Any Question Answered

[Izzy]

That's what I use and have no problems.  You need to allow a little bit of end play for curves.  I have a c1.5mm deep slot in the end of the gear shaft on  the tender and the worm shaft on the loco with the end of each shaft flush with the outer face of the bearing.  Each end of the wire is bent into a tight loop c1mm in diameter and also squashed slightly.  The length is such that there is about 0.5mm end play in the drive shaft.

 

You can just see the slot in the end of the worm shaft in this photo of the chassis of my 0-4-2.

 

06 - trial loco chassis rear ¾.jpg

In this case the worm is below the wormwheel.  This enabled me to keep the drive below footplate level and so out of sight on a loco which has a very open cab.  It is the arrangement I have on all three of my tender locos.  The loco is beam compensated BTW.

 

Jim

 

Could I ask how the beam compensation is arranged please? The whole design looks very clever.

 

Izzy

[Caley Jim]

Could I ask how the beam compensation is arranged please? The whole design looks very clever.

 

Izzy

Hi Izzy. I'm very busy this week, but I'll try and post a drawing if and when I get time.

 

Jim

[itsthegman]

Help needed.

 

Shop 1 is out of stock of 1-025 PCB turnout sleeper strip (50mm long) - i've used all of mine and now stopped in my point making tracks.

 

They have been out since before Christmas.

 

Is there anywhere is i can get them?.

 

I need at least two packs.

 

I've looked at C&L but could see any of that size.

 

Yours hopefully.

 

G.

 

[2mmMark]

Help needed.

 

Shop 1 is out of stock of 1-025 PCB turnout sleeper strip (50mm long) - i've used all of mine and now stopped in my point making tracks.

 

They have been out since before Christmas.

 

Is there anywhere is i can get them?.

 

I need at least two packs.

 

I've looked at C&L but could see any of that size.

 

Yours hopefully.

 

G.

 

Almost certainly not as the 0.8mm SRBP (FR2 grade) PCB we use is very hard to find. We had the opportunity to have a significant batch of the basic PCB sheet made back in 2013 and there is still plenty left. 

 

Sadly, the Association member who made the sleepers died shortly before Christmas after a period of illness. The tooling to produce the sleepers is expected to pass to the Association but that has not yet happened.

 

There is likely to be some sleepers and sleeper strip stashed away in people's gloat boxes so an appeal to the membership via the VAG or the newsletter might produce results.

 

Mark

[Rabs]

the 0.8mm SRBP (FR2 grade) PCB we use is very hard to find.

 

Out of curiosity, what's the reason for using a paxolin board instead of a standard fibreglass core? I'm making some of my track with FR4 and am now worried I might be missing something that will come back to bite me later.

[queensquare]

Out of curiosity, what's the reason for using a paxolin board instead of a standard fibreglass core? I'm making some of my track with FR4 and am now worried I might be missing something that will come back to bite me later.

No problem at all with using fibreglass cored pcb, I use it for my tie bars as it's much stronger. The problem is with cutting large quantities of sleepers, fibreglass board trashes blades in pretty short order.

 

Jerry

[Rabs]

No problem at all with using fibreglass cored pcb, I use it for my tie bars as it's much stronger. The problem is with cutting large quantities of sleepers, fibreglass board trashes blades in pretty short order.

 

Jerry

 

Good to know, thanks.  Yes, I do get through the carbide drills quite quickly when I'm doing PCB work compared to drilling plastics.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Rabs

[2mmMark]

Out of curiosity, what's the reason for using a paxolin board instead of a standard fibreglass core? I'm making some of my track with FR4 and am now worried I might be missing something that will come back to bite me later.

 

The tooling to produce the sleepers is basically a power guillotine with indexing. 0.8mm thick FR2 paxolin board cuts cleanly this way, particularly if warmed.  FR4 does not and also ruins the cutting edge of the blades. FR2 can be worked down to quite a narrow width, 1.3mm wide sleepers for 2mm narrow gauge are produced. Importantly, guillotining is a clean process and does not produce much, if any, waste or dust. A big consideration when working in a home workshop environment.

 

Due to lead free solders and their higher working temperature, FR2 in alternative thicknesses to 1.5mm is now hard, almost impossible, to find. We need 0.8mm as it's conveniently a scale depth for 2mm sleepers. Back in early 2013 I spent quite a bit of time searching for alternatives. FR4 0.8mm is available but cutting it into narrow strips is problematic. Sawing requires a carbide blade, produces a nasty dust and uses up considerable raw material in the saw cut. I was offered water-cutting for FR4 but that worked out quite expensive. I was told laser cutting isn't possible for FR4. It looked like producing PCB sleepers in FR4 was likely to prove uneconomic. The issue was that sleepers require lots of cuts to a high standard of accuracy, it's far different from simply produciing a board for etching into a circuit and when you're working on a price per cut basis, packs of a few hundred sleepers get pretty costly.

