Jump to content
 

Farish Jinty, 4F, Ivatt 2MT - 2FS & DCC/stay-alive. Also NGS Hunslet Industrial


Izzy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

Just thought I would add a shot of the Jinty with replaced coupling rods. As a temporary measure I have 'adjusted' and fitted those shown in an earlier post. This meant filing off the crank bosses on the wheels and making up some crankpins from 14ba bolts with a 0.5mm shank. The rods are retained in place with small sections of 1mm OD/0.5mm ID brass tube soldered in place.

 

I've repeated the original side view for comparison. I think it looks better.

 

874040205_Jinty25.jpg.06531c56dc139591b0cca7349b7870b2.jpg

 

441983717_Jinty51.jpg.20b6d8493c7043e3d40a7109ffe9551b.jpg

 

 

You can see the poor little thing is beginning to look a bit careworn. That is the lot of an experimental subject that receives much handling. It's been in bits as much as together, and also covered quite a distance in testing going round and round, which will continue.

 

I don't suppose many buyers would go quite this far....

 

1548035931_Jinty08.jpg.0bb1cedcdcd1865bf66593d0c8911df7.jpg

 

 

I have shown some restraint though  - usually I strip the motor to see the construction standard. Somehow I surprised myself by resisting the temptation, although it was a close run thing...

 

Izzy

Edited by Izzy
restore images
  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...
  • RMweb Premium

I thought that perhaps an update was needed with regard to an adjustment that has been made to improve/restore performance, in that most of the axleboxes have now been 'shimed' to reduce the horizontal bearing slop evident since new.

 

You will see that I mentioned the loose fit/slop of the axle bearings in the chassis in the first post but at the time this didn't seem to be a particular issue. Indeed it didn't prove troublesome until I changed the coupling rods for the smaller more to scale ones which featured in my last post. The problem being that as the rods were a tighter fit on the crankpins, and thus less 'sloppy' than the originals, the end result was that at each wheel revolution the wheels got pulled/pushed back and forth in the chassis due to the excessive bearing movement, and so the loco tended to 'waddle' along the track as well as being not as smooth running as before.

 

As this was not down to bearing size difference, but rather the size of the slots in the chassis, and one rear bearing was a good fit, I decided that shimming the individual bearings to reduce the play was the only sensible option. The shims were cut from sheet shim brass (K&S do packs of shim brass sheet in 001"/002"/003"/005") and bent into a L shape with a short bottom leg so they could be pushed into place between the chassis and bearing and the keeper plate would press against the leg and keep them in place. They slide into the slot between the two outer bearing flanges.

 

Wanting the bearings to still rise and fall in the chassis slots it was a case of finding a suitable thickness that took up the excess slop but didn't lock the bearing tightly in place. The shims were all located at the front of the bearings to ensure dimensions remained correct, the one rear bearing not having any shim. This shimming of the bearings to improve performance might be something that is needed with any of these chassis where the coupling rods are replaced and the excessive slop reduced.

 

 

Jinty-52.jpg.3bd2ccb07836169c6f82499f9a363739.jpg

 

Izzy

 

 

Edited by Izzy
restore image
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very intrigued with all this.

I have never understood with the Simpson system, where the axle holes are enlarged up to 1.6mm, that no "waddle" occurs. No doubt it is due to the pressure of the p/b springs which I thought were primarily for improved pick-up. 

I hasten to admit I have still not yet applied the system as I have not built anything new since it evolved. Perhaps one day I will modify my 0-6-0T - but then I might b####r it up!. .  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I am very intrigued with all this.

I have never understood with the Simpson system, where the axle holes are enlarged up to 1.6mm, that no "waddle" occurs. No doubt it is due to the pressure of the p/b springs which I thought were primarily for improved pick-up. 

I hasten to admit I have still not yet applied the system as I have not built anything new since it evolved. Perhaps one day I will modify my 0-6-0T - but then I might b####r it up!. .  

 

Hi Andrew, the misleadingly named Simpson springs are for improved pickup - the P/B wire used is much too fine to impart any springing. The enlargement of the holes to 1.6mm is not enough to cause any waddle, its no more than a bit of controlled slop.

 

Jerry

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It might be helpful if I explain that the slop of the bearings in the chassis is what could be termed as excessive, and far more than just a nice easy running fit. Anywhere between 0.15mm - 0.2mm in fact. This was a combination of the fit of the wheels in the bearings, and the bearings in the chassis. Obviously where his level of movement existed in opposing bearings on an axle the degree to which a wheel could turn from straight ahead was significant, leading to the waddling, and not helped by one bearing being a good fit, nor the basic RP25 tyre profile, which rides differently on the rail head.

