Priory Road - North East Essex in BR days

[bradfordbuffer]

4 hours ago, Izzy said:

A steam era Branch set

 

Now that the Hunslet 05 is completed I’ve been further considering how to portray the late steam era. Still puzzling out how to concoct a running sequence that seems logical and plausible. At this stage the Brightlingsea branch was of course still open as it was during the early DMU years. It occurred to me that having a steam era branch set to run, one that could also alternatively represent the service to Cambridge might be a good idea, a winter project which I had originally thought the Hunslet would be.

 

After studying lots of photos of the period I’ve settled on making a set of Thompson non-corridors, a brake composite, semi-lavatory composite, and 4-compartment brake third. Something different to Gresley stock. These will be produced from Worsley Works etches with 2mm association bogies etc. For the loco it was a toss between an E4 and a J15. In the end the latter won as I don’t believe E4’s ever worked the Brightlingsea line while the J15’s were seen on all the branches in the area. This will be scratchbuilt using spare Farish wheels I have to hand, a bit of an experiment, a challenge to see if I can re-rim them. If not then mk5’s will be on the cards always assuming I can make the rest of the loco. If the loco doesn’t work out then the Thompsons will go quite nicely with the N7 as an alternative Clacton/Walton line set. They featured a fair bit in photos at St Boltophs and along the branches. I’ll post the odd update as things progress.

 

To start the updates here’s where I’m up to with the J15. Not having actually built a tender loco in 2mm before I thought it best to begin with the tender. This is because the GE 2,640gal one used with the J15’s has a challenge with regard to the flared tender top in that the rear corners are rounded. If I couldn’t get that done there wouldn’t be any point going any further. I also wanted to sort out in my mind how the motor would fit and the type of UJ joint used, and whether I would once again need to use one of the Zimo MX615’s as space in the small tender seemed to indicate no other could fit.

 

I’ve managed to make the basic tender including those flared corners and while the jury’s still out regarding the UJ’s it seems an MX615 will be needed. With twelve wheel current collection however I don’t envisage the need for a stay-alive, so there is some space to add some weight.

 

 

 

 

 

I've sat the motor higher than I originally though so the drive shaft goes through the tender coal hole. Sadly however the wheel size and placement means the tender can’t hang on the back of the loco to aid traction, the leading wheels would foul the bodywork if raised beyond the axle centreline as there’s minimal clearance to start with. Bit of a shame really but never mind, I’ve just got to stuff as much lead in the loco as I can!

 

Bob

 

Oh no hear we go again !😉.....clear Stepps on how to in 2mm that you would think was a larger scale...with detail you wouldn't think possible in 2mm

 

Entertaining ...keep it up!...brill

 

[Izzy]

Thompson non-corridor coaches in 2mm

 

Wanting some Thomson non-corridor coaches I decided to try my hand at making some from a combination of Worsley Works etches for the bodies & underframes along with other parts from the 2mm association, Gresley bogies, battery boxes & brake gear etc. Roofs would be the LMS mouldings the association provides as being the nearest match.

 

I decided to start out with the 4 compartment brake third and it’s turned out to be a bit more of a job that I envisaged. It would of course have been nice to have been able to build these from some Masterclass kits I now understand Chris Higgs produced a while back if this is correct but without them this seemed the only alternative option.

 

The sides are very nicely etched but when I started to make it up I discovered that the ends were wider than the floor, so needed trimming down to fit, and that the latter warped so much when I added the sides and ends that I had to strip it down and cut a new solid floor from bass sheet and start again. It seemed a good idea to have fold down truss rods in the floor but it appeared to make it just too weak. Then I found the fold-up solebars weren’t the correct depth and so were also cut from more brass sheet…..pity I hadn’t known all this when I sent an order to shop 4 for the other bits seeing as how floors, solebars, etc. are now available. Then I found there were no footboards, more brass sheet. Such is life….

 

The Gresley bogies made up nicely. I have a feeling going by photos I have seen that these are Chris’s design as provided in his kits. With the depth of the solebars getting enough distance between the bogies and floor proved challenging but I got there in the end. I’ve blackened the bogies before fitting the wheels, proper painting will happen later.

