Any Question Answered

[Lacathedrale]

So uh... how do I join tracks together? I've got my turnout, and I've got a length of easitrac flex. For now, just pritt-stick'ed in alignment with each other. Solder end-to-end?

[2mmMark]

So uh... how do I join tracks together? I've got my turnout, and I've got a length of easitrac flex. For now, just pritt-stick'ed in alignment with each other. Solder end-to-end?

 

No need, they are simply aligned when stuck down. Each piece of track needs its own power connection.

[Argos]

You need to allow a small gap for rail expansion though.

It is surprising how much expansion and contraction occurs.

 

If you soldered everything together you would find the track buckling somewhere along the length when warm.

[PaulCheffus]

Hi

 

When I laid mine I left the point rails over long and then inserted them half way into a piece of Easitrak base. The plain rail was then inserted into the other half of the base leaving a gap.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[Donw]

Hi

 

When I laid mine I left the point rails over long and then inserted them half way into a piece of Easitrak base. The plain rail was then inserted into the other half of the base leaving a gap.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

 

I find making rail joints at the mid point of a piece of easitrac works well. It also helps when building a turnout to hold the rail ends in pieces of easitrac

 

Don.

[Lacathedrale]

Goodness, that would have made life much easier than aligning them by eye - certainly noted down for next time. You also really weren't kidding when you said that every rail should be powered. I was thinking about the days of Peco setrack and thinking "No, it'll be fine", but blow me if you weren't right. I really, really need to get some of those brass cast easitrac bases though, my soldering just isn't neat enough at all. Is there a given minimum gauge wire for jumpers through the baseboard to the bus underneath? 

[PaulCheffus]

Goodness, that would have made life much easier than aligning them by eye - certainly noted down for next time. You also really weren't kidding when you said that every rail should be powered. I was thinking about the days of Peco setrack and thinking "No, it'll be fine", but blow me if you weren't right. I really, really need to get some of those brass cast easitrac bases though, my soldering just isn't neat enough at all. Is there a given minimum gauge wire for jumpers through the baseboard to the bus underneath?

 

Hi

 

I tend to use 22swg solid tinned wire for my jumpers. These are then attached to a pair of m3 solder tags, one screwed to the underside and the other solder to it with the tail bent and 90 degrees to attach the bus wire to.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[2mmMark]

Goodness, that would have made life much easier than aligning them by eye - certainly noted down for next time. You also really weren't kidding when you said that every rail should be powered. I was thinking about the days of Peco setrack and thinking "No, it'll be fine", but blow me if you weren't right. I really, really need to get some of those brass cast easitrac bases though, my soldering just isn't neat enough at all. Is there a given minimum gauge wire for jumpers through the baseboard to the bus underneath? 

 

An alternative to the cast brass sleepers would be PCB sleepers with chairplates. It's reasonably easy to solder a feed wire to the sleeper and this way you'll have a continuous soldered electrical path to the rail.

 

Soldering gets easier with experience. Are you using a thin gauge of solder wire (0.5mm or thinner)? This gives you a lot more control over the soldering process.

[Bulliedman]

Hi Gents

I need a bit of advice on building the LNER 8 shoe under frame. I have no worries on the actual process of construction other than when it comes to adding the sole bar overlays (part 4). The holes appear to be too small to fit over the bearings I have soldered into the mainframe and there doers not appear to be sufficient metal to open up the wholes without destroying the axle box on the fret. Am I missing something ?

[65179]

The holes are too small for the bearing.  File the bearing flush with the top of the previous layer and you shouldn't have any problems, although obviously alignment is not then so straightforward being by eye rather than positive location.

 

Simon

[Chris Higgs]

The holes are too small for the bearing.  File the bearing flush with the top of the previous layer and you shouldn't have any problems, although obviously alignment is not then so straightforward being by eye rather than positive location.

 

Simon

 

Dont worry about filing the bearing flush. The actual pinpoint part barely impinges into the bearing hast so you won't cut through to it. There was some discussion about getting shouldered bearings made as Alan Gibson have in 4mm scale, but it didn;t come to anything.

 

Chris

[justin1985]

It is a bit frustrating to lose the self locating aspect of the overlays when you file the bearing down on these kits. Was it just a design error?

[Chris Higgs]

It is a bit frustrating to lose the self locating aspect of the overlays when you file the bearing down on these kits. Was it just a design error?

 

No, it was a decision. If the bearing is too large to fit into a hole for a scale axlebox, you have three choices.

 

1. Make the axleboxes overscale.

2. File the bearing down.

or

3. Get special waisted bearings made. However this was not available.

 

so

 

I deliberately chose option 2 for my underframes. As we are a finescale society. The smaller hole was left in the hope that Option 3 might one day happen.

