Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Michael Edge said:

Graham didn't enlighten us as to how he cuts the very hard layshaft material. It's this length because that's enough for any of Chris's gearboxes and it's a standard length - he cuts it with hard wire cutters - I replace it with 2mm brass, it won't wear out and it's a lot easier to cut. I've tried cutting the hard steel with a piercing saw but each gearbox costs me a blade (worn out, not broken), cutting with a grinding disc heats everything up far too much, especially the plastic gears....

I've built dozens of these boxes in all configurations and would recommend them for almost anything - as soon as Chris gets back to work....

 

I cut the layshafts to length with a grinding wheel before I put them in.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 8
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Roy Jackson's favourite saying was that all modellers make mistakes. They were not his exact words but if I used them, my time on RMWeb would be cut very short.

 

He went on the say that he could tell the difference between an average modeller and a good one by how they go about putting things right.

 

It was one I took on board and remember every time I make a mess of something.

  • Like 12
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

Graham didn't enlighten us as to how he cuts the very hard layshaft material. It's this length because that's enough for any of Chris's gearboxes and it's a standard length - he cuts it with hard wire cutters - I replace it with 2mm brass, it won't wear out and it's a lot easier to cut. I've tried cutting the hard steel with a piercing saw but each gearbox costs me a blade (worn out, not broken), cutting with a grinding disc heats everything up far too much, especially the plastic gears....

I've built dozens of these boxes in all configurations and would recommend them for almost anything - as soon as Chris gets back to work....

    Very simple cut the layshaft to length before assembling the gearbox with a cutting disc, it doent have to the exact width a couple of mm wider either side is ok . Dont try and cut it in one go , a very simple procedure , that way no heating of the shaft and is a safe procedure.

   The worm should only be fitted once the box is built , and the motor fitted, that ensures the worm is central to the first gear and correctly spaced above the first gear, there is then no binding between the worm and gear .

     All of the above is in the instructions , I am totally amazed at the the comments re the so called  problems of building the HL boxes , they are simply easy to build and cheap to buy and fit , without either the box being on show under the Boiler or even worse filling the cab . It would appear that some people think it is ok to paint the end of the motor  and/or try and hide the motor with the crew, really !! , shades of Triang standards and XO4 times , not for me, that era of modelling standards are long gone and totally unecessary nowdays.

  Assembly time at a guess 30 to 45 minutes , or less once you have built a few , again what is the rush ?? , if you are proffesional add the time to the bill . The saving on the price difference alone would more than cover the time anyway and some . 

 

Enjoy the modelling time, not clock watching and be proud of what you have built.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

Graham didn't enlighten us as to how he cuts the very hard layshaft material. It's this length because that's enough for any of Chris's gearboxes and it's a standard length - he cuts it with hard wire cutters - I replace it with 2mm brass, it won't wear out and it's a lot easier to cut. I've tried cutting the hard steel with a piercing saw but each gearbox costs me a blade (worn out, not broken), cutting with a grinding disc heats everything up far too much, especially the plastic gears....

I've built dozens of these boxes in all configurations and would recommend them for almost anything - as soon as Chris gets back to work....

 

My method for cutting the gear shafts is to mark the steel; a black marker pen helps; then cut the shaft, when held in vice, with a cutting disc in a mini-drill.

 

CJI.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It may help to cheer up 4479 and one or two others (although it may not cheer them up all that much) if I admit to having distorted the ends of worm gears when trying to press them onto, or move them along, armature shafts - and compared to brass ones I've found that it's even easier to mess up the nylon gears that I've been using recently.  

 

Something that I find strange is that the "sweet spot" for meshing worm and pinion (metal or nylon) isn't always where I would instinctively expect it to be, i.e. with everything square and with the worm gear "centralised" / symmetrical in all ways with respect to the pinion. Even when there seems to be just enough clearance at all points in the rotation of the gears, it still seems sometimes to be the case that things run both more freely and more quietly with the worm offset from the "best looking" position.

  • Like 7
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Great - use the (twice as expensive, drop-in) DJH product - it's much quicker.

 

However, if you're NOT a builder of large, ex-LNER (or other) very large locos, be prepared for a great deal of non-prototypical metal to be seen whirling around in front of the firebox.

 

Apparently, whilst the absence of loco lamps is unforgiveable, this mass of mobile mechanicals is virtually invisible!

 

John Isherwood.

