Jump to content
 

Farish Jinty, 4F, Ivatt 2MT - 2FS & DCC/stay-alive. Also NGS Hunslet Industrial


Izzy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just reviving this thread after getting to grips with a 4F conversion using the Jinty conversion parts (the MR livery "landship train" pack one). I had put it away in a drawer after getting frustrated with not being able to get the quartering correct and getting it to run without binding.

 

After several hours (much too late) last night I was getting increasingly frustrated at not being able to get it more than "OK-ish" in terms of binding, despite all of the wheelsets having been set using the quartering jig, and repeatedly checked using it. Then it occurred me to that the coupling rods had become slightly curved along their length. Some efforts to straighten them out improved it a bit, but then a test run after another quartering tweak bound the wheels again, and the rods visibly curved again. 

 

It occurred to me that I had one of the old etches for replacement Farish rods in my gloat box. I soldered the "Jinty\4F" ones up and they were a perfect fit for length, as Izzy said above. I didn't particularly notice the holes being too big - perhaps equivalent to normal rods opened out a touch. Popping these rods on transformed the running straight away! Rather than binding slightly on each revolution, the chassis (with worm temporary popped out) now freely coasts down a plank with barely any hesitation and pushes along by finger without any noticeable tightness - perhaps not 100% but a good 98%!

 

It seems to be a real mistake to have included such flimsy rods on what is, after all, meant to be a beginners' conversion kit. The conversion kit rods are two layers of NS, but both are half etched, so the main body of the rod is only one thickness of the metal (which itself feels thinner than the normal 0.25mm?). Considering how easily these deformed, and what a difference it made to running, I think the old Farish replacement ones are infinitely better (even if they are over scale). Even if the conversion kit rods are kept as small as they are, can the design not be changed to make the rear face full thickness, rather than half etched? I can't see any reason to take this strength away - there certainly isn't any need in terms of clearance over sandboxes etc. 

 

I sent the tender wheels to Gordon Solloway to be turned down, but I found that the pinpoint bearing cups\bearings didn't leave enough clearance for the wheels once opened out to gauge, and they rub far too much. So I've just ordered a set of 8.5mm tender wheels from Shop 3 to make up an inside framed chassis for the tender, as per Izzy's conversion above. Re-routing the motor power connections into the body seems like a great idea too - I'll try the same, although my previous attempts to tap into mazak haven't been that successful! 

 

Justin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reviving this thread after getting to grips with a 4F conversion using the Jinty conversion parts (the MR livery "landship train" pack one). I had put it away in a drawer after getting frustrated with not being able to get the quartering correct and getting it to run without binding.

 

After several hours (much too late) last night I was getting increasingly frustrated at not being able to get it more than "OK-ish" in terms of binding, despite all of the wheelsets having been set using the quartering jig, and repeatedly checked using it. Then it occurred me to that the coupling rods had become slightly curved along their length. Some efforts to straighten them out improved it a bit, but then a test run after another quartering tweak bound the wheels again, and the rods visibly curved again. 

 

It occurred to me that I had one of the old etches for replacement Farish rods in my gloat box. I soldered the "Jinty\4F" ones up and they were a perfect fit for length, as Izzy said above. I didn't particularly notice the holes being too big - perhaps equivalent to normal rods opened out a touch. Popping these rods on transformed the running straight away! Rather than binding slightly on each revolution, the chassis (with worm temporary popped out) now freely coasts down a plank with barely any hesitation and pushes along by finger without any noticeable tightness - perhaps not 100% but a good 98%!

 

It seems to be a real mistake to have included such flimsy rods on what is, after all, meant to be a beginners' conversion kit. The conversion kit rods are two layers of NS, but both are half etched, so the main body of the rod is only one thickness of the metal (which itself feels thinner than the normal 0.25mm?). Considering how easily these deformed, and what a difference it made to running, I think the old Farish replacement ones are infinitely better (even if they are over scale). Even if the conversion kit rods are kept as small as they are, can the design not be changed to make the rear face full thickness, rather than half etched? I can't see any reason to take this strength away - there certainly isn't any need in terms of clearance over sandboxes etc. 

 

I sent the tender wheels to Gordon Solloway to be turned down, but I found that the pinpoint bearing cups\bearings didn't leave enough clearance for the wheels once opened out to gauge, and they rub far too much. So I've just ordered a set of 8.5mm tender wheels from Shop 3 to make up an inside framed chassis for the tender, as per Izzy's conversion above. Re-routing the motor power connections into the body seems like a great idea too - I'll try the same, although my previous attempts to tap into mazak haven't been that successful! 