 

Using 'proper' 2mm profile wheels would help here of course, and since I am aware that others are working on 2FS conversions that use replacement bearings and 2FS wheels I thought it best to highlight the excessive bearing slop issue that could be encountered even when doing this.

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be helpful if I explain that the slop of the bearings in the chassis is what could be termed as excessive, and far more than just a nice easy running fit. Anywhere between 0.15mm - 0.2mm in fact. This was a combination of the fit of the wheels in the bearings, and the bearings in the chassis. Obviously where his level of movement existed in opposing bearings on an axle the degree to which a wheel could turn from straight ahead was significant, leading to the waddling, and not helped by one bearing being a good fit, nor the basic RP25 tyre profile, which rides differently on the rail head.

 

Using 'proper' 2mm profile wheels would help here of course, and since I am aware that others are working on 2FS conversions that use replacement bearings and 2FS wheels I thought it best to highlight the excessive bearing slop issue that could be encountered even when doing this.

 

Izzy

 

The dimensions of the replacement bearings being worked-on have been adjusted to try to reduce the slop. Results obtained from the first tests (using a Jinty) were disappointing, with evidence of the waddling that you mentioned above, so the dimensions of the bearings were adjusted to tighten things up a bit. Tests are ongoing with these, but hopefully the tweaks made to the design have worked.

 

Andy

Edited by 2mm Andy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • RMweb Premium

 

399636229_4f2fs01.jpg.198057e4aaedb047f0fc3785aa508b23.jpg

 

Although it is now quite some time since they were originally undertaken, (I'd forgotten all about them until a few days ago), I thought that perhaps an update to the Jinty 2FS conversion combined with details of another applied to the new 4F might be of interest to anyone who might be considering 2FS or converting these particular locos. I believe quite a few of these have been adapted to 2FS but I haven't seen any details of the conversions to date.

 

As with the Jinty the 4F uses the new coreless motor along with the split frame design of construction and current collection. The tender also features split axle collection using the pin-point axle collection system seen in the newer design Farish DMU/EMU's. The motor and drive is in the loco, the rear axle being the driven one, with the circuit board for a DCC 6-pin decoder located in the tender. A loco/tender drawbar with PB wires is used to transfer the loco current collection to the tender chassis and PCB with separate wires to connect it back to the motor. This pivots on a screw in the tender and plugs onto the loco chassis which is useful as there is a loco/tender fall-plate fitted, something not found until recently on 4mm locos let alone N gauge. (I missed the fact it had fallen down in the heading shot - typical)

 

1765338795_4f2fs02.jpg.aa720d577c20cb92f2df762361bea101.jpg

 

906763550_4f2fs03.jpg.0f3510cd65ccf09f338d7b93bba43ea4.jpg

 

626153903_4f2fs04.jpg.84b8141f3c00644a84dd77c11a4f04dd.jpg

 

1954878723_4f2fs05.jpg.ee14cbec4c53c4bcd05f41b4714cdff8.jpg

 

It all works quite well, although it would be nice to be able to add weight to the tender and hang it on the back of the loco to increase haulage capacity as is done with many 2mm tender locos because it is fairly limited, the consequence of a small loco with a plastic body. It's just about enough for me but struggles even to match the Jinty, which is heavier thanks to most of the body being cast (footplate/side tanks/bunker) and weighing 41gms against the 29gms of the 4F. I cannot see anywhere that useful/any amount of extra weight could be added to the loco and am quite surprised that a plastic/metal body combination wasn't used as with the Jintyl. The loco body is just a pop/clip fit onto it's chassis while the top half of the tender body is also a clip fit on the footplate/frames allowing easy access to the circuit board for decoder fitting.

 

I won't detail the first 4F loco chassis conversion undertaken as it was exactly the same as previously undertaken for the Jinty. This time however I used proper 2mmSA etched coupling rods of the correct size to start with, which I also retro-fitted to the Jinty to replace the cut-and-shut ones first fitted. As you can see they are smaller and more to scale than the Farish ones.

