Chuffer Davies

Hi Tony, Your J3 chassis may not actually mechanically operate as you believe. It obviously still operates sufficiently well to meet your needs, but I suspect your centre axle may actually be climbing up the grove you’ve created in the top hat bearing and lifting a wheel off the track when it does. I say this because of a school boy error I made when making my very first compensated chassis. It was for a GW 2-8-0 tank engine. I made the frames out of 1/16” thick brass strip. The axle holes were drilled out 1/8” and then elongated vertically with a file to create slots for the axles to rotate in. I built beams resting on the tops of the axles to provide the compensation mechanism. The model ran perfectly light engine but as soon as it had to do any work it rocked and rolled its way along the track because the resistance created by the train caused the axles to climb up their slots. I’m pretty sure the same thing will be happening with your J3 chassis but because you’ve made the slots very short it won’t be noticeable. Certainly not enough to cause the kind of problems I had, but neither will you be getting the outcome you think you are getting. The mechanics of this kind of solution needs some sort of hornblock even if this is just a top hat bearing held by some means to prevent it turning but still able to move vertically in its slot. Steve’s solution includes such a mechanism and will work as expected. Frank

Hi Steve, sounds like a nice compromise way of gaining much of the benefit of springing without going the whole hog. As I see it, the downside of raising the position of the centre axle to avoid rocking also results in the centre wheels no longer being in contact with the track which in turn results in their no longer effectively providing traction or current collection. In contrast your approach results in the centre wheels constantly contributing to both traction and current collection. I also applaud your experimenting with the American pickup system, an approach I have long adopted myself so as to remove any need for the installation of physical pickups. Frank

Oh dear here we go again! The compensation versus rigid debate. We will never agree but it is a fact that there are many experienced modellers who do compensate or spring their models and believe there are definite benefits in doing so. Sadly, unlike other discussions on this thread promoting better ways to build rolling stock and scenic modelling, as soon as there is any discussions around how to use advanced techniques for loco chassis construction these are instantly criticised as a waste of time. They are clearly not a waste of time otherwise other similarly experienced modellers who contribute to this thread wouldn't themselves bother with it. Can we therefore stop trying to impose our own personal preferences on those modellers who have yet to make up their minds and accept that rigid and non-rigid are just alternate approaches to chassis construction. Both approaches can be readily made to work successfully once the modeller has taken the effort to develop the requisite knowledge and skills so to do. I will continue to provide advice and guidance to those modellers that are interested in extending their skills beyond rigid chassis construction where ever and whenever the need presents itself. Some may find these advanced techniques a step too far and revert to rigid chassis construction. Others will take to it like a duck to water and will never build a rigid chassis, or install physical pickups, again. Frank

Hi Keith, thanks for the reply. I should have been more precise in my question. I realise that bogie based models with short wheel bases are unlikely to pose a problem, it is longer wheelbase models such as the pannier you mentioned that interested me. Regards, Frank

Hi Keith, I model in EM but have always been intrigued when P4 modellers talk about re-using RTR chassis with replacement wheel sets. Surely you need some kind of springing or compensation to keep the wheels planted on the track so how does this work with an RYR chassis? FRANK

I think glued track is reasonably easy to adjust if you use a sharp scalpel blade to lift any rogue chair that needs shifting. Easier if you use plywood sleepers and plastic chairs as we have on Clayton. Frank

I think it depends how far you want to go on the accuracy front. All RTP track is generic by definition, and the initial ambition for modellers new to EM will be building to 18.2mm track gauge. 40 years ago the choice was rivet and ply or copper clad sleepers; 9” for plain track and 12” for point work. Knowledge of, and more accurate reproduction of, the track of a particular company at a particular date was, except for a very few, unheard of. Those that want to go to that level of accuracy need to build their own track irrespective of gauge: OO, EM or P4 so this is not in itself a reason not to attempt EM. Templot is a tool in its own right but many modellers building their own track don’t use it. Another ability you suggest required to build your own track is soldering. Unless you are using set track you will still need a basic understanding of soldering in order to connect your electrical feed wires to RTP track, and it is not a significant leap from there to soldering jumper wires across a hand made point. If you don’t want to solder track to sleepers you now have the option with C&L to glue your point work together, just like building a plastic wagon or coach kit. Okay I may have overstated how simple track building is, but all modelling is difficult until you have spent a bit of time doing it. Track building is definitely one of the easier things to do compared to building etched kits, or a locomotive chassis. You know when you’ve got it wrong because your stock will fall off. And when you’ve got it right, it won’t! And the good thing with track is that it is relatively easy to tweak it after the initial build whatever the construction method adopted. I very much feel that if modellers are interested in building their own track they should definitely give it a go rather than be intimidated by just the thought of doing it. Frank

