Any Question Answered

[2mm Andy]

22 minutes ago, Ian Smeeton said:

Another query about wagon bits.

 

I am looking at doing a batch of the Associations  2-566 Van Body (No Roof): BR Standard Box Van Dia 1/208, 1/203.

 

I can see the roofs listed, but what chassis ?

 

Buffers, 2-075 should be correct as these will be built as fitted wagons, except, I can't see them listed. Would 2-076 be better.

 

Regards

 

Ian

 

Ian,

 

Either 2-354 or 2-357 are suitable depending what brake gear you would like. I think that 2-076 buffers are suitable depending on the period you are modelling (some of the vans were fitted with OLEO buffers later on in their lives). 2-075 never actually made it into the 2mm shop which is a shame given that they are one of the most widespread BR wagon buffer types.

 

As ever, Paul Bartlett's wagon photos are a good source of photos (albeit from the 1970s onwards);

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brvanplanked

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brvanplywoodvvv

 

Incidentally, I think the shop description should read 1/208, 1/213 for those van bodies, although you can also build the meat van and insulated van types with the alternative ends supplied on the plastic sprues.

 

regards,

 

Andy

Edited July 16, 2021 by 2mm Andy

[Nig H]

18 hours ago, Ian Smeeton said:

Another query about wagon bits.

 

I am looking at doing a batch of the Associations  2-566 Van Body (No Roof): BR Standard Box Van Dia 1/208, 1/203.

 

I can see the roofs listed, but what chassis ?

 

Buffers, 2-075 should be correct as these will be built as fitted wagons, except, I can't see them listed. Would 2-076 be better.

 

Regards

 

Ian

Hi,

There is a very useful article on BR van variations in 'Your model Railway' April 1987. It gives the various combinations of sides, doors, ends, corrugations, rainstrips, couplings, brake gear and axleboxes. The chassis to use would be 2-354 or 2-357, as Andy pointed out. The four -shoe Morton fitted (2-254) was the most common chassis with the eight-shoe version used on later lots. Buffers of various ribbed types were fitted to most vans until later lots of D 208.

 

Nigel Hunt

[oily]

I was going to build a shelf layout but only got as far as the baseboard. It's nicely made of clean mdf, machine cut, 7ft long and has room for wiring and controls in the 1" depth underneath and is 5" wide with a 1" wall at the back and ends. It's going for nothing but you'll have to collect it from Bath.

Oli

[MrSimon]

Hi all,

 

Is this a quartering issue causing the pin to come out, or simply because the pin became unstuck?

 

I’d just fixed the other side and was trying to work out why it didn’t run with the loco wheels on the track…

 

It feels like I can rotate the wheels too much - is this normal?  I don’t have many new Bachman steam engines (it’s a 4F) so wasn’t sure if it was helping it run poorly?

 

Thanks in advance!

Simon

[Valentin]

Will I be able to solder the crank pins to the mark 5 wheels in the same fashion as we’re doing with the Mark 4 wheels? Or better to use Super Glue to secure the crack pins in place?

[65179]

1 hour ago, Valentin said:

Will I be able to solder the crank pins to the mark 5 wheels in the same fashion as we’re doing with the Mark 4 wheels? Or better to use Super Glue to secure the crack pins in place?

 

They can't be effectively soldered.

@Nick Mitchell did some experiments a while back using various Loctite (RTM) products. I think he found that Loctite (RTM) 243 gave the best bond. He may be along to correct me if I've remembered incorrectly.

 

Simon

Edited July 24, 2021 by 65179

[Valentin]

25 minutes ago, 65179 said:

[...]

Loctite (RTM) 243 gave the best bond

[...]

 

According to the manufacturer, this is "a medium strength blue threadlocking adhesive that seals and secures metal nuts and bolts to prevent loosening due to shock and vibration."

 

I wonder if the threadlocker I already have will work. It is blue, after all

 

 

 

 

Anyway, I will try it, and post back the results.

Edited July 24, 2021 by Valentin

[Izzy]

4 hours ago, MrSimon said:

Hi all,

 

Is this a quartering issue causing the pin to come out, or simply because the pin became unstuck?

 

I’d just fixed the other side and was trying to work out why it didn’t run with the loco wheels on the track…

 

It feels like I can rotate the wheels too much - is this normal?  I don’t have many new Bachman steam engines (it’s a 4F) so wasn’t sure if it was helping it run poorly?

 

Thanks in advance!

Simon

 

Hi Simon,

 

The wheels will rotate quite a bit when the loco is in your hand. All steam locos are/should be the same whether they are scratchbuilt or RTR. The outer ones will move a few spokes relative to each other. If they don't then things are just too tight. I an often bemused by reading of people reaming out coupling rods to be a fit over crankpins. Not neccesary. The only crucial aspect is that the rod centres, and the holes in them, are an exact match to the chassis axle spacings. How much slop they have over the crankins isn't an issue generally, but too tight a fit is.

