you have gone for the same as Free-mo or NMRA you could join to those modules at a junction board. It wouldn't matter what the Heavy Electric Module standards are, you would just need a junction or converter module.
For example you could build a module with an 4 track electrified straight through, with two Heavy Electric Modular standard ends, and a junction leading off to a non-electrified single or double track Free-mo Modular standard end. Assuming your standard is using DCC then it is really only height that could be a stumbling block.

Edit: just re-read your OP and noticed had witten the height, 40" or 52". Is that to top of rail? Free-mo is 50" and NMRA seems to be 1250mm (or 49.2"). I suppose if you had enough length in a module you could have a down grade from the junction with the electric mainlines to the third end built to another spec.

I'm not saying you should, or you have to do this, just pointing out that even with your own, seemingly incompatible spec, it would still be possible to build an interface with other specs

Tim,
The original legs landed at 40" for NMRA compatibility, and 50" for Free-Mo compatibility. They have since gone through several different iterations, and the v6 legs I use now have a fully-adjustable range of 38" to 62", which makes them fully NMRA and Free-Mo height compliant. And as modules cycle through the shop, I'm recutting the v1/v2 legs into v6's in the process, to keep everything consistent.

Additionally, several of the junction points that are going to come off of the module set I'm building (49th st through Arsenal Interlocking) will offer 2-track modular connections, as someone asked about. One of our other members wants to build 52nd st Junction on the Harrisburg line, which would give an additional 2-track connection point. (She even wants to build some related 2-track modules for the run out to Cynwyd, so we're going to be making up standards for that, too.)

As for junctions with Free-Mo, one is already well underway:
(click on the smaller photo in each link to embiggen)

https://goo.gl/photos/1rQ33WwaZHXYuzQ48

https://goo.gl/photos/5D4VU8Brk52JrfGo6

This is the Greys' Ferry Junction, with the Free-Mo connection coming off the front representing the branch that ran across the river and tied into the Philadelphia Belt Line tracks up by Washington Blvd. These are the first few of a set of 10. 49th street will run across the bridge abutments on the left edge in the far background, and the 'highway' style bridge through the center is Greys' Ferry Ave itself.
The tracks that come off the front left will be additional yard tracks, with a possible second Free-Mo connection on the tail end of the yard module. This alignment was the old mainline through Tinicum and Essington, before the PRR built the new mainline through Darby, Glenolden, and Ridley.

The next two modules in the set will be inside curves to balance the outside curve of the G/F junction, with a connection off the back to the Media/West Chester line.

You can see the full gallery of module photos here:
https://goo.gl/photos/KgpaWggFd7dFhvrw8


--Drew
Reply
#28
Green_Elite_Cab Wrote:I'm thinking about remaking the cross spans in Phosphor Bronze, as the steel spans did not hold up well. That said, many of the East Penn Traction Convention Attendees insisted that greater heat would do the trick. They independently confirmed my own thoughts that I should probably invest in a resistance soldering set, but they may be out of my price range at this moment.

On the other hand, if I'm going to continue down this electrified road, it may be worth my money.

Chris,

I have used steel for all of the cross-spans on the CVMRR build, quite successfully. People might give you a lot of frippery about heat levels, or special solders, but the real trick is getting it super-bright-clean before attempting to solder. This means that regardless of how 'clean' it looks to start with, I will automatically pull/draw every piece of steel through 600-grit sandpaper folds until I'm sufficiently happy with it's brightness; before even cutting or bending it to shape. Once this has been done, steel will take solder as readily as copper does.

--Drew
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)