The beast: A L & Y 0-8-0 in 2mm finescale

[Chris Higgs]

 

Did the high-sided wagons last until the early 1950's? You'll do an etched chassis too?

 

Nig H

 

Err, not sure. In the L&Y wagons book it mentions that BR issued an edict in 1951 that they should be condemmed (presumably replaced by BR 16T minerals) so looks like some at least must have lasted until then, but not for long after. Apparently I need Volume 2 for the full story.

 

I have two L&Y etched underframes done (10'6" and 12'), but the high-siders will need a special one as their V hangers were unique - one symettirc, the other asymetric. Not totally decided, but probably the solebars will be part of the body, with the etch doing the rest.

 

Now, what you really need are those L&Y bogie coal hoppers.

 

Chris

Edited September 20, 2016 by Chris Higgs

[Nig H]

Here are some pics of 52870, now completed after weathering. I thought it was all going pear shaped near the end as the running was poor, but after connecting the frames of the loco chassis to the tender frames so that I got electrical pickup from the loco to, the loco ran quite nicely. I had to increase the gap between the tender and the loco by about an extra millimetre otherwise it would only go in straight lines.

 

Just remembered - I'd like to acknowledge the help with prototype information Barry Lane has given me. Much appreciated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I couldn't resist this pic - the beauty and the beast!

 

 

Nig H

Edited September 22, 2016 by Nig H

[Worsdell forever]

I couldn't resist this pic - the beauty and the beast!

 

L & Y 0-8-0 52870 (16).JPG

 

 

Absolutely superb model, but just remind us, which of those are you describing as a beauty?

[Nig H]

Absolutely superb model, but just remind us, which of those are you describing as a beauty?

Thanks WF, its the Super D, silly!!

 

Nig H

[Chris Higgs]

Here are some pics of 52870, now completed after weathering. I thought it was all going pear shaped near the end as the running was poor, but after connecting the frames of the loco chassis to the tender frames so that I got electrical pickup from the loco to, the loco ran quite nicely. I had to increase the gap between the tender and the loco by about an extra millimetre otherwise it would only go in straight lines.

 

Just remembered - I'd like to acknowledge the help with prototype information Barry Lane has given me. Much appreciated.

 

L & Y 0-8-0 52870 (7).JPG

 

L & Y 0-8-0 52870 (9).JPG

 

L & Y 0-8-0 52870 (11).JPG

 

L & Y 0-8-0 52870 (14).JPG

 

 

 

I couldn't resist this pic - the beauty and the beast!

 

L & Y 0-8-0 52870 (16).JPG

 

Nig H

 

Seriously, did the L&Y have a bigger loading gauge than the LNWR? It doesn't even look to the same scale.

[Nig H]

Seriously, did the L&Y have a bigger loading gauge than the LNWR? It doesn't even look to the same scale.

I think they were the same height -wise (13' 6").

 

The very large diameter, high pitched boiler of the Lanky one is deceptive. The Super D is almost dainty by comparison. I haven't got my Model Railways 1973 drawing so I can't easily check the dimensions of 49426 at the moment, although if I assume that the cab remained unchanged height wise as the prototype evolved then drawings of the earlier classes  (B, C, etc)  in the E. Talbot books  seem to agree with the dimensions of the model reasonably closely.

 

Nig H

[Branwell]

Here are some pics of 52870, now completed after weathering. I thought it was all going pear shaped near the end as the running was poor, but after connecting the frames of the loco chassis to the tender frames so that I got electrical pickup from the loco to, the loco ran quite nicely. I had to increase the gap between the tender and the loco by about an extra millimetre otherwise it would only go in straight lines.

 

Just remembered - I'd like to acknowledge the help with prototype information Barry Lane has given me. Much appreciated.

 

L & Y 0-8-0 52870 (7).JPG

 

L & Y 0-8-0 52870 (9).JPG

 

L & Y 0-8-0 52870 (11).JPG

 

L & Y 0-8-0 52870 (14).JPG

 

 

 

I couldn't resist this pic - the beauty and the beast!

 

L & Y 0-8-0 52870 (16).JPG

 

Nig H

 

Nicely mucked up, Nigel

[Chris Higgs]

I think they were the same height -wise (13' 6").