 

3 hours ago, Valentin said:

Will I be able to solder the crank pins to the mark 5 wheels in the same fashion as we’re doing with the Mark 4 wheels? Or better to use Super Glue to secure the crack pins in place?

 

I have used mk5 wheels on my N7 build and the crankpins are soldered into place. I have had no problems. However.. I always countersink the rear of the wheel crankpin hole, use the flanged crankpins, and flood solder into the rear. So in effect the crankpins are 'trapped' in the wheel, even if the solder doesn't key too well to the stainless steel. But even if they are just straight crankpins they shouldn't pull out of the front of the wheel as in Simon's case above. Other forces at play here I must think.

 

Have to be careful using glues to retain them. Heat breaks these joints - how you can sort out joints made with Loctite/superglue etc. -  so it's alright with a quick in-and-out on the retaining washer, but not if you dwell too long.

 

Hope this helps

[Valentin]

10 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I always countersink the rear of the wheel crankpin hole, use the flanged crankpins, and flood solder into the rear. So in effect the crankpins are 'trapped' in the wheel, even if the solder doesn't key too well to the stainless steel.

 

I have been using this approach to fit the crankpins since I first watched Nick Mitchell's excellent videos on the Jubilee, three years ago. Not finishing any model, that's another story

[2mm Andy]

8 hours ago, MrSimon said:

Hi all,

 

Is this a quartering issue causing the pin to come out, or simply because the pin became unstuck?

 

I’d just fixed the other side and was trying to work out why it didn’t run with the loco wheels on the track…

 

It feels like I can rotate the wheels too much - is this normal?  I don’t have many new Bachman steam engines (it’s a 4F) so wasn’t sure if it was helping it run poorly?

 

Thanks in advance!

Simon

 

Simon,

 

TBH my first thought would be to check the quartering, particularly on the right hand wheelset compared to the other two.

 

Did you test the loco before soldering the crankpin washers on? I use small slices of plastic wire insulation over the untrimmed crankpins to retain the coupling rods while I test run the loco to check for any possible problems. Only when I'm happy do the crankpin washers get soldered on.

 

Some people have reported the Jinty/4F conversion rods to be a touch on the fragile side, although there are others who have had no problems. A quick way to beef them up is to buy two etches and solder the two full thickness layers together to make the rod for each side (rather than use one full thickness layer and one half-etch layer as the etch provides for).

 

Andy

Edited July 24, 2021 by 2mm Andy

[MrSimon]

Thanks all,

It was tested quite a bit before I soldered the washers on, it had the plastic on for a while before I plucked up the courage to solder the washers onto a different chassis - it ran well so I thought it would be ok to solder it too…

 

I fitted a new crank pin this afternoon and soldered together a new rod.  Then when I put the new rod on I think I identified the problem: the rod is slightly too long between the front and middle axles - when the other axles are at half past the front was ahead slightly.  When the rod was curved up and only stuck in the front and rear it ran perfectly (so possibly not the quartering)
 

Is it something really basic like I’ve got the rods on the wrong sides?

 

Many thanks 

Simon 

Edited July 24, 2021 by MrSimon
Missed a bit

[queensquare]

27 minutes ago, MrSimon said:

Thanks all,

It was tested quite a bit before I soldered the washers on, it had the plastic on for a while before I plucked up the courage to solder the washers onto a different chassis - it ran well so I thought it would be ok to solder it too…

 

I fitted a new crank pin this afternoon and soldered together a new rod.  Then when I put the new rod on I think I identified the problem: the rod is slightly too long between the front and middle axles - when the other axles are at half past the front was ahead slightly.  When the rod was curved up and only stuck in the front and rear it ran perfectly (so possibly not the quartering)
 

Is it something really basic like I’ve got the rods on the wrong sides?

 

Many thanks 

Simon 

 

It does sound like it, the 4F has standard Midland spacing of 8' + 8'6"

 

Jerry

[Izzy]

8 hours ago, MrSimon said:

Thanks all,

It was tested quite a bit before I soldered the washers on, it had the plastic on for a while before I plucked up the courage to solder the washers onto a different chassis - it ran well so I thought it would be ok to solder it too…

 

I fitted a new crank pin this afternoon and soldered together a new rod.  Then when I put the new rod on I think I identified the problem: the rod is slightly too long between the front and middle axles - when the other axles are at half past the front was ahead slightly.  When the rod was curved up and only stuck in the front and rear it ran perfectly (so possibly not the quartering)
 

Is it something really basic like I’ve got the rods on the wrong sides?

 

Many thanks 

Simon 

If reversing the rods doesn’t work then I’d suggest using some from the 3-205 etch. I’m afraid the scale size coupling rods are too fine and fragile for me and I wrecked several sets before trying these in desperation. 