 

Fortunately, I was offered the opportunity to piggyback on a larger commercial order for FR2 and the Association was able to purchase enough 0.8mm FR2 sheet for many years supply. Bill Blackburn, who produced the sleepers (and designed & built the tooling!) said to me "It'll certainly see me out" which sadly proved to be the case. Production of sleepers was resumed until Bill's ill health curtailed his activities.

 

FR2 makes very strong trackwork that lasts for years. Overheating the copper can break the bond but once the knack of making the solder joint is achieved, it's not a problem. In any case, with 100% PCB track, there are plenty of other joints to keep the rail in place.

 

Track made from FR4 will be at least equally as strong, if not stronger so I would not worry about it. As Jerry says, FR4 is good for tie bars.

 

With the advent of Easitrack, I have looked at other methods of making turnouts, one of which was milling 1.5mm FR2 so as to leave raised copper clad sections as point sleepers. This works very well but doesn't give the flexibility for flowing pointwork that individual sleepering offers.

 

Easitrack reduces the need for plain track sleepers for standard gauge but there is still a demand for PCB sleepers. There are some, like me, who like soldered track construction.

 

Mark

[Orange Cat]

I wish there were bulk packs of the plastic chairs available so we could build ply-slepered track such as the P4 stuff. I like that way of making track, both from the point of view of building it and its finished appearance, but it is expensive when you only get 8 plain chairs on a sprue along with slide and check rail chairs you don't need. A "plain track" sprue of say 24 plain chairs would be great. But then I also would like to see 9-spoke 7mm wagon wheels and I don't suppose I will get them either.

[Chris Higgs]

I wish there were bulk packs of the plastic chairs available so we could build ply-slepered track such as the P4 stuff. I like that way of making track, both from the point of view of building it and its finished appearance, but it is expensive when you only get 8 plain chairs on a sprue along with slide and check rail chairs you don't need. A "plain track" sprue of say 24 plain chairs would be great. But then I also would like to see 9-spoke 7mm wagon wheels and I don't suppose I will get them either.

 

The moulds to produce these things cost an arm and a leg, and unless there are a whole lot of similarly minded people to yourself out there I suspect we would never get our money back.

 

I cannot count myself in your camp, sounds like a recipe for insanity with all those tiny chairs. I've done it in 4mm scale, but these chairs are half the size which not only makes them much more fiddly to handle, but also greatly affects their fragility. Once stuck to the plastic sleepers they become a part of the whole. Hopefully ply has a similar strengthening effect. WHen I hear the estimated times to build an Easitrac point, I cannot imagine producing metres of plain track.

 

Chris

[Orange Cat]

I didn't think it was likely. We could do everything if cost didn't enter into it. I can't see 7mm, 9-spoke wagon wheels ever being reality either. Although there does seem to be a few HR and GNoSR modellers in 2mm so there might be demand on that one.

[2mm Andy]

I didn't think it was likely. We could do everything if cost didn't enter into it. I can't see 7mm, 9-spoke wagon wheels ever being reality either. Although there does seem to be a few HR and GNoSR modellers in 2mm so there might be demand on that one.

 

Each of the mould tools for the trackwork cost approx. £3000 + VAT, so there would have to be pretty good demand for the committee to consider a new tool. I do agree that the plain track using ply sleepers does look very effective (as illustrated here). The ply sleeper plain track is perfectly robust - I built a small sample length as a test and the chairs deformed before they debonded from the plywood, so I've no worries on that score.

 

Thinking about it, you could chop the Easitrac slide chairs down to make ordinary ones - the slide chairs are moulded with jaws on each side of the rail, so the only difference from an ordinary chair is the width of the base.

 

The committee have also discussed producing 7mm diameter spoked wagon wheels using part of Steve Sykes bequest. No decision has been reached yet though.

 

Andy

Edited February 23, 2017 by 2mm Andy

[Orange Cat]

That ply sleepered track looks stunning. 

I hope the committee decides in favour of 7mm wagon wheels (9-spoke ones please, )

[Donw]

As one of those who has experimented with ply timbers I agree they do look good. However you say the cost is prohibitive. Now I think I am right that you get 12 sprues for £2.00 which gives 96 plain chairs. Now on the C+L site it quotes 500 chairs in 4mm for £27.50.  In 2mm 500 chairs would cost £10.42 and you would get slide chairs and check rail chairs as well. So per scale chain (track was traditionally measured in chains) the 2mm would be less than half the price and even for an actual metre of track the 2mm would be cheaper.