 

Justin

 

I'm not really fmilair with the Jinty rods from the conversion, but if both sides are fluted by etching, my long dormant maths tells me that should not make that much difference to their strength. The real railways flute rods because it reduces weight without reducing strength as much, as they are still full thickness at top and bottom.

 

What might be an issue is the exact material. There is more than one 'nickel-silver', however most railway modellers dont take it into account. 

 

As to them being thinner than 0.25mm, I think that can be measured? 

 

Chris

Edited by Chris Higgs
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really fmilair with the Jinty rods from the conversion, but if both sides are fluted by etching, my long dormant maths tells me that should not make that much difference to their strength. The real railways flute rods because it reduces weight without reducing strength as much, as they are still full thickness at top and bottom.

 

What might be an issue is the exact material. There is more than one 'nickel-silver', however most railway modellers dont take it into account. 

 

As to them being thinner than 0.25mm, I think that can be measured? 

 

Chris

 

I was typing from memory, but have just gone into the garage and got the callipers out to check (working from home has its advantages ...)

 

The etch is indeed 0.25mm, but does definitely feel bendier and springier than most Association etches. Perhaps a different grade of nickel silver then?

 

The kit etched rods are fluted on the front, but entirely half-etched, aside from full thickness "bearings", on the reverse. The total thickness of the main parts of the rods when soldered up is 0.38mm.

 

The old Farish replacements rods come out as 0.6mm soldered up. And the etch itself definitely feels a lot less flexible\more rigid.

 

Justin

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The kit etched rods are fluted on the front, but entirely half-etched, aside from full thickness "bearings", on the reverse. The total thickness of the main parts of the rods when soldered up is 0.38mm.

 

 

Sounds like a trick to create both fluted and plain rods from one etch (depending on which way around you put them on).

 

I have to say that the plain rods on my chassis etches have the same overall thickness. Normally I don't go for any sort of combaination rods as plain rods tend to have a fishbelly shape, whereas fluted ones are generally straight.

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reviving this thread after getting to grips with a 4F conversion using the Jinty conversion parts (the MR livery "landship train" pack one). I had put it away in a drawer after getting frustrated with not being able to get the quartering correct and getting it to run without binding.

 

After several hours (much too late) last night I was getting increasingly frustrated at not being able to get it more than "OK-ish" in terms of binding, despite all of the wheelsets having been set using the quartering jig, and repeatedly checked using it. Then it occurred me to that the coupling rods had become slightly curved along their length. Some efforts to straighten them out improved it a bit, but then a test run after another quartering tweak bound the wheels again, and the rods visibly curved again. 

 

It occurred to me that I had one of the old etches for replacement Farish rods in my gloat box. I soldered the "Jinty\4F" ones up and they were a perfect fit for length, as Izzy said above. I didn't particularly notice the holes being too big - perhaps equivalent to normal rods opened out a touch. Popping these rods on transformed the running straight away! Rather than binding slightly on each revolution, the chassis (with worm temporary popped out) now freely coasts down a plank with barely any hesitation and pushes along by finger without any noticeable tightness - perhaps not 100% but a good 98%!

 

It seems to be a real mistake to have included such flimsy rods on what is, after all, meant to be a beginners' conversion kit. The conversion kit rods are two layers of NS, but both are half etched, so the main body of the rod is only one thickness of the metal (which itself feels thinner than the normal 0.25mm?). Considering how easily these deformed, and what a difference it made to running, I think the old Farish replacement ones are infinitely better (even if they are over scale). Even if the conversion kit rods are kept as small as they are, can the design not be changed to make the rear face full thickness, rather than half etched? I can't see any reason to take this strength away - there certainly isn't any need in terms of clearance over sandboxes etc. 

 

I sent the tender wheels to Gordon Solloway to be turned down, but I found that the pinpoint bearing cups\bearings didn't leave enough clearance for the wheels once opened out to gauge, and they rub far too much. So I've just ordered a set of 8.5mm tender wheels from Shop 3 to make up an inside framed chassis for the tender, as per Izzy's conversion above. Re-routing the motor power connections into the body seems like a great idea too - I'll try the same, although my previous attempts to tap into mazak haven't been that successful! 

 

Justin

 

Justin,

 

As Chris has said, the rods are the same thickness as those in Chris's conversion etches (and those used in the 64xx conversion), and I'm not aware of any problems with those. The etches will have been sourced from PPD or PEC, so the material is unlikely to be significantly different from other etches stocked by the Association.