 

There are a few axleboxes eg LNER ones where the axlebox is large enough to have a 1mm hole all the way through. But RCH style this is not possible.

 

On the standalone etched axleboxes a different approach is taken. Here all the layers fold up and are self locating. But it takes significant extra space to do so and does have issues when then cutting them out with multi-layer tags. Many of the underframe etches have multiple types of axlebox and would have doubled in size if using this approach.

 

A third approach is employed on the etched bogies where the axle box layers are separate but spaced correctly for the wheelbase. This makes them easier to line up as you do both at once befre cutting them free from the etch.

 

A fourth approach is to just cut off the etched springs and use cast ones instead. You'll probably still have to file the beraing down a bit. For significant periods in the past the cast ones were unavailable or didn't even exist yet, which is why etched versions came to be.

 

EDIT: after browsing through the Shop 2 list, it seems that the RCH axlebox not longer exists as a casting. Back in the day, that was the only one we had. 

 

Chris

Edited March 6, 2018 by Chris Higgs

[justin1985]

I deliberately chose option 2 for my underframes. As we are a finescale society. The smaller hole was left in the hope that Option 3 might one day happen.

Thanks Chris - that makes a lot more sense. I had been confused why a hole had been left at all if the whole box was deliberately smaller than the bearing, but if waisted bearings were on the cards then that obviously makes sense.

 

It might be worth getting a note explaining this added to the product pages on the website? I remember getting very frustrated when I first met these as a relatively new member a few years ago, and not realising that it was safe to file off the bearing. I ended up giving up and using the cast boxes (as per option 4). It's a shame they're not available anymore!

 

I do have a stock of some of the two part spring and box castings via Bill Blackburn, not quite the RCH type though, but I'll probably use them anyway. It might be sacrilege, but to me any "traditional" axlebox is a traditional axlebox!

 

Justin

Edited March 7, 2018 by justin1985

[Chris Higgs]

Thanks Chris - that makes a lot more sense. I had been confused why a hole had been left at all if the whole box was deliberately smaller than the bearing, but if waisted bearings were on the cards then that obviously makes sense.

 

It might be worth getting a note explaining this added to the product pages on the website? I remember getting very frustrated when I first met these as a relatively new member a few years ago, and not realising that it was safe to file off the bearing. I ended up giving up and using the cast boxes (as per option 4). It's a shame they're not available anymore!

 

I do have a stock of some of the two part spring and box castings via Bill Blackburn, not quite the RCH type though, but I'll probably use them anyway. It might be sacrilege, but to me any "traditional" axlebox is a traditional axlebox!

 

Justin

 

I believe that this is noted in the instructions.

 

As an ex-products officer I have the drawing of the bearings as was shocked just how little is actually the bearing cutout. I suppose the bearing is the size it is to 1. make it big enough to act as a seat for cast axleboxes and 2. big enough to hold! I never did ask Bill Blackburn the reason though. 

 

Chris

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by Chris Higgs

[Bulliedman]

Thank you for all your advice I'd better go and get my files out !

[Ian Smeeton]

I don't suppose anyone fancies putting together an index of the points raised and answered as part of the Opening Post?

 

It would make life a lot easier, as there are some great tips, tricks and techniques in this thread, and would save a lot of possibly pointless searching.

 

Regards

 

Ian

[Lacathedrale]

I think a Wiki would be an amazing resource, even if it's gated behind the 2mm website member's section - that way any of the members can contribute, comment and edit - and the sky's the limit. Any appetite for me to set up a proof of concept in a public space with a few points?

[Chris Higgs]

I think a Wiki would be an amazing resource, even if it's gated behind the 2mm website member's section - that way any of the members can contribute, comment and edit - and the sky's the limit. Any appetite for me to set up a proof of concept in a public space with a few points?

 

Been there, done that, no one contributed. So it got binned some years ago.

 

Chris

[queensquare]

Been there, done that, no one contributed. So it got binned some years ago.

 

Chris

Agreed, a quick search or, if that fails, a question here will illicit an answer to most questions pretty quickly. I don't think it really matters if the most commonly asked questions are repeated from time to time. Hours spent compiling a list or some sort of index is much better spent getting on and making stuff.

As for hosting such things in the members area - why hide it away? I'm all for making everything (except the shops which are our greatest asset) available to all, including the 2mm mag.

The most commonly asked question seems to me to be ' what is the password!'........ and as for the Yahoo group well that's a complete waste of time. Its slow and clunky, only lets you in when it feels like it, isn't searchable as far as I can tell and understandably very few people bother with it anymore.

 

Jerry

[justin1985]

At the time I thought the Wiki was a great idea, but back then I didn't really have enough knowledge to add to it myself. As Chris and Jerry pointed out, it just didn't get traction. 