 

The very large diameter, high pitched boiler of the Lanky one is deceptive. The Super D is almost dainty by comparison. I haven't got my Model Railways 1973 drawing so I can't easily check the dimensions of 49426 at the moment, although if I assume that the cab remained unchanged height wise as the prototype evolved then drawings of the earlier classes  (B, C, etc)  in the E. Talbot books  seem to agree with the dimensions of the model reasonably closely.

 

Nig H

 

Looking along the bricks in the background, the chimney of the L&Y is at least two courses higher than the G2.

 

Chris

[Nig H]

Looking along the bricks in the background, the chimney of the L&Y is at least two courses higher than the G2.

 

Chris

I tried measuring both the locos (not easy in my opinion) and compared the results with the prototype dimensions.

 

For the Super D, the height to the top of the chimney from rail level was 26.1mm, the prototype dimension being 13' 1" which is 26.167mm in 2mm scale, so about right. For the cab height, the figures were model c. 25mm, prototype c. 12' 6", or 25mm in 2mm scale, so about right.

 

For 52870, the height to the top of the chimney from rail level was 27.2mm. The chimney I made is 0.5mm too high (I thought I'd get away with it), so the height should be 26.7mm. The prototype figure is 13' 4.5" or 26.75mm in 2mm scale, so the discrepancy is down to my error. The cab height is 25.45mm, and the prototype dimension is 12' 7.5", or 25.25mm in 2mm scale, so quite close.

 

So, I'd say both the models are reasonably accurate and close to prototype dimensions except for the error in the chimney, subject to possible measuring errors. As I mentioned, I didn't find it easy to measure the models. As regards chimney heights, the difference in the models is 1.1mm (27.2mm - 26.1mm).

 

Nig H

[richard i]

I tried measuring both the locos (not easy in my opinion) and compared the results with the prototype dimensions.

 

For the Super D, the height to the top of the chimney from rail level was 26.1mm, the prototype dimension being 13' 1" which is 26.167mm in 2mm scale, so about right. For the cab height, the figures were model c. 25mm, prototype c. 12' 6", or 25mm in 2mm scale, so about right.

 

For 52870, the height to the top of the chimney from rail level was 27.2mm. The chimney I made is 0.5mm too high (I thought I'd get away with it), so the height should be 26.7mm. The prototype figure is 13' 4.5" or 26.75mm in 2mm scale, so the discrepancy is down to my error. The cab height is 25.45mm, and the prototype dimension is 12' 7.5", or 25.25mm in 2mm scale, so quite close.

 

So, I'd say both the models are reasonably accurate and close to prototype dimensions except for the error in the chimney, subject to possible measuring errors. As I mentioned, I didn't find it easy to measure the models. As regards chimney heights, the difference in the models is 1.1mm (27.2mm - 26.1mm).

 

Nig H

so 3 inches in real term over 13 plus feet. My eye in real life could not probiblly spot that discrepancy, to have the equiverlant in 2mm is outstandig on scratch builds. I doff my cap to you .

Richard

[Chris Higgs]

I tried measuring both the locos (not easy in my opinion) and compared the results with the prototype dimensions.

 

For the Super D, the height to the top of the chimney from rail level was 26.1mm, the prototype dimension being 13' 1" which is 26.167mm in 2mm scale, so about right. For the cab height, the figures were model c. 25mm, prototype c. 12' 6", or 25mm in 2mm scale, so about right.

 

For 52870, the height to the top of the chimney from rail level was 27.2mm. The chimney I made is 0.5mm too high (I thought I'd get away with it), so the height should be 26.7mm. The prototype figure is 13' 4.5" or 26.75mm in 2mm scale, so the discrepancy is down to my error. The cab height is 25.45mm, and the prototype dimension is 12' 7.5", or 25.25mm in 2mm scale, so quite close.

 

So, I'd say both the models are reasonably accurate and close to prototype dimensions except for the error in the chimney, subject to possible measuring errors. As I mentioned, I didn't find it easy to measure the models. As regards chimney heights, the difference in the models is 1.1mm (27.2mm - 26.1mm).

