Buckjumper Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) Hang on, my leg is quite long enough already, thank you! Haha! I wasn't kidding, well at least, not completely... I heard of using liquid lead in condoms over on the old 7mm Yahoo group about 10 or 12 years or so ago when problems with PVA/lead and exploding boilers were first being reported, and a number of builders thought it to be a safe alternative. Quite a few of the locos I've built have a sausage of liquid lead in the boiler, but of course the strawberry angle was entirely tongue-in-cheek! Happy New year Chaz! I'm hoping to get over to see you and DG at St. Albans - a 40 minute drive across county is as close to a local show as it gets for me. Edited December 31, 2015 by Buckjumper Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
railwayrod Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Hi Chaz. Loose lead shot would cause problems if you wagon is fitted with Slater's sprung axle boxes. I am not sure how it would react in a wagon fitted with 3 point suspension. Rod Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted December 31, 2015 Author Share Posted December 31, 2015 Hi Chaz. Loose lead shot would cause problems if you wagon is fitted with Slater's sprung axle boxes. I am not sure how it would react in a wagon fitted with 3 point suspension. Rod Sometimes I can be very stupid. As I was working on the new Slater's BR 12T van with it upside down to deal with the brakes I noticed the large gap between the bottom of the doors and the floor. The insulated van has these same gaps! I was so taken up with checking the corners and the roof joints that I completely overlooked them. Liquid lead would pour out. I was hoping to avoid the need for glueing in bits of flashing in between the frame members but it looks like I am stuck with this task - HO, HUM. That's maximum points to you Simon. Now, where's the humble pie... Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted December 31, 2015 Author Share Posted December 31, 2015 Haha! I wasn't kidding, well at least, not completely... I heard of using liquid lead in condoms over on the old 7mm Yahoo group about 10 or 12 years or so ago when problems with PVA/lead and exploding boilers were first being reported, and a number of builders thought it to be a safe alternative. Quite a few of the locos I've built have a sausage of liquid lead in the boiler, but of course the strawberry angle was entirely tongue-in-cheek! Happy New year Chaz! I'm hoping to get over to see you and DG at St. Albans - a 40 minute drive across county is as close to a local show as it gets for me. And a happy new year to you to! I note from your profile that you have a new workshop - so have you got over your flood? If you do go to the St Albans show do please come and have a chat. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted December 31, 2015 Author Share Posted December 31, 2015 More detail work on the BR 12T van. I use 6 second superglue, applied with a piece of wire to fix the brass parts in place. I find it easier to fit the brass bracket that fits under the centre of the doors if a piece is cut from the top flange of the solebar. I Put the bracket in place and marked each side with a scalpel before cutting the piece away. The other two brackets are easier to fit if their tops are trimmed a little. I grip the bracket in a toolmaker's clamp. I mark a line across the top with a scriber about 1.5mm from the end as a guide. The top can then be filed back, using the scribed mark as a guide. To fit the bracket I put the pin on the back into the hole in the solebar with the bracket on its side. I put Superglue on the top of the bracket and then rotate it with tweezers so that the glued top is against the floor and push it home. The next photo' shows all three brackets in place. To fix the tie-bars in place I fit them but then ease them away so the pins are in the holes but not pushed fully home. I apply superglue to the pins and then quickly snap them fully in by squeezing them with snipe-nosed pliers. It's nearly finished. Just the brake-hoses, the brake safety loops, the roof and the chalk-boards on the ends to fit. Chaz 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 This may be heresy but... You may have noticed that the BR 12T van has been built without compensation or springing. I used to compensate wagons as a matter of course but after acquiring a second-hand van which had a rigid chassis and seeing how that performed on Dock Green I came to the conclusion that the extra work involved is unnecessary - it solves a non-existant problem. Of course the position is different with loco's - I consider that these should (must?) be compensated. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted January 1, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) This may be heresy but... You may have noticed that the BR 12T van has been built without compensation or springing. I used to compensate wagons as a matter of course but after acquiring a second-hand van which had a rigid chassis and seeing how that performed on Dock Green I came to the conclusion that the extra work involved is unnecessary - it solves a non-existant problem. Of course the position is different with loco's - I consider that these should (must?) be compensated. Chaz I would agree with you on this. I think with the locos it is in part the improvement in pick-up. Perhaps your experiments with stay alive may show sufficient improvement to negate the benefits of compensation in that respect, although I would still prefer to spring or compensate locos. Don Edited January 1, 2016 by Donw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 I would agree with you on this. I think with the locos it is in part the improvement in pick-up. Perhaps your experiments with stay alive may show sufficient improvement to negate the benefits of compensation in that respect, although I would still prefer to spring or compensate locos. Don I take your point Don, but with loco's I want to do it all. I want to make stalls a thing of the past. So... graphite on all rails all crossings polarity switched all loco's compensated or sprung - with at least 6 pickups (with the exception of 0-4-0s of course) DCC with stay-alives In the absence of a battery power system ("dead rails") with good sound (at least as good as DCC now provides) that's probably as much as we can do. My kit built 0-4-0ST Peckett "Susan" conforms to that spec' and is capable of doing a full weekend's show with no stalls. Chaz 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simond Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I have a piece of plate glass, about 18" by 12. I think it was a shelf from a long-forgotten cupboard. It's pretty flat... If the wheels all touch, it'll probably be fine. I suspect that 9' & 10' WB wagons are fine rigid, longer ones may benefit from compensation. I suppose it depends on the twist in the track. I do have a rigid loco. My first essay in 7mm was a Springside small prairie, and it works just fine, built as the designer intended. I'm of the opinion that it does give smoother, better running to spring or compensate, so all the others I've built (and the couple I've purchased) are so fitted, but I can't say categorically that it makes a difference. I built my POWSides 1366 pannier with springing. I still have the 1361 ST to build, with the intent of compensating it, for a back-to-back comparison. I've had the ST kit for about 8 years, so I'd advise not holding your breath pending a conclusion. Happy New Year Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 I suspect that 9' & 10' WB wagons are fine rigid, longer ones may benefit from compensation. I suppose it depends on the twist in the track. Simon Twist in the track? What are you suggesting? No, you are quite right - it doesn't matter how careful you are some changes in cross level are probably inevitable. FS O gauge flanges are probably our salvation - let us leave the S7 people to worry about compensation or springing - I suspect it is de riguer for them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeatherKay Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 let us leave the S7 people to worry about compensation or springing - I suspect it is de riguer for them. Well, actually, no it isn't. More than 20 years ago Best Beloved built a rigid 8-coupled tender loco*, and it trundles along S7 track work nicely. A friend of ours used it as the test loco on a layout he was working on, reasoning that if the rigid chassis ran the permanent way was built to a sufficiently high standard. Of course, most S7 followers like to spring or compensate their locos and stock. As with so many things, it's personal preference and experience. * I should come clean and admit the loco used bog standard Slater's wheelsets opened to the S7 back-to-back, so that may be a factor. ;o) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckjumper Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) let us leave the S7 people to worry about compensation or springing - I suspect it is de riguer for them. Yes and no. It's a conversation which has come up before among my S7 friends at our monthly meet, and the general consensus is that under the right conditions, i.e. properly weighted stock and impeccable joinery and track laying - especially at baseboard joints - should reduce the need to spring or compensate. A S7 Brit with a solid chassis was happy enough on one of our layouts 'Love Lane' and 4-wheel stock under the right conditions seem to be OK. All my S7 sprung stock is passive - i.e. the bearings ride on the upper limit and have a 0.5mm downward movement to cope with track irregularities whereas others prefer active springing where there is both up and downward movement. There was an interesting experiment in MRJ #101 and #103 which had otherwise identical rigid, compensated (tested both movable and fixed-end first) and