Good evening John,

 

I really do need to brush up on my written communication skills!

 

In my naivety, I thought I'd explained (some pages back) how I now fit DJH 'boxes into smaller locos, driving off the rear axle, so one doesn't get 'a great deal on non-prototypical metal to be seen whirling around in front of the firebox'. I took on board Tony Gee's (quite correct) criticisms, and saw the 'error of my ways', thinking I'd explained how. 

 

To think I was once a professional journalist as well.

 

I also need to improve on my photography so that what I'm writing about is visually axiomatic. 

 

1677039118_EMJ609.jpg.6461812271ef8a0a536d82096f81ee57.jpg

 

1150494249_J1710.jpg.8e923ef3df9f82fd590ad73818b57f3d.jpg

 

1930657091_J17weathered01.jpg.88f875fa4f1ffd6f844b88ebf792c9aa.jpg

 

Note to self - Must do better! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening John,

 

I really do need to brush up on my written communication skills!

 

In my naivety, I thought I'd explained (some pages back) how I now fit DJH 'boxes into smaller locos, driving off the rear axle, so one doesn't get 'a great deal on non-prototypical metal to be seen whirling around in front of the firebox'. I took on board Tony Gee's (quite correct) criticisms, and saw the 'error of my ways', thinking I'd explained how. 

 

To think I was once a professional journalist as well.

 

I also need to improve on my photography so that what I'm writing about is visually axiomatic. 

 

1677039118_EMJ609.jpg.6461812271ef8a0a536d82096f81ee57.jpg

 

1150494249_J1710.jpg.8e923ef3df9f82fd590ad73818b57f3d.jpg

 

1930657091_J17weathered01.jpg.88f875fa4f1ffd6f844b88ebf792c9aa.jpg

 

Note to self - Must do better! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

I don't pretend to read all of your - or anyone's - postings, so I must have missed your revised method of applying DJH mechanicals to smaller locos; sorry.

 

I still maintain, though, that for sheer breadth of application and ease of assembly, High Level have it covered.

 

CJI.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A further tip on fitting the worm to the motor shaft without brute force is to run a tapered cutting broach into the worm until it will go half way onto the shaft without being forced.

 

Then a gentle squeeze in the vice, with or without a tube, does the rest. If you cut in too far and are worried about it being fixed well enough, a drop of Loctite or Superglue rescues the job.

 

Works every time.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, micklner said:

    Very simple cut the layshaft to length before assembling the gearbox with a cutting disc, it doent have to the exact width a couple of mm wider either side is ok . Dont try and cut it in one go , a very simple procedure , that way no heating of the shaft and is a safe procedure.

   The worm should only be fitted once the box is built , and the motor fitted, that ensures the worm is central to the first gear and correctly spaced above the first gear, there is then no binding between the worm and gear .

     All of the above is in the instructions , I am totally amazed at the the comments re the so called  problems of building the HL boxes , they are simply easy to build and cheap to buy and fit , without either the box being on show under the Boiler or even worse filling the cab . It would appear that some people think it is ok to paint the end of the motor  and/or try and hide the motor with the crew, really !! , shades of Triang standards and XO4 times , not for me, that era of modelling standards are long gone and totally unecessary nowdays.

  Assembly time at a guess 30 to 45 minutes , or less once you have built a few , again what is the rush ?? , if you are proffesional add the time to the bill . The saving on the price difference alone would more than cover the time anyway and some . 

 

Enjoy the modelling time, not clock watching and be proud of what you have built.

A thought-provoking post, Mick.

 

Thank you. 

 

'It would appear that some people think it is ok to paint the end of the motor  and/or try and hide the motor with the crew, really !! , shades of Triang standards and XO4 times , not for me, that era of modelling standards are long gone and totally unecessary nowdays.'

 

I assume your comment is with regard to a suggestion I posted earlier? If I've got this wrong, then my most sincere apologies. 

 

The model in question (the Q1) now runs really sweetly. I agree, the Portescap motor is very obtrusive, and, for a much better effect, it should be replaced by a smaller motor (and the porcine Portescap fitted inside something with a barn for an interior). However, my available time is not infinite. Yes, those modelling standards should be long gone and totally unnecessary nowadays, but, if I were to charge 'professional' rates to 'put this loco right', then its price would be far more than anyone would be prepared to pay. And, since what it makes is going to CRUK (my time is my donation), then I must be realistic.