Perhaps you should. You know where you can come for help if you need it. Frank

I might suggest that making points does not need superhuman skills nor is there a steep learning curve. Ideally you need someone (or these days perhaps a YouTube video) to show you how to build them, then the first one needs a bit of thought, but after that most modellers should be able to take it in their stride. They are definitely one of those things that people are overly scared of trying but in reality are really easy to make. Possibly easier than even making a wagon kit once you know how. Go on give it a try. Frank

Hi Tony, this was my experience with the fiddleyard for Clayton. Around 60 switch sets including double and single slips, all of which were built over a period of 3 months. It takes me an evening to build one complete (copper clad) point including filing blades and V crossings and I think that’s typical for other builders also. Plain track in the f/yard is SMP code 75. Whilst not quite as extensive as the f/yard in LB it does show that it is still very achievable with the added advantage that the track standard is consistent across both the scenic and off scene areas of the layout. Frank

That’s a yes from me. I also have two tubs, one for brass waste and the other for n/silver waste. One of these days I’ll take a trip to the scrap metal merchant and see if he’ll offer me something for them. Frank

Hi Dylan, I think you are definitely on the right track, but I would say that wouldn't I having been an EM modeller exclusively for the last 40 years or so? Before answering your question I think we need to know more about your modelling interests and abilities? If you have no interest in building your own track then you would benefit from using as much pre-made track work as possible. If you think you might like building track but feel intimidated by the thought of doing so then there are other options. It is important that what ever track you settle on needs to be fit for purpose as when you start building/converting rolling stock you need to be sure that if there are any issues with poor running that it is definitely not the track that's at fault. The EMGS track is a a good start point. There is also a new range of 3D printed point kits under the British Finescale brand produced by Wayne Kinney. The rail is pre-machined, so no filing is required, and even the most ham-fisted modeller should be able to build a point in about an hour. The only 'modelling' skill required is to solder the electrical collections. The points are B7's and I think he has also done a 1:7 diamond and a 1:7 single slip as well. If you need points or crossings built to a different geometry then you will need to get into track building. The C&L components (with plastic sleepers) are probably the best match to the EMGS and British Finescale track work. Their kits are very expensive but they do include pre-machines blades and point V's, but they also sell these separately. Blades and V's are actually very easy to file by hand, especially if you use the filing jigs available from the EMGS. Members can purchase these mail order from the Society's trade officer, or non members can purchase them from the trade stand at EMGS exhibitions. There is one coming up in May at Bracknell. The same purchasing constraints apply to purchasing EMGS B6 points and plain track. I would suggest that PCB track, whilst possibly the simplest to build is not great to mix and match with other commercial offerings but is probably the best option for off-scene storage sidings (fiddle yards). The EMGS has a number of local area groups that meet monthly and you may benefit from joining one of these if there is one in your area. I can't speak for all area groups but certainly our local group in Leeds does not require you to be an EMGS member to join. There is almost certainly someone in the area group who will be able to demonstrate track construction. Finally I would recommend your joining the EMGS if you have not already done so. Members receive the EMGS handbook which includes fact sheets regarding all manner of things including track building and converting various RTR stock to EM gauge. Welcome to the world of EM. Frank

Stunning!