sprung 4-wheel wagon in 0F and S7 negotiating turnouts on a gentle slope, and the results were presented in tables. Interesting reading if you can access a copy - mine are still packed away, but I do remember that there was a significant difference between sprung and rigid in 0F, and the sprung S7 wagon gave a 100% perfect performance. However, theories and controlled-condition tests are all well and good, but in practice if a layout runs perfectly whatever you chose to do, then who's to argue with that? *Cross-posted with Heather's reply. Edited January 1, 2016 by Buckjumper Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simond Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I do recall the MRJ article. For a well built, relatively new, indoor or exhibition layout, cross-levels are unlikely to be an issue, they'll exist of course, but hopefully be of negligible small magnitude. A couple of pals have/had garden layouts, and that's another pan of haddock entirely, as baseboards twist & dip over the years, and as the sun warms the track - here, I feel some help to keep wheels and rail in contact may be useful, if not actually necessary. I'm guessing anyone doing S7 in the garden would use 100% sprung or compensated stock? Best Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 My freight stock is a mixture of rigid, compensated and sprung. The only 'problem' wagon is the sprung Slaters 4 wheel tank because it is too light. Not much I can do about it because of the open frame design. My whitemetal ABS SR 25T brake van is rigid and has a scale WB of 16ft and behaves itself. I gave up with the Parkside hornblock design years ago and just build them rigid and square on a piece of plate glass. I agree with Chaz, let the S7 boys worry about SWB wagon suspension. Locos are a different matter and my sprung/compensated models run better than my rigid ones which were early builds. Not much help with a finished tanker but wouldn't the place to put lead be inside the tank? You could drill a hole in the underneath, insert lead, seal the hole. Your white-metal ABS SR 25T brake van will weigh substantially more than any plastic wagon - I imagine it would take quite a bump to derail it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 I'm guessing anyone doing S7 in the garden would use 100% sprung or compensated stock? Simon I'm guessing anyone doing S7 in the garden might need psychiatric help... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simond Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 A) before B) during C) after D) all of the above Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 Yes and no. It's a conversation which has come up before among my S7 friends at our monthly meet, and the general consensus is that under the right conditions, i.e. properly weighted stock and impeccable joinery and track laying - especially at baseboard joints - should reduce the need to spring or compensate. A S7 Brit with a solid chassis was happy enough on one of our layouts 'Love Lane' and 4-wheel stock under the right conditions seem to be OK. All my S7 sprung stock is passive - i.e. the bearings ride on the upper limit and have a 0.5mm downward movement to cope with track irregularities whereas others prefer active springing where there is both up and downward movement. There was an interesting experiment in MRJ #101 and #103 which had otherwise identical rigid, compensated (tested both movable and fixed-end first) and sprung 4-wheel wagon in 0F and S7 negotiating turnouts on a gentle slope, and the results were presented in tables. Interesting reading if you can access a copy - mine are still packed away, but I do remember that there was a significant difference between sprung and rigid in 0F, and the sprung S7 wagon gave a 100% perfect performance. However, theories and controlled-condition tests are all well and good, but in practice if a layout runs perfectly whatever you chose to do, then who's to argue with that? *Cross-posted with Heather's reply. "impeccable joinery and track laying - especially at baseboard joints" - Hmm. I'm sure that I couldn't work to such a standard. The implied tolerances would be very unforgiving. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckjumper Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 "impeccable joinery and track laying - especially at baseboard joints" - Hmm. I'm sure that I couldn't work to such a standard. The implied tolerances would be very unforgiving. Ha! No, me neither, that's exactly why I spring my stock which helps smooth out any irregularities. However, we're in the very fortunate position of having a professional carpenter in our group who is happy to design and build the baseboards for other member's layouts. I'm guessing anyone doing S7 in the garden might need psychiatric help... Our group's other S7 layout, West Mersea, which has been on the backburner for a couple of years while the smaller and (soon to be) exhibitable Love Lane (suburban Essex Hainault Loop extension c1950s) is finished, has an outdoor section, but that is brought inside after running sessions. I know how much maintenance a permanent outdoor OF layout needs and I shudder to think of the time, effort and expletives expended to keep an outdoor S7 layout running. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