 

Did you open out the crankpin holes in the original rods? I don't know what size they were etched at, but the intention was for them to be reamed out slightly larger than usual (due to the slop in the Farish chassis).

 

I think the improvement you saw with your use of the Farish conversion rods will have been mainly been down to the larger crankpin holes in these rods, making them more tolerant of slight errors in the quartering.

 

Turning to the tender wheels, did you ask Gordon to reset the pinpoints? That should help with the problem of the wheels rubbing too much on the frame. Again, I've seen a few conversions of these locos with turned-down wheels, and haven't heard of any problems.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I got through a couple of sets of these rods and wondered what I was doing when converting my 4F. I couldn't understand what I was doing wrong until Jerry Clifford suggested opening out the crankpin holes more than you would for a 2mm chassis. Running still isn't perfect because if anything I was too cautious with opening out one of the holes.

 

Simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I got through a couple of sets of these rods and wondered what I was doing when converting my 4F. I couldn't understand what I was doing wrong until Jerry Clifford suggested opening out the crankpin holes more than you would for a 2mm chassis. Running still isn't perfect because if anything I was too cautious with opening out one of the holes.

 

Simon

 

The crankpin holes need opening out a bit more than usual, I suspect due to the slop in the Farish chassis. Ive done three Jintys and four 4Fs and all run very sweetly. The rods are a bit fine and do need careful handling but look all the better for it.

 

Jerry

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hate to lose the spindly nature of the replacement rods that lift the farish model significantly.

 

That said, it would be nice to have a self jigging etch like the 64xx or a Harris style set of alignment holes if it's possible to tweak the etch?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hate to lose the spindly nature of the replacement rods that lift the farish model significantly.

 

Another few measurements. None of the chassis kits by Chris that I have has rods half etched on the rear as well as fluted on the front face.

 

Both the J94 and J39 have rods that, soldered up, have a thickness of 0.6mm over the rods (plus extra layer over the bearings). The J94 rods measure up as being a shade under 1mm high, and the J39 a shade over 0.7mm.

 

The Jinty conversion etch rods are 0.7mm high by 0.38mm thick.

 

The older etch Jinty rods are 0.75mm high by 0.6mm thick.

 

I really don't think the 0.6mm thick rods appear any less of an improvement over the Farish ones. It's the height of the rod, as well as the bulk around the bearings, that really stand out, rather than the thickness.

 

If there is a need for the choice of fluted or non fluted rods, then surely it would only cost a few pennies worth of etch space to include both separately, with solid back halves, on any revision of the etch?

 

I had actually tried opening up the holes on the kit etch when I was tweaking the quartering to begin with. I'd say the holes on both new and old sets of rods are equally open - not sloppy but not totally tight. I can't avoid the conclusion that has been virtually impossible to get the bends out of the thin rods once they were bent, and repeated attempts to tweak just made the metal soften up further.

 

Justin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another few measurements. None of the chassis kits by Chris that I have has rods half etched on the rear as well as fluted on the front face.

 

Both the J94 and J39 have rods that, soldered up, have a thickness of 0.6mm over the rods (plus extra layer over the bearings). The J94 rods measure up as being a shade under 1mm high, and the J39 a shade over 0.7mm.

 

The Jinty conversion etch rods are 0.7mm high by 0.38mm thick.

 

The older etch Jinty rods are 0.75mm high by 0.6mm thick.

 

I really don't think the 0.6mm thick rods appear any less of an improvement over the Farish ones. It's the height of the rod, as well as the bulk around the bearings, that really stand out, rather than the thickness.

 

If there is a need for the choice of fluted or non fluted rods, then surely it would only cost a few pennies worth of etch space to include both separately, with solid back halves, on any revision of the etch?

 

I had actually tried opening up the holes on the kit etch when I was tweaking the quartering to begin with. I'd say the holes on both new and old sets of rods are equally open - not sloppy but not totally tight. I can't avoid the conclusion that has been virtually impossible to get the bends out of the thin rods once they were bent, and repeated attempts to tweak just made the metal soften up further.

 

Justin

 

The 03/04 and the 2251 etches both have one full thickness layer and one half-etched layer on the rods. As noted earlier, the fluting makes very little difference to the strength of the rod.

 

I guess if you wanted rods with two full thickness layers (ignoring the fluting as above), you could buy a second etch and laminate the two together - the etches (shop item 3-220) are only £1-50. Incidentally, the Farish Jinty conversion kit has been deleted from the shop lists (although the components are available individually).