 

1766362858_4f2fs06.jpg.6fe763357ce3713f73aa5b8865565eef.jpg

 

The tender conversion proved more difficult than expected because the tender wheels are nickel plated mazak castings the same as the loco wheels, but with the stub axles being a plain force fit into them, the outer ones being pint-point with the centre pair parallel for side-play. This meant that as soon as the wheels were shifted on their axles they became a loose fit, the mazak being fairly soft and the bore enlarging with the slightest pressure. As three out of the six wheels weren't square on their axles and quite 'wobbly' to start with, quite possibly as a consequence of the construction, I had to bore them out and make/fit some adapter axle sleeves for want of a better term. A bit like a tube with a flange on it with which to seat the wheel, the original axles being 'locked' into the sleeves at the correct distance when the wheels were set at the 2FS b-t-b. The wheels were of course first skimmed front and back in the lathe to remove 0.2mm from the rear to reduce flange thickness to 0.3mm, and from the front to reduce the overall width down to about 1.5mm as I had done with both the Jinty and 4F loco wheels.

 

2075143377_4f2fs07.jpg.b677849424fe7e74a56e945ba2e76507.jpg

 

352196278_4f2fs08.jpg.7088dae4ab121938fa86300ad4cdf7c2.jpg

 

This was all a bit of a faff and the end result wasn't brilliant either, the electrical pick-up being quite erratic at times, something which I have also experienced with my Farish DMU's, having to permanently couple them for collection reliability. Coupled to the loco it all ran reasonably well enough together but the plain truth was I just didn't feel totally happy with it.

 

It was at this stage that the new 2mmSA 2FS conversion kits for the Jinty arrived along with the individual component parts. My thoughts had already turned to replacing the tender wheels with proper 2FS ones running in an inside chassis, and it then progressed from there in that if I was going to do that, then why not get the new parts needed to convert the loco properly as well, wheels, muffs, bearings etc, and logically if I was doing that why not the Jinty too? So I did.

 

The conversion parts allow easy conversion of these newer locos to 2FS, not quite ready-to-drop-in like many Farish diesels since you have to put them together yourself, but probably as good as it will ever get thanks to all the hard work of those involved in designing and producing the parts.

 

Here is a completed conversion set ready to drop into the Jinty chassis. I much prefer drop-in wheel sets for any loco on the grounds that they are easier to set up correctly in respect of quartering and b-t-b, and for fairly easy removal for maintenance if needed at any time. The wheels are 9.5mm. I mention this because this is the size of the original Farish ones, which is correct for N/1-148 but perhaps a bit large for a 2mm scale version where 9mm drivers would be better. The 4F uses 10.5mm drivers and 8.5mm tender wheels.

 

261437144_4f2fs09.jpg.6a07d20bd7a8ee8797eeb77a8ec185b7.jpg

 

The inside frame tender chassis I made from a couple of bits of K&S brass strip drilled and filed to shape - just so the frames don't show - with chassis spacers from the PCB strip the 2mmSA provides for the job located where needed, the axle holes being slotted downwards to allow the 'Simpson springs' to produce some light springing to aid current collection. A slab of sheet lead was glued to the underneath of the tender top to ensure the tender sits down on the axles. It weighs 16gms all told. No doubt were the loco destined for high mileage and heavy use on such as CF or Fence Houses then axle bearings running in the slots would be best, but for the light duty use that is all mine will probably get a simple slotted chassis seems sufficient. A screw through the centre of the footplate into the centre chassis spacer holds it in place.

 

281386155_4f2fs10.jpg.a4c6831df8beb65f42327b81921f1951.jpg

 

1467696474_4f2fs11.jpg.80fdbd4837ac2a167c5c08f1b20cc5d8.jpg

 

380096102_4f2fs12.jpg.f022d18571590ce9e8b4a930fdd42f54.jpg

 

 

I have made one other change to the 4F, putting a wired DCX CT76 decoder into the top of the loco firebox. This has allowed removal of the separate wires connecting loco and tender, and means the tender can be easily parted from the loco, the drawbar just plugging onto the loco chassis. The drawbar wire connectors now carry the current from the tender to the loco and decoder. This modification I did to eliminate the need to unsolder the wires each time I wanted to part the loco and tender to work on either. I actually carried out the modification before adding a DCC decoder and while the 2FS conversions were being undertaken, when the need to keep joining and parting the two for testing and alteration arose. After it was all finished it seemed sensible to keep it that way as the decoder would fit into the top of the firebox. It did require taking a slither off the top of the chassis to accommodate it, but I didn't think it would impact too greatly on the lack of haulage capacity.