 

Nig H

 

When measuring the height of models, I tend to place them on the track, then take a piece of card/paper and rest it on the rails. Then you can for example draw the cab roof line onto the card, take it away and use a ruler. For the chimney you would need a second piece of card or similar to project the height onto the card.

 

Trying to measure directly with a ruler is hopeless. You can just about manage something with the bit that projects out of the back of digital calipers that is used for measuring depths

 

Chris

Edited September 28, 2016 by Chris Higgs

[2mm Andy]

When measuring the height of models, I tend to place them on the track, then take a piece of card/paper and rest it on the rails. Then you can for example draw the cab roof line onto the card, take it away and use a ruler. For the chimney you would need a second piece of card or similar to project the height onto the card.

 

Trying to measure directly with a ruler is hopeless. You can just about manage something with the bit that projects out of the back of digital calipers that is used for measuring depths

 

Chris

Sounds like there might be an opening here to produce a 3d printed/etched locomotive height gauge.....

 

Fantastic loco Nigel - the weathering has really brought it to life. Are you coming to the 2mmSA AGM?

 

Andy

 

(edit to add missing smilie)

Edited September 28, 2016 by 2mm Andy

[Chris Higgs]

Sounds like there might be an opening here to produce a 3d printed/etched locomotive height gauge...  

 

Fantastic loco Nigel - the weathering has really brought it to life. Are you coming to the 2mmSA AGM?

 

Andy

 

It would be easy enoughj to etch a plate with lines on it to measure height. However it's hardly something one does every day. I did try and measure a Farish Warship recently as I was convinced it sat too high.

 

Looks like Nigel to coming to win the Groves. Provided the judges don't mark him down for that out-of-gauge chimney...

 

Chris

[queensquare]

Sounds like there might be an opening here to produce a 3d printed/etched locomotive height gauge...  

 

 

Andy

Excellent idea, you could call it a ruler! :-))

 

Jerry

[Nig H]

so 3 inches in real term over 13 plus feet. My eye in real life could not probiblly spot that discrepancy, to have the equiverlant in 2mm is outstandig on scratch builds. I doff my cap to you .

Richard

Hello Richard,

 

Thanks, but I hope my measuring is accurate or the models may not be as close as I think. In some ways 3", or 0.5mm can be a lot to be out by. It can affect the relative proportions of something like a chimney quite a lot depending on the other dimensions so for instance if a Princess Royal chimney is too high or wide by half a mil, its probably quite noticeable. To my eyes, the chimney on 52870 looks OK. maybe I should have gone to Specsavers!

 

 

 

Sounds like there might be an opening here to produce a 3d printed/etched locomotive height gauge...  

 

Fantastic loco Nigel - the weathering has really brought it to life. Are you coming to the 2mmSA AGM?

 

Andy

Hello Andy,

 

Thanks. Yes' I'll be at the AGM - hotel and train all booked. See you there.

 

It would be easy enoughj to etch a plate with lines on it to measure height. However it's hardly something one does every day. I did try and measure a Farish Warship recently as I was convinced it sat too high.

 

Looks like Nigel to coming to win the Groves. Provided the judges don't mark him down for that out-of-gauge chimney...

 

Chris

 

It did occur to me that the loco was out of gauge because of the chimney error. Maybe I'll turn the driving wheels down a bit..., nah maybe not.

 

 

Nig H

[Jon Fitness]

..and in real life, regardless of sizes, both locos were vastly superior to their supposed replacement!

 

JF

[John lewsey]

Hi Nigel can I have one please

Edited September 28, 2016 by John lewsey

[Hendreladis]

Always uncomfortable being the first at the party and very conscious that subsequent guests will have far more to offer but here goes. Let me say at the outset that I have built a couple of Nigel's chassis kits. They are great. My comments on the instructions etc. are in no way intended as a criticism but offered in the spirit of the invitation we all received to contribute. I haven't finished the LYR 2-4-2Ts I bought last year yet so can't afford to aggravate him too much as I'll inevitably need help with them.