 

I've been involved with "crowdsourcing" type schemes in other spheres of life, and frankly they very rarely work if you just leave them "open" to contributions, even within a defined interest group. BUT I think that that kind of platform, Wiki or some other crowdsourcing concept, can be a good tool for a defined team to use to collaborate when working towards a specific target. 

 

Risking opening cans of worms, I seem to remember there was a project several years ago to update the 2mm Handbook. This ground to a halt, and I seem to recall the consensus was that some areas were best covered in specific handbooks (i.e. "Track") and others are so amorphous that they would be better off left to discussion or research using the Magazine archive etc. However, IF a project like that were being attempted again today, perhaps using a MediaWiki platform for the team to gather and edit (and publish) their material would be a good way forward. 

 

Justin

[2mm Andy]

 

Risking opening cans of worms, I seem to remember there was a project several years ago to update the 2mm Handbook. This ground to a halt, and I seem to recall the consensus was that some areas were best covered in specific handbooks (i.e. "Track") and others are so amorphous that they would be better off left to discussion or research using the Magazine archive etc. However, IF a project like that were being attempted again today, perhaps using a MediaWiki platform for the team to gather and edit (and publish) their material would be a good way forward. 

 

Justin

 

The project ground to a halt some time ago. I made a recent appeal in the Chairman's Chat within the newsletter for volunteers to take it forward - and got zero response. Previously we have had volunteers offer their services for editing/typesetting, but very few willing to prepare content. Sorry to be so negative, but I don't see how changing the format will alter that.

 

Andy

[justin1985]

The project ground to a halt some time ago. I made a recent appeal in the Chairman's Chat within the newsletter for volunteers to take it forward - and got zero response. Previously we have had volunteers offer their services for editing/typesetting, but very few willing to prepare content. Sorry to be so negative, but I don't see how changing the format will alter that.

 

Andy

 

Sorry I wasn't saying changing the format would help on that front, just that the technology would help the process of writing and editing, IF the group of contributors were there and willing!

 

Do the EMGS still have their folder partwork type handbook? From what I remember during my brief flirtation with EM it was a very impressive body of material, but must have been a nightmare to administer. A Wiki-type platform would be a simpler way of creating and administering something more like that. i.e. a collection of small articles, not a big scary project.

 

But as you say, the problem is contributors and their time. As Jerry says, most people would rather be getting on making stuff! 

 

J

[Donw]

The project ground to a halt some time ago. I made a recent appeal in the Chairman's Chat within the newsletter for volunteers to take it forward - and got zero response. Previously we have had volunteers offer their services for editing/typesetting, but very few willing to prepare content. Sorry to be so negative, but I don't see how changing the format will alter that.

 

Andy

 

I did offer to take on revising the Handbook or at least collating the information where others may be better advisers. However the stumbling block was the question of attending committee meetings which would be inconvenient for me but Jim thought was essential. One problem with a Handbook is the fast rate of change. Another is how far would you expect it to go on explaining techniques such as etching, 3D printing, Laser Cutting etc. Perhaps the best way forward would be an online web based system where under the various disciplines access could be given to articles which had appeared in the Magazine. It may seem this is basically an index I was thinking of something more structured. Say for example under the classification building freight vehicles there would be an outline of the various techniques and by adding links to articles where the techniques had been used which would illustrate practical examples.

 

I would have to consider how much time I could offer to such a project as since making my offer I have become involved in my local club and am currently treasurer and update the website.

 

Don

[2mm Andy]

I did offer to take on revising the Handbook or at least collating the information where others may be better advisers. However the stumbling block was the question of attending committee meetings which would be inconvenient for me but Jim thought was essential. One problem with a Handbook is the fast rate of change. Another is how far would you expect it to go on explaining techniques such as etching, 3D printing, Laser Cutting etc. Perhaps the best way forward would be an online web based system where under the various disciplines access could be given to articles which had appeared in the Magazine. It may seem this is basically an index I was thinking of something more structured. Say for example under the classification building freight vehicles there would be an outline of the various techniques and by adding links to articles where the techniques had been used which would illustrate practical examples.

 

I would have to consider how much time I could offer to such a project as since making my offer I have become involved in my local club and am currently treasurer and update the website.

 

Don

 

Thanks Don,

 

I don't recall your offer, but it may have been during the short break I took from the committee. It sounds as though Jim thought you were volunteering for the Publications Officer position, as revising the handbook would not necessarily require attendance at committee meetings.

 

At the moment the committee has agreed to mothball the handbook project, but if any other offers of assistance come forward, then that decision could be revisited so that a group could take it forward. It's definitely too much for one person (as Chris, myself and others have found out).

 

Andy