Hi again, thanks for your words of encouragement regarding my J52. I think Ian Rathbone’s paint work has made the difference. In reality it should have a Stirling cab with oval(ish) windows. The footplate is 2mm too wide as well. I ought really to correct my artwork and try again but the model I already have looks the part despite the errors, and I have many other locos to build for Clayton, as well as needing to design a Q4 kit from scratch. If you can’t get a satisfactory outcome from the model you have, let me know and I’ll sort out the errors in my J52 artwork and run you off a set of etches. Before anyone else gets excited, these won’t be suitable for OO modellers which is why I haven’t offered them to John at LRM. P4 and EM only on this occasion. Frank

Hi Sandra, You can’t beat a nice looking pannier can you? You were clearly still thinking straight despite being under the influence of alcohol. As Bucoops has suggested it is probably the Walsworth kit. Sadly this kit has a number of dimensional issues and I would strongly recommend you spend time checking the parts against a drawing and be prepared to make some replacement parts. If I recall what Geoff Tiffany told me correctly, the bunker is too short and the cab too long. When I looked at making the same kit I ended up designing my own etches instead, but unfortunately I made my own errors so probably ended up little better off. There is also an LRM kit in the pipeline but it’ll probably be some while before it becomes available. Frank

If you have any doubts regarding wiring the junction I’ll be happy to help you work it through. Frank

More progress on the Pendon ROD to install the brake gear and the underhung leaf springs. I must admit that it has been a bit of a fight this time. I hinted at an issue with the positioning of the leading brake hangers in my previous post. On the prototype loco the hangers fit in the gap between the frames and the cylinder end plates, but in the model there is insufficient space. I looked at how Bachmann had resolved it with their OO model, but their frames are so much narrower than those of the prototype, there is sufficient space. It's just in EM and P4 that the problem occurs. I have had no choice but to remove sufficient material from the cylinder end plates to provide space for the brakes. It was not the easiest task to perform but as its hidden behind the slide bars it will be impossible to see the damage when the build is finished. It also became apparent that the rear brake pull rod could not be correctly mounted centrally between the frames because it would interfere with the pinion gear of the modified gear box. Instead I have had to position it off centre to avoid the gear. It is only when looking at the underneath of the loco that the modification is apparent, side on you wouldn't know. Despite these set backs I am still pleased with progress and can now start adding the fine detail such as the drain cocks and sand pipes. The task I have continued to put off is building the valve gear between the frames. I have designed it with the potential of having working eccentrics but I am still not sure whether it is worth the effort given the typical viewing distance of model locomotives on the Vale scene. It remains my long term aim to redesign this chassis as an EM/P4 replacement chassis kit to go under the Bachmann model. All these learnings will be retrofitted to my original artwork. I don't want future builders to hit the same problems that have tripped me up during my build of this chassis. Regards, Frank

Now that IS ambitious. Kit or hand built I wonder?

Hi Tony, that is indeed the John Edgeson J50 with its new High Level chassis. A beautiful model and perfect for the Queensbury Line. As to posting videos I follow a three stage process. My videos are made using an iPhone which creates .mov files. These must first be converted to .MP4 Files as YouTube don’t support .mov. I have down loaded a freeware application to my PC which does the conversion for me. Next I have to post the MP4 video to YouTube which requires me to have a YouTube account. The first time is a bit confusing but after that it’s relatively straight forward to do. YouTube then provide a link that can be used to access the video. Finally I create my RM Web post and copy the link into my entry. It’s a bit long winded but it works irrespective of how big the original video file is. I’d love to see more videos from the regular contributors to WW so I hope others will now give it a go. Frank

I very much enjoyed the live streaming of Little Bytham the other day, although I was confused that, instead of being upside down as appropriate for the nationality of the cameraman, it was instead back to front. No matter.... In a similar vein, and in the hope of encouraging similar contributions, I am posting a short video I am calling 'Watching The Trains Go By'. I took the opportunity, during my weekly visit to the clubrooms today, to play trains. I had time on my hands having completed my planned tasks for the day, but then waiting for someone to come and lay new flooring in the club's newly refurbished kitchen. The layout remains very much a work in progress. You will see that we are starting to work on the pasture either side of the cutting and using the hanging basket liner that Tony W had recommended. Currently we are still trimming it to length before applying a combination of scatter materials and static grass to improve the overall effect. It would be great to see examples of trains running on the layouts of other contributors to WW.