 

Like the rest of us I perved over the etch when it arrived from Nigel. Indeed a thing of beauty. I was not going to do much more than fondle it wistfully for a while before putting it back in the gloat box but somehow it ended up in my 'to do' bag instead. I sat down yesterday to see if I could bodge a GWR 517 out of the association 14XX chassis and was rightfully excited to be 'getting there' after only about 90 minutes when I realised that I had ordered the wrong wheels. The other option, chopping up a couple of 57XX chassis kits to move the driven wheel to the back to make some Buffalos didn't appeal so I thought I'd just 'look' at the Beast. A cursory glance convinced me that I'd just have to wave it about a bit and it would all fall together . . . hmmm.

 

There are some considerations to bear in mind. I tend to travel around a bit so sticking something as convoluted as thing is likely to be challenging. I maintain a minimal number of tools in one of those cool bags for sandwiches available from pound shops. It contains all that I need if not all that I'd like/want. Inevitably the approach compromises construction here and there. Please bear that in mind with some of the finishing. I have reached the stage where I'd rather shout 'yay, it runs' than fret over trying to match the standards of likes of Greenwood/Hunt/Watson etc. only to achieve nothing so please be gentle with me.

 

So on to the etch. Lovely bit of nickel silver just as expected. When I started cutting parts out it seemed that the alloy was a bit softer than, say, the association etches or a Worsley. Admittedly my 99p bargain shop cutting mat doesn't help. Might as well use a piece of mature cheddar and I regret investing in it but Ammanford does have some wonderful shops. The metal is soft though.

 

Obviously started with the loco chassis. Read the instructions as suggested. A few omissions - push out the rivets that define where the cylinder bolts to the frames, no mention of cross drilling the muffs but given the likely purchaser of something as eclectic as this I think Nigel can be forgiven.

 

A pic is attached that shows that the etching, whilst more than adequate, is a bit inconsistent. The rectangles with rivet detail that slot into the front of the frames are not etched right through (the back shows that the artwork registered correctly) whilst other parts look as though they have been over-etched. The lack of a slot makes it more of a faff to solder in the gusset that goes within. I hope that the rivet detail on the smokebox 'pops' once the paint as applied. At the moment the rivet detail looks a bit washed out.

 

Let me say that I am wary of the spacer system. The usual approach of using a piece of PCB across the frames allows a great big gob of solder to be left demonstrating a suitably mechanical joint. Creating the spacers from sheet and insulating pads invites two concerns from me; (a) bending the spacer into a perfect 'L' allows the risk of the joint skewing slightly affecting squareness and (b) sweating the pcb between the frames means that I have to trust that the fixing has overcome my ineptitude and that there really is a strong bond. I suppose I could add a third and say that subsequently breaking such a bond and re-doing it if you get it wrong is a pain. The two part built Raithby 4F kits I bought on ebay attest that I am not the only one to find that out.

 

Because of the nature of assembly I had to resort to the assembly jig. Or put another way I had to actually do the job properly and follow instructions. Hate doing that. The Higgs kits have that lovely little frame that makes it so much simpler. Still, following the instructions and using the jig does work. Just takes a bit longer. 

 

I only carry a piece of Tufnol to ensure flatness and the pic shows that a rubber band stops parts rolling off into oblivion while manipulating the soldering iron.  I do have some H section wheels with me of the right size so I'll stick them in anon and see how it rolls.

 

Putting in the 'top' spacer over the gearbox was a pain. Even though I bent it over a square and it looks true it would fit between the top cheeks of pcb without a bit of butchery. I had hoped to insert all spacers 'gunged in' with fluxite before soldering to ensure squareness but that top spacer kept distorting things. In the end I soldered up the spacers between the wheels then bodged the errant spacer. I'll know for sure once the wheels are in.

 

The top spacer also has some parts attached to it. had they been removed I would almost certainly have lost them so I chopped the spacer down as a mini sprue. That picture will reflect some localised dodgy etching on the sheet. Not a problem. You will also have noted that I have not cut some parts from the frames in the assembled chassis. Had I done so they'd have been lost by now. 