[Valentin]

On 24/07/2021 at 17:40, Valentin said:

Anyway, I will try it, and post back the results.

 

With a 0.5mm drill I made sure the crank-pin holes in the wheels are clear of any debris. With a cut 4 file I dressed the flanged crank-pin ends.

 

The crank-pins are very tight fit into the holes in the wheels. It looked like there was no need for any additional glue, nor soldering. Just to be sure, I used the above-mentioned threadlock. To test the bond, I put some effort (much more than what would be in normal use) trying to remove a pin - it didn't come off, so I assume there is no need to solder them in place.

 

Regarding the rough look of the spokes, do the wheels need any additional treatment? After the glue (EVO-STICK "Serious Glue") used to stick the counter-weights cures, I will scrub the wheels using Cif, but I don't think that would be enough to get a smoother look.

Edited July 25, 2021 by Valentin
Insert the picture

[Nick Mitchell]

On 24/07/2021 at 17:17, 65179 said:

They can't be effectively soldered.

@Nick Mitchell did some experiments a while back using various Loctite (RTM) products. I think he found that Loctite (RTM) 243 gave the best bond. He may be along to correct me if I've remembered incorrectly.

 

That's correct, Simon.

At first I tried 603 retaining compound, but I had a 50% failure rate. I really don't understand why.

243 threadlock gave much more reliable results. In theory, the bond shouldn't be as secure, but the forces it will be subject to are miniscule.

 

On 24/07/2021 at 18:44, Izzy said:

Have to be careful using glues to retain them. Heat breaks these joints - how you can sort out joints made with Loctite/superglue etc. -  so it's alright with a quick in-and-out on the retaining washer, but not if you dwell too long.

 

Don't forget the tyres are held on the wheels with retainer, as are the axles on the Mark V wheels. I'd be much more worried (if indeed I were worried at all!) about soldering the crankpin into the wheels than soldering the retaining washer onto a glued-in crankpin.

I have had soldered-in crank pins fail and start rotating on brass wheel centres due to not heating them up enough (through a surfeit of caution), but touch wood I have never had a tyre come loose.

 

You need special flux to solder successfully to stainless steel. While it is fine to have your crankpins retained with a plug of solder and able to rotate in the wheels on an 0-6-0, if you have a return crank fitted to the crank-pin, you would have a disaster on your hands... guess how I know?

 

[Nigelcliffe]

1 hour ago, Nick Mitchell said:

 

That's correct, Simon.

At first I tried 603 retaining compound, but I had a 50% failure rate. I really don't understand why.

243 threadlock gave much more reliable results. In theory, the bond shouldn't be as secure, but the forces it will be subject to are miniscule.

 

 

Don't forget the tyres are held on the wheels with retainer, as are the axles on the Mark V wheels. I'd be much more worried (if indeed I were worried at all!) about soldering the crankpin into the wheels than soldering the retaining washer onto a glued-in crankpin.

I have had soldered-in crank pins fail and start rotating on brass wheel centres due to not heating them up enough (through a surfeit of caution), but touch wood I have never had a tyre come loose.

 

 

It takes quite a lot of heat to destroy loctite.  Yes, it can be done, and it will be weakened, but this is 2mm, not holding the wings onto a Boeing...  And soldering a crankpin, unless using a big gas-flame, has to transfer heat from the crankpin area, along relatively thin spokes, and around a rim, to cause any damage to the rim retainer. 

 

The Mk5 centres CAD files have grooves in the axle bore and crankpin bore for retainer, so there's somewhere for it to flow into and expand.   I suspect the printing doesn't keep the groove in the crankpin bore as well as that for the axle.   There are ideas around for improving the crankpin installation, but the facilities for doing such experiments are unavailable until at least early 2022  (Unless someone wants to step up and offer access to suitable precision machinery, it involves turning and the tricky task of drilling the stainless prints...).  

 

 

 

[CF MRC]

The secret to all soldering small things to large things is a big hot iron going in and out quick. A suitable flux helps too.
 

Tim 

[Sithlord75]

Any suggestions for a 7'3"+9'0" wheel base when it comes to connecting rods?  I see there are pairs listed as 3-170 which could be used but not as a single rod - rather a pair to connect the first wheels with the middle and a pair to connect the middle with the rear which seems to be a little clunky and possibly dangerous in the hands of a debutant.  The sets in 3-171 don't have the right options.

 

The thoughts of the brains trust would be welcome.

[Caley Jim]

No problem with using two separate rods, in fact I do that all the time.  I think it makes for a freer running chassis as the wee bit of flexibility can overcome any slight horizontal mis-alignment between the rods and the frames.  Just half-lap at the centre by cutting the centre boss off the rear layer of the front rod and the front boss off the front layer of the rear boss.  Make sure you leave a wee bit of clearance between the cut ends an the adjacent boss.   Go for it!