 

I believe the 3-205 Farish rods are now out of stock. Producing a new etch has been discussed recently by the products team. 

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 03/04 and the 2251 etches both have one full thickness layer and one half-etched layer on the rods. As noted earlier, the fluting makes very little difference to the strength of the rod.

 

I fear there might be some talking at crossed purposes here!

 

Completely agreed that 1 full thickness layer + 1 fluted by half etching layer, as on Chris's chassis kits, is totally fine, and seems strong enough.

 

But the Jinty kit etch is 1 layer fluted by half etching + 1 layer entirely half etched aside from the bearings. That means the 0.38mm measurement I quoted is over the fluting.

 

A re-run of the original Farish conversion etch would be very welcome. I've seen several examples of it being used to replace the rods and cranks on new Farish 08s (without converting to 2mm) which I'd also like to try at some point.

 

Justin

Edited by justin1985
Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Jinty kit etch is 1 layer fluted by half etching + 1 layer entirely half etched aside from the bearings. That means the 0.38mm measurement I quoted is over the fluting.

 

 

Yes, however it is the width over the fluting that will contribute the most to the strength. 

 

I'm stll betting on some issue with the material. PPD are not PEC and there is no reason to assume they use the same grade of nickel silver. Unfortunately the only man I knew who would have been able to comment on this with any authority is no longer with us.

 

Chris

Edited by Chris Higgs
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hate to lose the spindly nature of the replacement rods that lift the farish model significantly.

 

That said, it would be nice to have a self jigging etch like the 64xx or a Harris style set of alignment holes if it's possible to tweak the etch?

 

Surely if the rods have holes in they are self-jigging?

 

My rods fold over to self jig but that is just because I am too lazy to get out some drills or whatever to align them before soldering!

 

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I believe the 3-205 Farish rods are now out of stock. Producing a new etch has been discussed recently by the products team. 

 

Andy

 

Having struggled with this aspect of the rod sizes I would personally welcome a re-run of these if produced exactly as they are now but perhaps with smaller crankpin holes at the now standard 0.5mm size. These can always been enlarged if needed and the rods thinned down to suit. The multiple OS cranks are particularly useful for someone as cack-handed as I am who often needs several attempts at things to get them right. I envy those who can use the correctly sized rods - it's not through lack of trying - but it just seems beyond me.

 

best regards,

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having struggled with this aspect of the rod sizes I would personally welcome a re-run of these if produced exactly as they are now but perhaps with smaller crankpin holes at the now standard 0.5mm size. These can always been enlarged if needed and the rods thinned down to suit. The multiple OS cranks are particularly useful for someone as cack-handed as I am who often needs several attempts at things to get them right. I envy those who can use the correctly sized rods - it's not through lack of trying - but it just seems beyond me.

 

best regards,

 

Izzy

 

My understanding is that these were produced by Bill Bedford and cannot be produced now. New artwork is going to be needed. But surely some of them are obsolete now as the locos they fitted are long gone.

 

EDIT: my mistake, it is 2-304 that was done by Bill Bedford. 3-205 is by Bob Jones.

 

Although, fluted rods on a 57XX??

 

 

Chris

Edited by Chris Higgs
Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear there might be some talking at crossed purposes here!

 

Completely agreed that 1 full thickness layer + 1 fluted by half etching layer, as on Chris's chassis kits, is totally fine, and seems strong enough.

 

But the Jinty kit etch is 1 layer fluted by half etching + 1 layer entirely half etched aside from the bearings. That means the 0.38mm measurement I quoted is over the fluting.

 

A re-run of the original Farish conversion etch would be very welcome. I've seen several examples of it being used to replace the rods and cranks on new Farish 08s (without converting to 2mm) which I'd also like to try at some point.

 

Justin

 

To be absolutely clear (or as clear as I can), the 03/04 and 2251 have one full thickness and one half-thickness of etch making up each rod. There are no flutes on these.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

My understanding is that these were produced by Bill Bedford and cannot be produced now. New artwork is going to be needed. But surely some of them are obsolete now as the locos they fitted are long gone.

 

EDIT: my mistake, it is 2-304 that was done by Bill Bedford. 3-205 is by Bob Jones.

 

Although, fluted rods on a 57XX??

 

 

Chris

 

I realise that 3-205 duplicates the complete etched chassis kits, 57xx, J94, 08, 4F, Jinty, (not sure what 1109 is - the generic tank?) but they are a good backstop for anyone that might muck-up the rods with the kits (like me) or wants slightly beefier alternatives. I think the design of them is such that any of the rods can be produced fluted or plain. Just reverse the way the pairs are backed together. 