 

Because of my misgivings over the spacer method - individuals spacers may be out of square, not sure they'll bond to the mainframes flawlessly etc. - I used a bit of wood to allow a bit more time with the iron to relax the assembled spacers as they were secured. That allowed the individual assemblied to rest plumb with the side. Hopefully the pcb wasn't cooked and delaminated.

 

After about three hours of wresting the main chassis was assembled. Next stage was to inspect all of the mini pcb pads to ensure that no solder had flashed over the filling and caused a short. I recently treated myself to some Vallorbe files (to go with my 99p cutting mat) so that wasn't too onerous. But it was tedious.

 

The tender was a dead easy in comparison. I ordered the wrong wheels for that too but hopefully I can get it rolling and build the superstructure by this time next week.

 

My only grumble?? I have no real interest in the real thing - I really do just want to play trains - so I lack sufficient knowledge of what all the twiddly bits are on the etch. Nigel supplies a wealth of detail on the prototype but I WILL be posting questions on here looking for explanations of these parts as the build progresses. In a perfect world someone will annotate the etch to set me straight.   

 

I had to pack everything up in anticipations of a seven hour car journey today. having removed some parts the etch was a bit flippy-floppy so I chopped it down. 

 

As expected, however, Nigel has done us all a favour. Great design and definitely buildable. If only he would do an Aberdare. That's a proper loco.

 

Pics below. No idea how to integrate them within the text.

 

 

[nick_bastable]

good luck your a braver man than I

 

Nick

[Chris Higgs]

On the Nickel-Silver alloy, I'd be a bit surprised if it differs from the Association etches as Nigel I think uses PEC the same as I do. Unless he used PPD this time? That being said, PEC do actually have diffferent kinds of nickel-silver and they even changed my order once without asking me. I was very surprised to get etches back where the half-etched components hasd a patterned matt finish.

 

Nigel doing a GWR loco though? Now you are dreaming.

 

Chris

[Chris Higgs]

 

> Let me say that I am wary of the spacer system. The usual approach of using a piece of PCB across the frames allows a great > big gob of solder to be left demonstrating a suitably mechanical joint.

 

Don't be decieved. The weak point of the joint in both systems is the PCB delaminating. Hopefully our big blobs of solder won't have caused this to happen. I have unfortunately found that newer batches of Association spacer strips are more prone to delamination than stuff I have had in my glaot box for 25 years.

 

Chris

Edited January 29, 2017 by Chris Higgs

[Nig H]

Always uncomfortable being the first at the party and very conscious that subsequent guests will have far more to offer but here goes. Let me say at the outset that I have built a couple of Nigel's chassis kits. They are great. My comments on the instructions etc. are in no way intended as a criticism but offered in the spirit of the invitation we all received to contribute. I haven't finished the LYR 2-4-2Ts I bought last year yet so can't afford to aggravate him too much as I'll inevitably need help with them.

 

Like the rest of us I perved over the etch when it arrived from Nigel. Indeed a thing of beauty. I was not going to do much more than fondle it wistfully for a while before putting it back in the gloat box but somehow it ended up in my 'to do' bag instead. I sat down yesterday to see if I could bodge a GWR 517 out of the association 14XX chassis and was rightfully excited to be 'getting there' after only about 90 minutes when I realised that I had ordered the wrong wheels. The other option, chopping up a couple of 57XX chassis kits to move the driven wheel to the back to make some Buffalos didn't appeal so I thought I'd just 'look' at the Beast. A cursory glance convinced me that I'd just have to wave it about a bit and it would all fall together . . . hmmm.

 

There are some considerations to bear in mind. I tend to travel around a bit so sticking something as convoluted as thing is likely to be challenging. I maintain a minimal number of tools in one of those cool bags for sandwiches available from pound shops. It contains all that I need if not all that I'd like/want. Inevitably the approach compromises construction here and there. Please bear that in mind with some of the finishing. I have reached the stage where I'd rather shout 'yay, it runs' than fret over trying to match the standards of likes of Greenwood/Hunt/Watson etc. only to achieve nothing so please be gentle with me.

 

So on to the etch. Lovely bit of nickel silver just as expected. When I started cutting parts out it seemed that the alloy was a bit softer than, say, the association etches or a Worsley. Admittedly my 99p bargain shop cutting mat doesn't help. Might as well use a piece of mature cheddar and I regret investing in it but Ammanford does have some wonderful shops. The metal is soft though.