 

Jim

[Chris Higgs]

Has anyone got hold of the new Sonic/RevolutioN 56XX to see how 2FS conversion friendly it might be?

 

I have two but they are not in the same country as me at the moment!

 

Chris

[2mm Andy]

18 minutes ago, Chris Higgs said:

Has anyone got hold of the new Sonic/RevolutioN 56XX to see how 2FS conversion friendly it might be?

 

I have two but they are not in the same country as me at the moment!

 

Chris

There is a thread on the 2mm VAG about it. It seems that the conversion system (brass bearings and axle muffs) previously developed for the Farish locos will work for the coupled wheels, and the trailing axle is a clip fit into the plastic moulding so can be replaced.

 

I've got one sat on my workbench but haven't run it in yet.

 

Andy

[Andy Keane]

On 14/04/2021 at 21:25, James Parker said:

Mike, Im a newbie relative to many of those posting here, but I have had experience of fitting points to a prototype plan (Helston GWR if you are interested - has just 8 turnouts five of which are curved on both roads and two of which more or less merge into each other).   

 

What I did was start with a 1:40 plan I picked up from somewhere which, for good measure, I also overlaid onto the OS 6inch map (which you clearly have) so I could cross check them.  I then scanned the the plan to a jpeg and imported it as a background into Templot.  It was the first time I had ever used Templot and its not an easy tool, however the videos on the 2mm Youtube channel (which weren't available at the time) look good. 

 

To start with its quite easy to get the crossing angle from the plan  (or the 6in OS map) by simply measuring it, which gives you a good start.  Once you have that its a lot of messing around with curve radii to get the alignments to work.  This is a bit tedious but Id much rather be messing around with curve radii on a computer than building and rebuilding points which look right, but when you actually come to butt them up, don't quite align properly.  To be honest I really couldn't imagine getting things to fit properly even on the relatively relaxed geometry that is Helston without Templot (or some similar tool) so its definitely IMHO the way to go if you want to come close to matching what appears to be a very complex geometry without having ugly kinks where transitions between components aren't quite properly aligned. 

 

A trick I found useful with a series of points where both roads are curved was first to draw them as overlaid pieces of curved track.  This helps work you to visualise the alignments between the various sections first and also shows up where the plan is probably wrong.  Whether you then build a point over the top or change the curve into a point is up to you (I did a mixture).

 

It took many, many hours and several false starts to get a flow of curve that I was happy with and which was sufficiently close to overlaying the plan that I felt reasonably confident that it matched the prototype, but the effort was well worth it and, as I say, far better than building points which then don't align properly with each other when placed on the track plan.  

James, I currently have Marcway building me the entrance points for Helston. I would be fascinated to see a photo of yours. Also any info on your 40th scale track plan would be of interest.

regards

Andy

[Sithlord75]

I dunno how many of us read the assorted blogs linked to the 2FSA website but I do.

 

As a result - a query.

 

Will the song book be available via the Central Shop similar to Track and other worthy tomes?  

[Winchat]

15 hours ago, Sithlord75 said:

I dunno how many of us read the assorted blogs linked to the 2FSA website but I do.

 

As a result - a query.

 

Will the song book be available via the Central Shop similar to Track and other worthy tomes?  

 

According to the author "... which will be available from selected refined and upmarket retail outlets across the world.)" 

 

That will leave me out!

 

Kind regards

 

Geoff in South Oz.

[justin1985]

I'm building a second attempt at a chassis for a Bob Jones J72. My first attempt was my very first 2mm loco, and I never managed to it quartered properly and running smoothly. The frames got bent totally out of shape in one of several attempts to remove the wheels and re-quarter, so I put it to one side for several years, and got another etch from Bob to do a fresh chassis. (It turns out all of my 7mm PCB spacers were 7.3mm wide - I suspect I'd followed the cut out template instruction a little too literally! That would probably explain why I could never get the quartering and back to back both right at the same time).

 

Anyway, I think I'm making pretty good progress with the replacement. But I need to decide whether to fit the hacked about franken-Mashima motor from the original kit, or substitute a modern small coreless?

 

 

This is a genetic eBay coreless. It certainly saves an awful lot of space compared to the Mashima - which I guess would leave more room for both weight and DCC + StayAlive.

 

However, the Mashima does seem to turn over much more slowly (if coggily) at the minimum voltage when it moves. With a bit of tape as a "flag", the Mashima has an impressively wide voltage range before the flag becomes a blur. This coreless (and equally others I have like Tramfabreik) only has a very small voltage range before the flag is a blur.

 

Any thoughts on which would be a better trade off in an assembled (shunting) loco? Fast motor with more weight and StayAlive? Or slow motor?

 

J