 

I know it would be quite time consuming and although it looked good on the turnouts I am not convinced  I would do it for the plain train simply because of the time it takes. However for a top notch simple layout you cannot complain at the cost. I know the amount of plastic used is far less but that is not the prime cost. C+L 500 7mm chairs are only £28.50 a £1 more than the 4mm ones. 

 

Lets be proud of the 2mm Association a good product at a good price

 

Don

[Orange Cat]

Thanks for that costing. I must admit I hadn't worked it out, rather I had the thought that there didn't seem many chairs on each sprue so it would inevitably be expensive. Current very small layout/scenic test track is having pcb sleepers as I found a lot of code 40 flatbottom rail and though I would go for a light railway kind of look, but I will give some thought to the future plan. I don't mind the time. One of my favourite aspects of railway modelling is building track. I can get really absorbed in something that most people would regard as monotonous.

[Valentin]

For a wheel diameter of 62 inches (5.17 ft) shall I use 10 mm or 10.5 mm wheels? 5.17 x 2 = 10.34 mm so somewhere in the middle...

 

Thank you!

[2mm Andy]

For a wheel diameter of 62 inches (5.17 ft) shall I use 10 mm or 10.5 mm wheels? 5.17 x 2 = 10.34 mm so somewhere in the middle...

 

Thank you!

 

I'd go down a size - the 2FS flanges are larger than scale, so the overall effect of a 10mm wheel should be something close to the original.

 

Bear in mind that prototype wheels were turned in a lathe occasionally to reprofile them as they wore.

 

Andy

[CF MRC]

I would use 10 mm and then you have room for the flanges. Also, worth bearing in mind that loco wheels got smaller as they were re-profiled going through works. If the number of spokes is wrong then the large size may be more appropriate, but you may need to tweak the splashers. If you don't tell anyone, they'll never know...

 

Tim

Edited February 25, 2017 by CF MRC

[Valentin]

Many thanks, Tim. I was thinking about mentioning the plan is to model the locomotive as she was towards the end of her life. So 10 mm makes more sense.

[2mmMark]

Thanks for that costing. I must admit I hadn't worked it out, rather I had the thought that there didn't seem many chairs on each sprue so it would inevitably be expensive. Current very small layout/scenic test track is having pcb sleepers as I found a lot of code 40 flatbottom rail and though I would go for a light railway kind of look, but I will give some thought to the future plan. I don't mind the time. One of my favourite aspects of railway modelling is building track. I can get really absorbed in something that most people would regard as monotonous.

 

You may find that code 40 flatbottom on PCB will look rather "mainline". As an alternative, I'd  suggest code 40 bullhead laid upside down, so the heavier railhead section is at the bottom with the lighter foot at the top. It fools the eye quite nicely when sweated down onto PCB (so there are no "chairblobs").

 

There is also the code 30 strip rail which would look very spindly laid to standard gauge.

 

Mark

[nick_bastable]

Line No20 was laid using 30thou one problem been the roller gauges are slightly too big so needs a bit of tweeking to get level and running

 

 

Nick

[Valentin]

I am practicing my kit-building skills by building a PO wagon type 1887 RCH 5 Plank Open (due to a lack of confidence in building locomotives as demonstrated by my recent attempts).

 

My chosen components for the wagon are:

 

- plastic body kit 2-554

- 9' W/B kit 2-327

- buffers 2-072

- wheels 2-010

- axlebox: 2-473

- springs: 2-460

 

I have no preference regarding the livery, anything which could have been seen in a port in the south east region, sometimes between 1890 - 1930; and maybe ready available decals.

 

I understand the 2-327 N/S under-frame kit contains several variations of brakes on the etch. According to my requirements, which brakes should I use? I tried to find more information online about the RCH specifications from 1887 with not much luck.

[nick_bastable]

I am practicing my kit-building skills by building a PO wagon type 1887 RCH 5 Plank Open (due to a lack of confidence in building locomotives as demonstrated by my recent attempts). 

 

 

nothing wrong with your loco building your C class is very  good and your loco chassis all freewheel very nicely 

 

Nick

[Caley Jim]

I understand the 2-327 N/S under-frame kit contains several variations of brakes on the etch. According to my requirements, which brakes should I use? I tried to find more information online about the RCH specifications from 1887 with not much luck.

Whichever ones you fancy!  If your not building a particular prototype, then it's your wagon, so you decide!  (single brake block is the simplest  ).

 

Jim

[Caley Jim]

Hi Izzy. I'm very busy this week, but I'll try and post a drawing if and when I get time.

 

As promised, here is an explanation of the arrangement in some documents which formed part of an article in the 2MM Magazine back in 2001/2.

 

391 Drawings.doc

Tender chassis.doc

Loco chassis 1.doc

Loco chassis 2.doc

 

Jim