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise that 3-205 duplicates the complete etched chassis kits, 57xx, J94, 08, 4F, Jinty, (not sure what 1109 is - the generic tank?) but they are a good backstop for anyone that might muck-up the rods with the kits (like me) or wants slightly beefier alternatives. I think the design of them is such that any of the rods can be produced fluted or plain. Just reverse the way the pairs are backed together. 

 

Izzy

 

1109 is the GP tank and therefore the 94XX as well.

 

And those 57XX rods then are definitely good for a SR N class.

 

Chris

Edited by Chris Higgs
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I thought an update dealing with the fitting of a tantalum based stay-alive for the Jinty might be of some interest following a post with a shot of it posted on the workbench thread.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65499-whats-on-your-2mm-work-bench/page-81 post#2022

 

Unlike the 4F with its 12 wheel current collection the Jinty has been prone to stalling now and then when the track or wheel treads were less than really clean. So thoughts were directed to fitting a stay-alive to give it a bit of help.

The unit was based around those developed by Nigel Cliffe :

 

http://www.2mm.org.uk/articles/DCC%20Stay%20Alive/index.html

 

and using the (e-bay) links provided by Nick Mitchell to source the parts needed:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65499-whats-on-your-2mm-work-bench/page-81

 

I had to substitute flat SMD 100R resistors because the 100R mini-MELFS weren't available.

 

In order to fit the tantalum pack beneath the cab opening level I had to remove the plasticard fitting originally used to sit the decoder on and make a new one using thinner sheet so that a open box arrangement could house the decoder underneath the tantalums and still give the decoder a little room to breathe. I know some decoders are wrapped and I may be being over-cautious here but I like to ensure they have one exposed surface to aid cooling, however minimal that might be.

 

230427839_TSA06.jpg.d95f29c612ff582bc95ee8d83c913c3b.jpg

 

882224782_TSA07.jpg.2adc54a94735ca0c5603be2d454760ab.jpg

 

1710285681_TSA08.jpg.66772da6c8af4a698a8b28345428c45c.jpg

 

Three of the tantalums was all I could fit within the cab space but that has proved quite enough to give the Jinty all the help it seems to need. I found I was able to replace the loco crew where they were before and the pack isn't visible.

 

1447195448_TSA09.jpg.f26eddc8bdd9c25e7b6eccd3a7fabbf3.jpg

 

1185090357_TSA10.jpg.f6c198b73de014f07778eb949f1d412d.jpg

 

 

What is really clear is that I need to attend to the chimney (now done since the shots were taken), and give the body a decent finish i.e. a work-a-day weathering job. This is awaiting it's turn in the queue.......

 

cheers,

 

Izzy

Edited by Izzy
restore images
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
  • RMweb Premium

A Farish 2MT conversion.

 

 

Recently a Farish 2MT came into my possession, a loco that had started to be converted to 2FS and with all the neccesary parts to accomplish this. The etched kit from Nigel Hunt for the motion and tender frames along with the conversion parts produced by the 2mmSA, wheels, muffs, bearings etc. However, taking on a loco which has been started/part built by another can often be a long road as usually no one works in quite the same way even with identical parts, for we all have our own preferred standards and ways of doing things. This meant stripping down the pony truck and tender chassis both of which had been assembled and starting again.

 

I did this to provide a bit more side-play with the wheels and place the tender chassis spacers in different places for an alternative method of fixing in position in the tender. The latter as part of the desire to use both a DCC decoder and a home brew tantalum stay-alive pack. I also added a second layer to the chassis frames to beef them up a bit, having distorted them when taking it all apart…..some 10thou brass sweated on and then filed to the same profile,

 

Finding during the conversion that I had to make a few more changes to how it was all accomplished I thought I would describe what I did in case it was of assistance to anyone else attempting it. I don’t have any ‘before starting’ shots as it came partly dis-assembled and I didn’t think putting it all back together just to then take it apart again anything but pointless.

 

I’ll start with the tender.

 

As with the 4F the top half of the tender pops off. This reveals the PCB to which a 6-pin decoder can be fitted. As I wanted to fit a wired Zimo MX617 along with a home-brew tantalum stay-alive pack this was removed and ditched. Unless lighting is fitted this is my normal modus operandi with RTR pcb’s. The screw posts were cut off and two pcb strips – 2mm point timbering - laid across for connections. At the front to go to the motor, via the separate wires direct from the motor, and further back the track feed from the tender chassis. The track collection from the loco is fed to the tender chassis using the loco/tender drawbar again as per the 4F. While converting the loco it stayed like this for testing under DC, the decoder plus stay-alive being added after the basic loco chassis was proven to work okay sans the cylinders/valve gear. I try always to build locos in stages, testing at each one before moving on to the next.