81A Oldoak Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 "impeccable joinery and track laying - especially at baseboard joints" - Hmm. I'm sure that I couldn't work to such a standard. The implied tolerances would be very unforgiving. Impeccable track-laying would be incorrect for the colliery branch on Cwm Bach and most industrial and light railway scenes so some form of compensation, whether beam or sprung, would be required for locos to ensure reliable current collection for as long as we have the antediluvian method of supplying power via rails. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) The Insul-meat van - BR white insulated van from a Slater's kit - got some more lead today. I abandoned my idea of pouring in liquid lead - even if I had sealed up the gap between the doors and the floor I had rather gone off the idea (and I haven't used a condom since I was a student). Before the additional ballast the van weighed 79gm. I cut some bits of lead flashing and stuck them in amongst the frame members with UHU. The weight increased to 141gm - which feels "chunky". (In comparison the body shell and underframe moulding of a JLTRT SR van together weigh 184gm.) Now that I have a reliable way of fitting the tie-bars between the W irons I suppose I ought to fit them to this van - and the other four vans that are running around without them... Chaz Edited January 1, 2016 by chaz 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 That white van has the most abysmal paint job. Try not to look! It will get the full grime treatment later, starting with a spray of Dullcote. White wagons often looked even dirtier than their bauxite cousins so weathering is a must. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HealeyMills Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Hi Chaz, Thank you for sharing your builds here in a step-by-step manner. It's great to see and will be helpful to those of us who have never built a wagon before.... but intend to (someday). Cheers Lee Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 2, 2016 Author Share Posted January 2, 2016 Hi Chaz, Thank you for sharing your builds here in a step-by-step manner. It's great to see and will be helpful to those of us who have never built a wagon before.... but intend to (someday). Cheers Lee Lee, Wagons should present you with few problems after your experiences building diesel locos - rather fewer tricky bits in a 4W van than there are in a class 40 (or as I would call it an English Electric type 4 - no TOPS codes when they were green). Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted January 2, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 2, 2016 The Insul-meat van - BR white insulated van from a Slater's kit - got some more lead today. I abandoned my idea of pouring in liquid lead - even if I had sealed up the gap between the doors and the floor I had rather gone off the idea (and I haven't used a condom since I was a student). Before the additional ballast the van weighed 79gm. I cut some bits of lead flashing and stuck them in amongst the frame members with UHU. The weight increased to 141gm - which feels "chunky". (In comparison the body shell and underframe moulding of a JLTRT SR van together weigh 184gm.) Now that I have a reliable way of fitting the tie-bars between the W irons I suppose I ought to fit them to this van - and the other four vans that are running around without them... Chaz That is how I weight the opens Chaz. I have found the amount of lead you can fit in is quite sufficient. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HealeyMills Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 (edited) HI Chaz, Thank you for your words of encouragement. I do intend to purchase a wagon of sorts soon and have a go but I must admit the under frame gear always looks daunting.... something you make look so easy! Something that has got me scratching my head at the moment is 'wagon compensation'. I'm still not totally up to speed with how this is done yet, but I note how you haven't found the need for that on your railway. Lee, Wagons should present you with few problems after your experiences building diesel locos - rather fewer tricky bits in a 4W van than there are in a class 40 (or as I would call it an English Electric type 4 - no TOPS codes when they were green). Chaz Except 40106 and 40122 How I wish I'd been around a few years earlier to see the fleet in green, running as you say as EE Type 4's. Watching your work with interest... and learning!! Cheers Lee Edited January 2, 2016 by HealeyMills Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now