 

What I suggested (and I meant it) should militate the obtrusiveness of what you refer to. Easy to do, takes moments and, in my opinion, a useful dodge.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Tony,

 

I don't pretend to read all of your - or anyone's - postings, so I must have missed your revised method of applying DJH mechanicals to smaller locos; sorry.

 

I still maintain, though, that for sheer breadth of application and ease of assembly, High Level have it covered.

 

CJI.

Thanks John,

 

I can't post both 'thanks' and 'agree' (to your second sentence), hence this response.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

A thought-provoking post, Mick.

 

Thank you. 

 

'It would appear that some people think it is ok to paint the end of the motor  and/or try and hide the motor with the crew, really !! , shades of Triang standards and XO4 times , not for me, that era of modelling standards are long gone and totally unecessary nowdays.'

 

I assume your comment is with regard to a suggestion I posted earlier? If I've got this wrong, then my most sincere apologies. 

 

The model in question (the Q1) now runs really sweetly. I agree, the Portescap motor is very obtrusive, and, for a much better effect, it should be replaced by a smaller motor (and the porcine Portescap fitted inside something with a barn for an interior). However, my available time is not infinite. Yes, those modelling standards should be long gone and totally unnecessary nowadays, but, if I were to charge 'professional' rates to 'put this loco right', then its price would be far more than anyone would be prepared to pay. And, since what it makes is going to CRUK (my time is my donation), then I must be realistic.

 

What I suggested (and I meant it) should militate the obtrusiveness of what you refer to. Easy to do, takes moments and, in my opinion, a useful dodge.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Tony,

     Sorry no not the Q1 , I personally find it frustrating at times reading  your comments to others re very minor detail missing or not  applied 100% correctly, on so many build's shown on this thread.

      You then show some of your own builds, with on very rare occasions have much worse detail or the lack off on show. In particular is the use where not appropriatte for the kit being built , by promoting use of DJH boxes for them . This has been commented on now on previous  numerous occasions by many people including myself, this is totally  ignoring the price differences debate.

      This photo is the one I was refering in particular , when criticised re the fitting  you claimed a bit of paint and crew would hide the gearbox and it would be ok (sorry I said motor, before I found the photo again). In fact the gearbox is even harder to hide, due to the large side frames which are even larger than the motor.

J17.jpg.6dcc22c839a3d98f6b0125cbe0153755.jpg

 

     With a HL box or a multi box with a smaller motor, the gearbox/motor would be totally hidden in the Firebox, leaving the backhead intact and the cab are free, also the underneath of the boiler  . Ok a smaller motor would reduce its pulling power , most on here do not have the layouts to worry about that problem anyway.

      Surely that is current build standards for most modellers on here and in general , which we all should be aiming at today , in better times the HL boxes were easily obtainable at well, hopefully again soon. I need three at the moment to finish builds .

 

Each to their own methods.

 

Best wishes

 

Mick

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My preference was for a Portescap 1219, i’ve built very few chassis’s but so far apart from one, they’ve all worked tolerably well.

0CF8DD6F-FFD8-4ED7-97BF-AD1FE9043F9B.png.44b23550dd0bf3c784c2b3d629c040fd.png
 

I like the High Level boxes, this is the first one I’ve assembled. I found it easy and logical. I cut the shaft (slowly) with a razor saw using a similar technique to fitting a crankpin.

88B4178E-7B61-4F79-83A5-DAA8ED6AB51C.png.3aa47b64b5ff6a999422aa12009065a1.png
By that I made a paper barrier at the end face of the motor, and then wrapped the motor with Tamiya masking tape to prevent any debris getting into any part of the motor. I can’t recall how I fitted the worm.

EB334396-DD0A-4861-9B0A-30B9553B4201.jpeg.ecbb84fa9aa4583f2f0ddf718775f9bd.jpeg
The finished article.

  • Like 16
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, micklner said:

Tony,

     Sorry no not the Q1 , I personally find it frustrating at times reading  your comments to others re very minor detail missing or not  applied 100% correctly, on so many build's shown on this thread.

      You then show some of your own builds, with on very rare occasions have much worse detail or the lack off on show. In particular is the use where not appropriatte for the kit being built , by promoting use of DJH boxes for them . This has been commented on now on previous  numerous occasions by many people including myself, this is totally  ignoring the price differences debate.