 

1283149974_RMwebIvatt2mt03.jpg.6a799a7592df688484ace1d5478fea79.jpg

 

1139375124_RMwebIvatt2mt04.jpg.b3137e2e11df7248dee4dcef513d6d70.jpg

 

1389225128_RMwebIvatt2mt05.jpg.f58524b0d57be3fb3571148a7a7b09c4.jpg

 

The Zimo decoder, one of the current £20 ‘budget’ range, has solder pads to ease adding a stay-alive and also has the latest version firmware which has been default tuned to better suit ‘out-of-the-box’ the newer coreless motors now being used, and which the 2MT has. Strangely I found I still got a more consistent performance by setting the motor cv’s to the base standard ones recommended by Zimo, cv9 to 51 and cv56 to 133, the auto configuration – the cv’s both set to 0 - not being quite as good I thought, the constant adjustment of the base parameters seeming to give an uneven inconsistent performance. This is being extremely picky, it’s still heads above anything else (except CT).

 

The tender design means there isn’t a lot of room inside so the MX617 sits at the front on top of this with the stay-alive pack of 3×220uf caps laid crossways at the back. Masking tape is used as insulation. This is my standard insulation material these days. Easy to apply and remove and replace as needed. Easy and cheap to obtain as well.

 

1666884608_RMwebIvatt2mt06.jpg.a183fd049eacd0d14ae7b4a882bccc85.jpg

 

Three 16v tantalums (D size) with 16v zenner diode left  and 100ohm smd resistor with diode right. Just fits width & height wise.

 

427645170_RMwebIvatt2mt07.jpg.deed3b27140c9bd42a893fb3c1da300c.jpg

 

604695090_RMwebIvatt2mt09.jpg.962e9a08235c9c004435bc7c7fd47f70.jpg

 

The tender chassis is fitted with simpson springs to assist with current collection. The bearings were just drilled 1.6mm to produce a sloppy fit and a bit of axle movement. The muff width set to allow some space between them and the bearings for the spring wire. My usual crude/simple way of doing things but it works, which is all that really matters to me.

 

1739456716_RMwebIvatt2mt08.jpg.9bb13a72374ee66848e6c144100ee805.jpg

 

The moulded coal in the tender covers a cast weight and is very high. So I took this all out, drilled out the sloping internal moulding – why it was done like this when it couldn’t be seen I have no idea – and fitted flat lead weight to a lower height then covered with a sprinkling of coal glued into place, some Woodland scenic stuff same as the Jinty/4F. I also made up some tender window bars from brass wire and sheet. Again a bit crude but I couldn’t figure out a way to drill the holes needed straight into the body. I feared it would just ruin it all if it went awry, which was highly likely.

 

1821416908_RMwebIvatt2mt28.jpg.036cd620582883b8bb9ee6a6b7a775f9.jpg

 

Points to note are that later loco builds starting with the Darlington built locos added handrails to the rear sides of the tenders and had rear ladders that stopped at the top of the buffer beams. The Farish has the wrong combination, handrails with longer ladders so these need chopping shorter. I also replaced the handrails with finer wire, 9thou guitar. They still look a bit thick. For earlier locos of course the handrails need removing and the holes filling.

 

2131568172_RMwebIvatt2mt29.jpg.5ff9375b6274d5b6912befce58b9fc8d.jpg

 

451152946_RMwebIvatt2mt30.jpg.4110ceda770dc800e402e3e274922c3c.jpg

 

 

I'll deal with the loco next post

 

Izzy

 

 

Edited by Izzy
restore images
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Izzy changed the title to Farish Jinty & 4F - 2FS & DCC - with stay-alive. also Ivatt 2MT
  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Anyway, hope this of help to someone

 

Most definitely!

I have one of these on my ever-expanding to-do pile, and you've given me lots of ideas to pinch.

I especially like your way of springing the pony truck.

Thank you.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It most certainly is a useful thread Bob. The pickups you made for the 2MT are a characteristically elegant solution to a problem I've been pondering for weeks: thanks for putting me out of my misery! Can you remember what you used? Is it the PB wire that DG loops are made of? (he asks  hopefully having loads of the stuff...)

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...