 

Obviously started with the loco chassis. Read the instructions as suggested. A few omissions - push out the rivets that define where the cylinder bolts to the frames, no mention of cross drilling the muffs but given the likely purchaser of something as eclectic as this I think Nigel can be forgiven.

 

A pic is attached that shows that the etching, whilst more than adequate, is a bit inconsistent. The rectangles with rivet detail that slot into the front of the frames are not etched right through (the back shows that the artwork registered correctly) whilst other parts look as though they have been over-etched. The lack of a slot makes it more of a faff to solder in the gusset that goes within. I hope that the rivet detail on the smokebox 'pops' once the paint as applied. At the moment the rivet detail looks a bit washed out.

 

Let me say that I am wary of the spacer system. The usual approach of using a piece of PCB across the frames allows a great big gob of solder to be left demonstrating a suitably mechanical joint. Creating the spacers from sheet and insulating pads invites two concerns from me; (a) bending the spacer into a perfect 'L' allows the risk of the joint skewing slightly affecting squareness and (b) sweating the pcb between the frames means that I have to trust that the fixing has overcome my ineptitude and that there really is a strong bond. I suppose I could add a third and say that subsequently breaking such a bond and re-doing it if you get it wrong is a pain. The two part built Raithby 4F kits I bought on ebay attest that I am not the only one to find that out.

 

Because of the nature of assembly I had to resort to the assembly jig. Or put another way I had to actually do the job properly and follow instructions. Hate doing that. The Higgs kits have that lovely little frame that makes it so much simpler. Still, following the instructions and using the jig does work. Just takes a bit longer. 

 

I only carry a piece of Tufnol to ensure flatness and the pic shows that a rubber band stops parts rolling off into oblivion while manipulating the soldering iron.  I do have some H section wheels with me of the right size so I'll stick them in anon and see how it rolls.

 

Putting in the 'top' spacer over the gearbox was a pain. Even though I bent it over a square and it looks true it would fit between the top cheeks of pcb without a bit of butchery. I had hoped to insert all spacers 'gunged in' with fluxite before soldering to ensure squareness but that top spacer kept distorting things. In the end I soldered up the spacers between the wheels then bodged the errant spacer. I'll know for sure once the wheels are in.

 

The top spacer also has some parts attached to it. had they been removed I would almost certainly have lost them so I chopped the spacer down as a mini sprue. That picture will reflect some localised dodgy etching on the sheet. Not a problem. You will also have noted that I have not cut some parts from the frames in the assembled chassis. Had I done so they'd have been lost by now. 

 

Because of my misgivings over the spacer method - individuals spacers may be out of square, not sure they'll bond to the mainframes flawlessly etc. - I used a bit of wood to allow a bit more time with the iron to relax the assembled spacers as they were secured. That allowed the individual assemblied to rest plumb with the side. Hopefully the pcb wasn't cooked and delaminated.

 

After about three hours of wresting the main chassis was assembled. Next stage was to inspect all of the mini pcb pads to ensure that no solder had flashed over the filling and caused a short. I recently treated myself to some Vallorbe files (to go with my 99p cutting mat) so that wasn't too onerous. But it was tedious.

 

The tender was a dead easy in comparison. I ordered the wrong wheels for that too but hopefully I can get it rolling and build the superstructure by this time next week.

 

My only grumble?? I have no real interest in the real thing - I really do just want to play trains - so I lack sufficient knowledge of what all the twiddly bits are on the etch. Nigel supplies a wealth of detail on the prototype but I WILL be posting questions on here looking for explanations of these parts as the build progresses. In a perfect world someone will annotate the etch to set me straight.   

 

I had to pack everything up in anticipations of a seven hour car journey today. having removed some parts the etch was a bit flippy-floppy so I chopped it down. 

 

As expected, however, Nigel has done us all a favour. Great design and definitely buildable. If only he would do an Aberdare. That's a proper loco.

 

Pics below. No idea how to integrate them within the text.