      This photo is the one I was refering in particular , when criticised re the fitting  you claimed a bit of paint and crew would hide the gearbox and it would be ok (sorry I said motor, before I found the photo again). In fact the gearbox is even harder to hide, due to the large side frames which are even larger than the motor.

J17.jpg.6dcc22c839a3d98f6b0125cbe0153755.jpg

 

     With a HL box or a multi box with a smaller motor, the gearbox/motor would be totally hidden in the Firebox, leaving the backhead intact and the cab are free, also the underneath of the boiler  . Ok a smaller motor would reduce its pulling power , most on here do not have the layouts to worry about that problem anyway.

      Surely that is current build standards for most modellers on here and in general , which we all should be aiming at today , in better times the HL boxes were easily obtainable at well, hopefully again soon. I need three at the moment to finish builds .

 

Each to their own methods.

 

Best wishes

 

Mick

Thanks Mick,

 

Understood.

 

Still, simple dodges can work.......................

 

25469301_MillholmeQ1figure.jpg.14a09a96f89da718ae56b5363dc522e7.jpg

 

Admittedly, the figure's a bit naff..................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Of possible interest,

 

A few latest moving shots of Retford and Little Bytham................

 

 

The Retford footage reveals the B17 I fitted EM frames to (now complete), a similar V2 and A2 (the A3 and the A4 are Roy Jackson's work).

 

The Little Bytham footage shows some of my latest locos in action.

 

All images, both static and moving, always reveal any less-than-perfect aspects of models. On Retford, the V2 momentarily 'twitches' (I need to investigate) and on LB, the Black Five makes a 'groan' on passing over a point (its bogie-holding shouldered screw just caught on the point's actuating steel rod, protruding through the tie-bar); since fixed. 

 

Thanks to Howard Smith for editing this footage. 

 

 

Somewhat disturbing images of the North Box operator at the start of the Retford footage. Who let him in?

 

The footage does show how various bumps have developed in Retford's track over the years. Some of the boards and track must be getting on for 30 years old now. What is notable though is how well the trains run over it all. 

 

I see the King's Cross-Glasgow set appears in its early days before it gained its catering cars. It is complete now.  The Hornby Gresley BCK in the 8. 0 am Newcastle-King's Cross has now been replaced by a Bachmann Thompson one.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have followed the gearbox discussion with interest over the last few pages.  

 

There’s a whiff of the ‘modelling’ versus RTR argument here, in this case regarding just the motor/gearbox component of locomotive building.  I guess, financial and ability arguments aside, it comes down to how important it is to you to be able say ‘I made that’, and the sense of satisfaction thus derived.  

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

All the NER electrics (apart from the two Quayside shunters and Bo+Bo No.11) were stored after the Newport - Shildon line was dewired. They remained until about 1951, the Bo+Bos were intended to be used on the Woodhead scheme, No.11 having been rebuilt as a banking loco. They always worked on 1500v DC but the intention had been to use 3rd rail in places such as Waverley station - to this end No.13 had shoe junction boxes (identical to the ones on the Quayside shunters) fitted, the shoe beams would have been on the bogies. No.11 survived into the 1960s as 26510/Departmental 100 at Ilford car sheds, never having worked on the MSW. Some of the technology from the Bo+Bos, including the articulated bogies, was perpetuated in the EM1s.

The two Quayside shunters, one of which is the only survivor, were very different and had nothing in common with the mainline locos. They worked on 600v DC, 3rd rail or overhead and used the Tyneside electrified lines to get to and from the depots. They were essentially an American Westinghouse design, built under licence by Brush.


We're the two 600v Bo-Bo locomotives 'quayside shunters'?
I understood that they were used for trip workings between Trafalgar Yard and the Quayside through the 1-in-25 horseshoe bend tunnel linking the two.

First trip each day would take a steam locomotive down to the Quayside for shunting on the quayside itself.
The bow and later pantograph collectors were used in the upper yard to collect from a tramway style overhead. The third rail collection shoes were used, for reasons of clearance, through the tunnel.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, micklner said:

Tony,

     Sorry no not the Q1 , I personally find it frustrating at times reading  your comments to others re very minor detail missing or not  applied 100% correctly, on so many build's shown on this thread.