Hi Baz, RM Web provides a private messaging service if you have the urge to contact a contributor directly. To get to it click on the icon of the contributor to take you to their profile page and from there you can send them a message. Frank

Hi Jack, sleeper spacing varies between plain track and points/crossings so they won’t match. In fact sleeper spacing, length and cross section varied through time and across companies so it is quite difficult to ensure that your track work is definitely correct. N.B. the sleeper spacing reduces as it approaches a rail joint to provide greater support and sleeper width whilst normally 10inch was 12inch for the sleepers either side of the fishplate. I think you are safe to stick with the EMGS plain track unless you are going to be pedantic about getting your track work absolutely correct for your company and period being modelled. Frank

We used 10mm on the sides and double thickness at the ends to avoid distortion when doing up the bolts to pull the boards together. Alignment pins are to my mind essential to ensure reliable track alignment across board joints. We also cross braced every 1ft approx but best to plan out where your point motors etc. are going to be so that you don’t put a brace where a point/signal motor or uncoupling magnet needs to be sited. Frank

Rather than accept the extra cost of custom cut boards, as long as they come flat packed, you can purchase a standard size and just trim the width or length to suit your specific needs. Still a lot less work than cutting your own. For Clayton we chose to go to a timber merchants and got them to cut sheets of ply into standard strips of 100mm. We then just needed to (carefully) cut these to length before assembling. A bit like making our own flat pack board kits and much cheaper given there are 27 boards all in. Frank

Hi Alan, I'm pleased to know that you are interested in my M-I-T system. I will attempt to answer all your questions but inevitably some answers may trigger additional questions from you so feel free to keep asking them until you are satisfied. I'll start by correcting a couple of points in your initial description of the system. I have to use a 1.5mm shaft in the tender and the Road Runner+ gear box because I was unable to source any ball races with a 4mm o/d and 2mm i/d. The ball races I use are 4mm o/d and 1.5mm i/d meaning that I am then forced to use a 2mm o/d x 1.5mm i/d sleeve on the shaft to mount the High Level spur gears. The ball races are needed because, as you have identified, the drive shaft rotates at the same speed as the motor and a brass bearing (unless it was sintered brass) would quickly overheat at that speed. The socket of the ball and socket UJ is located in front of the loco's rear chassis spacer, not under the fall plate. The N/Silver frame of the High Level gearbox is a replacement that I have designed (with the help of Chris Gibbon) to accept the ball races. I don't think there is enough metal on Chris's RRC+ gearbox frame to drill out a 4mm hole for the front ball race and the back hole may already be too big (not sure though). Now to your specific questions: End thrust: The ball races appear to be capable of accepting an amount of end thrust and so I have fitted sleeves fore and aft of the gearbox frame, and pushed up against the ball race at each end to absorb the end thrust. This has not been a problem so far...... The ball of the UJ is located approximately half way into its socket and does not manage any end thrust. Drive shaft: The Markits UJ comes in 2 sizes: 1.5mm or 2mm. This dimension only applies to the hole in the end of the socket but the ball always comes with a 1.5mm hole and a length of 1.5mm steel shaft. The length supplied is only sufficient for the shaft between the two UJ's. I have to purchase additional 1.5mm rod for the High Level gearbox and the spur gear's shaft. Slotted Shaft: By this I assume you mean the socket of the ball and socket UJ. This is part of the Markit's product. It also has a grub screw to lock the socket onto the end of the gearbox's drive shaft. The central part of the drive system between the UJ's is supported solely by the UJ's as it needs to move horizontally and vertically as the relative positions of the loco to the tender changes. Mounting the Ball Races: I use Loctite to secure them into the holes in their frames. The ball races have a rim to one side to help their location and I always put this rim to the outside of the frame because the ball races have to absorb any end thrust. Draw Bar Mounting: The majority of my models are permanently coupled but I have one model where it was easier to retain a draw bar pin which allows the tender to be quickly coupled/decoupled from the loco. Either system works because the benefit of using a neoprene tube for the UJ in the tender is that this prevents the centre portion of the drive shaft (between the UJ's) from dropping to the floor when the tender and loco are separated. Wheel Diameters: So far the biggest driving wheel diameter I have managed to model but still keep the drive under the fall plate was 5' 8" and this was the Great Western Mogul. It all depends on how high the fall plate is located in relation to the diameter of the driving wheels. So far I have been unable to come up with a gearbox design for loco's with larger diameter wheels which still allows the drive shaft to pass below the level of the footplate/fall plate. As the loco's I'm building for Clayton will all have wheel diameters of 5' 2" or less I have not put any significant effort into designing a solution for models with larger diameter wheels. Regards, Frank