 

862013672_4f2fs13.jpg.84b0c69af49b9f7bb6c15300f13a437a.jpg

 

The improvement in running quality and reliability was marked and to a level I finally found acceptable. The improvement in looks was also quite significant although it probably doesn't show too much in my very average shots. The camera can be quite cruel to small things which always seem to look better in real life at normal viewing distance. Well, so I tell myself......

 

442160270_4f2fs14.jpg.acfd6c965b821b630dd5066b579649a6.jpg

 

210569540_4f2fs15.jpg.01fe9d403fca11a9233df8afcdd55227.jpg

 

246221395_4f2fs16.jpg.b0b019e25569417145aa8e9253d0dd5f.jpg

 

1205120270_4f2fs17.jpg.814f98ab835f6e94e3a4bcebc568e1f6.jpg

 

 

You will notice that there are still several aspects to be attended to. Some proper coal in the Jinty bunker and 4F tender, along with brakes for the latter. That representation of brakes is now fitted to N gauge models along with many other details is a welcome step forward compared to the past, but for such a good looking model it's a shame that Farish moulded the 4F tender brakes/hangers into the outside frames and they weren't in-line with the wheels. I lopped them off before conversion, but haven't got around to fitting replacements on the inside chassis yet. Both locos look rather careworn already thanks to my rough and ready handling, so weathering is hardly needed........

 

 

Izzy

Edited by Izzy
restore images
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that, very interesting. Current production Farish chassis are a combination of ingenious design and dreadful execution: I can't believe just how much slop there is in the bearings even on a brand new chassis. Given that coreless motors have a starting voltage of around 0.8v it doesn't make for reliable running unless you enjoy cleaning wheels and track a lot.  I drilled the chassis on a J39 above the bearings and fitted small coil springs (Microtrains knuckle coupler springs) to improve conductivity.  It seems to have worked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The dimensions of the replacement bearings being worked-on have been adjusted to try to reduce the slop. Results obtained from the first tests (using a Jinty) were disappointing, with evidence of the waddling that you mentioned above, so the dimensions of the bearings were adjusted to tighten things up a bit. Tests are ongoing with these, but hopefully the tweaks made to the design have worked.

 

Andy

 

I rather fear that there is no consistency between individual locos from Farish in terms of the bearing size. So whatever you do, you are unlikely to get something that works perfectly every time. As I understand it, these frames are castings.

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Morning Izzy, great post on the 4F, really useful and informative, many thanks for posting.

 

Your idea to put the chip in the loco is excellent I'd not thought of that. It makes the loco, tender coupling much simpler - I shall be pinching that.

 

Regarding the tender chassis. I too found the pickups via the pinpoints unsatisfactory and like you made up a more traditional inside frame chassis. Where I differed from you is that I made it to sit about half a mm or so low and fixed the body with a single bolt, left slightly loose at the rear. A small transverse bar is set on top of the chassis at the correct ride height whilst a fall plate is attached to the front of the tender arranged to rest on the rear of the loco again set to give the correct ride height. Weight in the front of the tender can then be transferred to the loco which is useful because, as you say, there is precious little room to cram any more in.

I've attached a picture of my 3P tender which has the same arrangement rather than take one of my 4Fs apart

 

post-1074-0-12728100-1465890094_thumb.jpg

 

Jerry

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Thanks for posting that, very interesting. Current production Farish chassis are a combination of ingenious design and dreadful execution: I can't believe just how much slop there is in the bearings even on a brand new chassis. Given that coreless motors have a starting voltage of around 0.8v it doesn't make for reliable running unless you enjoy cleaning wheels and track a lot.  I drilled the chassis on a J39 above the bearings and fitted small coil springs (Microtrains knuckle coupler springs) to improve conductivity.  It seems to have worked.

 

 

I rather fear that there is no consistency between individual locos from Farish in terms of the bearing size. So whatever you do, you are unlikely to get something that works perfectly every time. As I understand it, these frames are castings.

 

Chris

 

Going by the experience with these locos I would say that as far as I can tell the Farish bearings are a constant size, but the chassis castings appear to vary slightly in respect to bearing slot size, the Jinty being more noticeable in this than the 4F. However, the replacement 2mmSA bearings do seem to fit better, but as is common with split-axle current collection pick-up can be quite variable. There is no doubt weight adhesion helps here, and I found the 4F alone very 'iffy' until the tender was hung on the back, but then better than the Jinty. This is I believe the reason Simpson springs are so popular, they by-pass the air-gap issue with axles running in bearings that can arise, and of course if they are loose in the chassis another contact issue between the bearing and chassis. Some form of spring connection does seem a good idea. I'll have a look when time permits.