      You then show some of your own builds, with on very rare occasions have much worse detail or the lack off on show. In particular is the use where not appropriatte for the kit being built , by promoting use of DJH boxes for them . This has been commented on now on previous  numerous occasions by many people including myself, this is totally  ignoring the price differences debate.

      This photo is the one I was refering in particular , when criticised re the fitting  you claimed a bit of paint and crew would hide the gearbox and it would be ok (sorry I said motor, before I found the photo again). In fact the gearbox is even harder to hide, due to the large side frames which are even larger than the motor.

J17.jpg.6dcc22c839a3d98f6b0125cbe0153755.jpg

 

     With a HL box or a multi box with a smaller motor, the gearbox/motor would be totally hidden in the Firebox, leaving the backhead intact and the cab are free, also the underneath of the boiler  . Ok a smaller motor would reduce its pulling power , most on here do not have the layouts to worry about that problem anyway.

      Surely that is current build standards for most modellers on here and in general , which we all should be aiming at today , in better times the HL boxes were easily obtainable at well, hopefully again soon. I need three at the moment to finish builds .

 

Each to their own methods.

 

Best wishes

 

Mick

 

I have to agree - when the absence of lamps or 'wiggly pipes' offends, but a da*ned great lump of mechanicals in the cab isn't worth worrying about!

 

There really are some conflicting standards, or a selective 'Nelson's Eye' at play here.

 

I know that you plead pressing time, Tony - but perhaps the same reason applies to the lack of lamps and 'wiggly pipes'?

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

G'Day Folks

 

Talking of c0ck ups, any one up for showing there's. I'm in the process of building a J5, using one of 'Chris P Bacons' J50 chassis, all my bodies are plastic, and I experiment as I go along, on this one I decided to laminate the runningplate, (silly boy) and somehow I made the cab to big ! This is what I ended up with, a new cab and runningplate have been built.

 

Terry (aka manna) 

DSCF5679.JPG

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I have to agree - when the absence of lamps or 'wiggly pipes' offends, but a da*ned great lump of mechanicals in the cab isn't worth worrying about!

 

There really are some conflicting standards, or a selective 'Nelson's Eye' at play here.

 

I know that you plead pressing time, Tony - but perhaps the same reason applies to the lack of lamps and 'wiggly pipes'?

 

John Isherwood.

Good morning John,

 

I suppose we all have different things which 'offend' (though, without getting too political, no matter what one stands for, says or does these days seems to be offensive to someone in society. What's next, the likes of Winston Churchill, Lord Nelson, Oliver Cromwell, etc, having their nameplates removed? Sorry, too political!).

 

I agree that 'selective blindness' can become apparent as well. I also agree that cabs should be completely clear of motor/gearbox components, but, in the case cited, they're much less-obtrusive (in my opinion) than a lack of lamps on model locos. As locos bowl by on Little Bytham (unless they're visitors), then the correct lamps must be displayed (though some freight codes do seem to overlap). If one watches the recent moving images I've shown on here, the lamps are highly-visible, though nobody can see what's exactly in a loco's cab (other than some crew members are evident). One might just be able to see some wiggly pipes as well. 

 

Do I plead 'pressing time'? It's probably more of a case of indolence, where a made-up gearbox can be dropped into a set of frames in, literally, ten minutes. A made-up gearbox which works perfectly as well.

 

Tangentially, is there a link between this gearbox discussion and RTR/kit-building? Someone might, with justification, take pride in having put together a sweetly-running gearbox, only to be asked by the next observer, 'Ah, but did you actually cut the gears yourself?' 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, manna said:

G'Day Folks

 

Talking of c0ck ups, any one up for showing there's. I'm in the process of building a J5, using one of 'Chris P Bacons' J50 chassis, all my bodies are plastic, and I experiment as I go along, on this one I decided to laminate the runningplate, (silly boy) and somehow I made the cab to big ! This is what I ended up with, a new cab and runningplate have been built.

 

Terry (aka manna) 

DSCF5679.JPG

Good morning Terry,

 

I thought about pressing the 'funny' button, but opted instead for the more-sensitive one. Unusual for me!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only ever built a couple of gearboxes, both Branchlines, and both the locos they went into run as sweet as a nut, though the Airfix/Comet 4F has been displaced by a Bachmann one and the motor/gearbox will get recycled into something else. The other, a Millholme Z tank involved fitting the box into an already-built chassis that had to be partially dismantled, so there was much more than the gearbox that could have gone wrong! 