Hello Andrew,

 

Thanks for your comments. Re the points you mentioned:

 

1. Try cutting out on a steel block or tufnol sheet if you can carry some with you. It won't flex so the etch doesn't distort.

 

2. Sorry I forgot about punching out the rivets in the frames. Cross drilling muffs is my personal preference, and at the time I was trying to do brief instructions. It didn't end that way! 

 

3. I'm exasperated by differences in etch results between batches. Its always the rivets that seem to cause the problems. PEC tell me it because I make them as small as possible. I must admit I didn't notice this issue ( I went to Specsavers). I should have examined the etches under my bench magnifier.

 

4. The spacer system I use is the one I learnt from Mike Raithby with his 4F and 8F kits. I think there are pros and cons as with any system, and I concede that especially with small spacers, it can be hard to hold them square on the pcb pad while you solder them in place. The bigger the spacer the easier it should be and I surprised you struggled with the gearbox spacer as it the biggest of them. Maybe you were having a bad day? It happens to us all now and then. Its advisable to apply solder to the join with a nice big blob on the end of your iron, and plenty of flux. Then you shouldn't need to dwell on the join with your iron, thus avoiding the possibility of de-laminating the pcb. having seen the quality of you work before, I think you know all about soldering anyway.

 

5. As regards the pads, I tin one side first, position it on the etch, apply plenty of flux, then generously tin the tip of the iron and apply this adjacent to the pcb. You then get a good heat transfer and can complete the soldering quickly, before the pcb is damaged. I sometimes try solder from the other side too. Removing burrs from the pcb edges is essential so that the pcb is perfectly flat.

 

If you hold the spacer with the fold line level in your vice or pliers and folder over with even pressure along the fold line you should get a good right angle. I must admit its never occurred to me that you could get anything other than a right angle when folding the spacers. Maybe I'll check next time I do some. I think you do need to be careful that you don't remove too much material when  you clean up the cusps and edges of the etched spacers.

 

6. I don't find using the frame assembly jigs time-consuming. Its best to put a central bobbin between the frames when using the jig so as to keep the frames straight against the spacers as you do the soldering. You can use loose-fitting axle muffs if the supplied middle bobbins are to big to fit.

 

7. When you've soldered the pcb pads, after rinsing try cleaning with a glass fibre brush and you should be able to see if there is any solder creep, but test with electricity anyway. I always do this again after I soldered the frames together via the spacers.

 

8. Aberdare??? So many locos to model, so little time. Maybe one of the GWR aficionados could be persuaded to help out. 

 

I hope the additional comments are of some use and feel free to ask more questions or offer more comments.

 

Nig H

[Chris Higgs]

Hello Andrew,

 

6. I don't find using the frame assembly jigs time-consuming. Its best to put a central bobbin between the frames when using the jig so as to keep the frames straight against the spacers as you do the soldering. You can use loose-fitting axle muffs if the supplied middle bobbins are to big to fit.

 

Nig H

 

I don't find them particularly time-consuming either. My issues with them tend to be that the centre bobbins often foul such things as the frame spacers you are putting in, and that they need to be the correct length, which differs according to frame thickness used, whether you are using bearings etc.

 

Chris

Edited February 1, 2017 by Chris Higgs

[Hendreladis]

Thanks Nigel.

 

I should say that I have only ever had one delamination in a pcb joint and that during my first attempt at track building XXX years ago. But it might happen . . . the fear of not being certain. Your points re the jig are, of course, relevant. I am slowly coming to realise that the things that actually work are the ones where the rules or advice of more experienced souls have been followed.

 

Having run a file over the sheet here and there and countered with a very unscientific few strokes on the etches of the 57xx and 14xx frets there's definitely a different response and a different residue. But equally it solders up a dream.

 

Re your point  - "8. Aberdare??? So many locos to model, so little time."  Yes - but only so very few that are truly worth modelling. Like the Aberdare. 

 

A

[Nig H]

Thanks Nigel.

 

I

Re your point  - "8. Aberdare??? So many locos to model, so little time."  Yes - but only so very few that are truly worth modelling. Like the Aberdare. 

 

You may think so - I couldn't possibly comment!!

 

Nig H

 

A