 

Thanks for the thoughts.

 

Izzy

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 14/06/2016 at 08:43, queensquare said:

Morning Izzy, great post on the 4F, really useful and informative, many thanks for posting.

 

Your idea to put the chip in the loco is excellent I'd not thought of that. It makes the loco, tender coupling much simpler - I shall be pinching that.

 

Regarding the tender chassis. I too found the pickups via the pinpoints unsatisfactory and like you made up a more traditional inside frame chassis. Where I differed from you is that I made it to sit about half a mm or so low and fixed the body with a single bolt, left slightly loose at the rear. A small transverse bar is set on top of the chassis at the correct ride height whilst a fall plate is attached to the front of the tender arranged to rest on the rear of the loco again set to give the correct ride height. Weight in the front of the tender can then be transferred to the loco which is useful because, as you say, there is precious little room to cram any more in.

I've attached a picture of my 3P tender which has the same arrangement rather than take one of my 4Fs apart

 

attachicon.gifimage.jpg

 

Jerry

 

 

Hi Jerry,

 

Thanks for the kind comments. Appreciated.

 

With regard to the chip location (of course it's no issue if you use DC!), I thought perhaps a few extra shots might help explain thngs. As you can't solder to mazak easily I drilled and tapped the rear of the chassis 14ba to add a couple of solder tags for the decoder input wires which run up between the chassis halves. It was all a bit of a squeeze, but I hope they might help.

 

388192074_4f2fs23.jpg.c028e87aa7be822d5c118dc14d38bd8c.jpg

 

255696983_4f2fs24.jpg.702150894de6940f08343cc23013e699.jpg

 

737522659_4f2fs25.jpg.f4889a067568e4a7c0d50b81ddc57fc1.jpg

 

605450376_4f2fs26.jpg.72c23bded82ac3925c6430b20847d3a9.jpg

 

 

 

It all looks a bit crude with the magnification, but is hidden behind the cab footsteps!

 

 

Izzy

Edited by Izzy
restore images
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a photo taken when I did the J39 coil springs. I also enlarged the centre and rear axle slots vertically and fitted a Flexichas style compensating beam which you can just see in the photo, but with rigid rods it didn't allow a lot of movement, so I'm not sure if it really made any difference.  My thinking was that only a very tiny amount of movement is actually needed to keep the weight on all six wheels on level track.

 

DSCF4151_zpslp19gty0.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I found a photo taken when I did the J39 coil springs. I also enlarged the centre and rear axle slots vertically and fitted a Flexichas style compensating beam which you can just see in the photo, but with rigid rods it didn't allow a lot of movement, so I'm not sure if it really made any difference.  My thinking was that only a very tiny amount of movement is actually needed to keep the weight on all six wheels on level track.

 

DSCF4151_zpslp19gty0.jpg

 

That's interesting. I have taken a look at the Jinty and 4F chassis but think that the J39 must have more 'meat' above the bearing slots as there doesn't seem the room to try this neat solution.

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Given the threads about suitable size motors for 2mm and the increasing use of the coreless type in N RTR such as these locos I thought a few notes about the DCC decoder settings I have used with these locos might be helpful. I use CT electronic decoders as standard these days finding that alongside the smaller size the motor control is better than others, but some motor parameter settings are similar across decoder firmware where they are offered.

 

Here is a link to details of these CT settings by Nigel Cliffe:

 

http://www.2mm.org.uk/articles/CT-decoders.htm

 

The default settings CT's come with these days I find seem to suit most of the Farish ordinary can motor type locos/DMU's etc, and rarely need any adjustment apart from Acc/Dec. The average I set for this is 30, but have used between 20 and 50 with some locos.

 

After some considerable testing/fiddling/adjustment of the parameters, trying a raft of different combinations, I settled on setting the 'P' and 'I' CV's to 40 and 20 with Acc/Dec at 50. All other CV's I left at their default values. ( I use a Sprog and Decoder Pro for all main decoder setting).

 

Just as a comparison, with the Nigel Lawton coreless motor I found the need to set the PWM to 138 and the Acc/Dec to 20 alongside the reduced P&I figures (the default is 80/40).

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

This was such a useful and helpful thread to refer as I've just done the same thing,I was just wondering which specific replacement coupling rods did you use for the 4f??