 

I was very struck by the benefit of instant accurate meshing vs. "the old (pre-etching) way" of offering a motor up to a single gear, praying it worked properly first time and spending an age fine tuning the mounting if it didn't..... 

 

Beginners' luck, inborn knack at a black art (me, really?), or just putting a good product together carefully in accordance with the maker's instructions? I've HL gearbox kits awaiting a couple of loco kits in the to-do pile and don't see anything to frighten me. 

 

Tony (W) is quite happy to buy-in the skills of the lady at DJH to ensure consistency, save time (and possibly bypass a job he doesn't especially enjoy) others consider it an unnecessary extra expense.  

 

Reading through both sides of the discussion, do we really "know we are born" on this subject? This is such a First World problem!

 

John

 

 

 

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 4
  • Agree 7
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A request for some information, please?

 

I've flicked through my resources but can't find what I want. Does anyone have the formation of 'The Flying Scotsman' in the summer of 1928, when it first ran non-stop, please? 

 

I know the catering would be a triplet, but was the hairdressing car included? I assume the normal cars would be all-door Gresleys on frames with turnbuckle trussing.

 

Thanks in anticipation. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

A further tip on fitting the worm to the motor shaft without brute force is to run a tapered cutting broach into the worm until it will go half way onto the shaft without being forced.

 

Then a gentle squeeze in the vice, with or without a tube, does the rest. If you cut in too far and are worried about it being fixed well enough, a drop of Loctite or Superglue rescues the job.

 

Works every time.

 

I've certainly found with worm gears that seem to be very tight, that the creation of some sort of "lead-in" in the first part of the bore helps a great deal with fitting.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning All ,

Interesting debate regarding the gearboxes, looking at the very good photos that LNER 4479 put into the discussion may I offer a few points.

I have only come across the high level gearbox this last year and now have five locos running with them , so yes very pleased with the results, I know LNER4479 made it without any instructions , so a couple of points in the instructions include 1) the fitting of the remote attachment onto the pips on the front of the box (temporarily) this helps with checking the squareness.

2) Running the piece of 1mm wire across the frame.

I also with a larger drill put a chamfer where the shoulder of the axle bush is going , this helps the bush to sit square before soldering.

After always cutting the ldler shafts with a cutting disc , I found on the last one that I just used a junior hacksaw, maybe they have changed it to mild steel!

I open up the worm till it slides onto the motor shaft and loctite it into position, and talking of worms when I was in engineering it was practice to chisel the start of the thread until the full thickness of the thread was attained.

The only problem I have now is unavailability of the high level gearboxes, I did look at the djh website this week, and have decided to wait a little longer till Chris is up and running.

 Dennis 

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, D.Platt said:

Morning All ,

Interesting debate regarding the gearboxes, looking at the very good photos that LNER 4479 put into the discussion may I offer a few points.

I have only come across the high level gearbox this last year and now have five locos running with them , so yes very pleased with the results, I know LNER4479 made it without any instructions , so a couple of points in the instructions include 1) the fitting of the remote attachment onto the pips on the front of the box (temporarily) this helps with checking the squareness.

2) Running the piece of 1mm wire across the frame.

I also with a larger drill put a chamfer where the shoulder of the axle bush is going , this helps the bush to sit square before soldering.

After always cutting the ldler shafts with a cutting disc , I found on the last one that I just used a junior hacksaw, maybe they have changed it to mild steel!

I open up the worm till it slides onto the motor shaft and loctite it into position, and talking of worms when I was in engineering it was practice to chisel the start of the thread until the full thickness of the thread was attained.

The only problem I have now is unavailability of the high level gearboxes, I did look at the djh website this week, and have decided to wait a little longer till Chris is up and running.

 Dennis 

 

 

Thanks!

 

1) the fitting of the remote attachment onto the pips on the front of the box (temporarily) this helps with checking the squareness.

Ah - I did wonder what they were! and the 'remote attachment' pieces you refer to. I can see how that would be useful in the construction.

 

2) Running the piece of 1mm wire across the frame.

Yes, spotted that and I will be adding that piece of wire just to strengthen the thing up

 

A question for you (and any others) - how do you fix the layshaft into position? Given that it's steel then a considerable amount of heat would have to be introduced to obtain a decent solder joint ... by which time no doubt the plastic gears would have melted! More Loctite? (other (super)glues are available ...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...