Also regarding dcc, I found a noticeable difference after the circuit board was removed for the Jinty, I wonder if doing the same to the j39 and 4f might further improve matters??

Best wishes

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

This was such a useful and helpful thread to refer as I've just done the same thing,I was just wondering which specific replacement coupling rods did you use for the 4f??

Also regarding dcc, I found a noticeable difference after the circuit board was removed for the Jinty, I wonder if doing the same to the j39 and 4f might further improve matters??

Best wishes

Michael

Hi Michael, for the 4F conversion you can use the Jinty conversion etch. Regarding your DCC question, I tend to remove the board and hard wire chips as a matter of course as it gives more space for weight.

 

Jerry

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

This was such a useful and helpful thread to refer as I've just done the same thing,I was just wondering which specific replacement coupling rods did you use for the 4f??

Also regarding dcc, I found a noticeable difference after the circuit board was removed for the Jinty, I wonder if doing the same to the j39 and 4f might further improve matters??

Best wishes

Michael

 

Hi Michael,

 

I am pleased you found it useful, thank you.

     

Both the Jinty and 4F use the etches produced some years back for the older Graham Farish locos - 3-205 replacement nickel-silver coupling rods for GF locos. I find them easier to use as they are a bit more 'meatier' than newer versions which I appear a bit too clumsy to use and end up bent and distorted! The only issue is the crankpin holes are larger than the normal 0.5mm 2mmSA crankpins. This either means they are a bit more sloppy, which I have not found a particular issue, but I have also just used 0.7mm hard brass wire filed down at one end to 0.5mm to fit into the wheels. It sounds very crude but works okay. These days I cut crankpin retainers from Albion Alloys small brass tube which is available in a range of useful sizes - i.e. 1mm OD/0.5mm ID, 0.9mm OD/0.45mm ID, 0.8mm OD/0.4mm ID and so on. The first is handy for use with the crankpins, but the smaller ID's can be drilled out to suit. These can also be used to bush the rods. There is a wide range of size combinations.

 

As regards DCC and circuit boards I find those in locos without lights seem to cause problems with decoder motor performance while those with don't. I haven't a clue why, but I now always remove the boards in these cases as it often gives extra room for other tasks. I only ever use CT or Zimo these days.

 

regards,

 

Izzy

Edited by Izzy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a noticeable difference after the circuit board was removed for the Jinty, I wonder if doing the same to the j39 and 4f might further improve matters??

 

 

Removing the circuit board probably removes the suppression components (recommended) which will allow the decoder to correctly sample the Back EMF from the motor.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • RMweb Premium

Izzy,

 

Thank you so much for sharing your experiences with converting the Farish 4F. They have been a great help.  I've followed your approach with the tender - I just couldn't get reliable running with the pinpoint axles.  I've also removed the beading on the splashers to make my 4F one of the early LMS builds - still needs weathering etc - far too clean for a 4F!

 

post-3982-0-69670700-1506788231_thumb.jpgpost-3982-0-82354300-1506788233_thumb.jpg

 

Simon

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

David,

 

The LMS on the tender wouldn't necessarily have been painted out unless a full repaint was required so that BR number (either in one of the LMS styles as above or in BR Gill Sans) with LMS on the tender was apparently a fairly common transitional livery.  There are some examples in the LMS Locomotive Profile No.10 and the accompanying pictorial supplement.  44046 was in the condition above in mid-1950.

 

Simon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Izzy,

 

Thank you so much for sharing your experiences with converting the Farish 4F. They have been a great help.  I've followed your approach with the tender - I just couldn't get reliable running with the pinpoint axles.  I've also removed the beading on the splashers to make my 4F one of the early LMS builds - still needs weathering etc - far too clean for a 4F!

 

attachicon.gifFarish4F2mm1.jpgattachicon.gifFarish4F2mm2.jpg

 

Simon

 

Hi Simon,

 

Your most welcome, and thanks for the kind words.

 

I do like the combination of a 4F with the smaller Johnson/Deeley tender  i.e. as they were originally built, using a number from the first LMS batch built with RHD before the change to LHD, and pleased the tender chassis idea worked for you. I hope I will be forgiven for saying that although I have used split-axle current collection in a number of differing scales - mainly as additional pickup via tender/carry wheels - I have never found current collection via either open (pin-point) or closed bearings to be totally reliable and this no doubt accounts for the popularity of Simpson springs.

 

Izzy

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...