 

Producing all the grab and doors handles from fine PB wire took a while. I have a feeling the grab handles are a bit too big, but they will have to do, bending up over 40 for the three coaches was more than enough….which I thought I might as well do in one go, as with the door handles, 60 of them for a few spares…. They are bent and finally cut to size after fitting. Much the same as with the Hunslet 05 bonnet handles.

 

 

Now I’m about to make a simple interior out of plasticard. Still it keeps me busy while I await another order from shop 3 for more bits for the J15 build. Poor shopkeepers, they are kept busy. Where would we be without them.

 

Bob

 

[Chris Higgs]

11 hours ago, Izzy said:

I decided to start out with the 4 compartment brake third and it’s turned out to be a bit more of a job that I envisaged. It would of course have been nice to have been able to build these from some Masterclass kits I now understand Chris Higgs produced a while back if this is correct but without them this seemed the only alternative option.

 

 

 

I did indeed although they sold out a long while ago and in particular I ran out of the resin roofs. Might still have some body etches, really not sure.

 

Chris

[Izzy]

9 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

I did indeed although they sold out a long while ago and in particular I ran out of the resin roofs. Might still have some body etches, really not sure.

 

Chris

Thanks Chris, that info might be useful for anybody asking in the Gloatbox exchange thread for spare/unwanted kits. I’d have tried that if I’d been aware of them. TBH I find sourcing roofs one of the hardest parts. N gauge too wide for 2mm and vice versa too narrow for N. Know it might sound funny but perhaps the door and grab handles are the nicest additions to your kits bar the roofs, the icing on the cake so to speak. 
 

Bob

[Chris Higgs]

On 09/12/2022 at 22:42, Chris Higgs said:

 

I did indeed although they sold out a long while ago and in particular I ran out of the resin roofs. Might still have some body etches, really not sure.

 

Chris

 

A quick rummage tonight and I found 4 of the BT(4), the one you modelled, together with various T,C and F. But no roofs.

 

Chris

[Izzy]

I don’t know if it’s right but comparing the BR and LMS roofs the association sells the latter seemed to be the closer profile. It’s a bit Hobson’s choice really but they are decent mouldings thankfully and far, far easier than making by hand Jenkinson style via individual strips. Been there…….!

 

Bob

[Richard Hall]

Another excellent set of posts and timely for me as I start to look at building a Gresley non corridor brake third. Did the corridor and non-corridor stock have the same roof profile, I wonder?  In my scrapbox I have a Minitrix corridor coach with damaged sides which might give me a roof.  

 

Richard

[Izzy]

Thompson non-corridor coaches in 2mm - pt 2

 

The brake third is now finished, or lets say as far as I can get with it until spring when I can spray paint it. I’ve finished the roof, and given it a simple hand brush coat of Revell dark grey enamel to seal the rain strips into place. I’ve dumped Humbrol, the current enamel offered is useless with Revell being far better.

 

I have added details to the body in plasticard. Fine Slaters rod for an impression of the door hinges with 10 thou pads for the ventilators and end details.

 

 

I would have liked to have been able to give it a coat of Halfords primer to seal everything in place but it’s just far too cold for that, so it’s just been wrapped carefully in tissue paper and stored away in a spare Farish plastic box. The interior I made up from 10 & 20 thou black sheet. Just a simple representation. I have no idea what colour to paint it, looking around it could almost been anything from quite light brown with beige seats to dark with deep red ones. The bogies are retained with 10ba bolts while the roof has a plasticard structure just off-centre into which a 14ba bolt fits which holds it and the interior in place. So it can all come apart for painting.

 

 

The underside is very basic. Battery boxes and brake details via the new association etches with the truss rods being beefed up a bits with scrap etch. I haven’t bothered with the cross beams etc. so you’ll have to forgive this rather crude and simple modelling. The result however is fairly decent and runs nicely. I’m quite surprised how light it is, so the set of three shouldn’t pose any haulage issues for any of the locos even if they are a bit light-footed.

 

 

Now it will be onto the next one, the lavatory composite probably to make a change from another brake.

 

Bob

 

 

[Chris Higgs]

On 11/12/2022 at 07:52, Izzy said:

I don’t know if it’s right but comparing the BR and LMS roofs the association sells the latter seemed to be the closer profile. It’s a bit Hobson’s choice really but they are decent mouldings thankfully and far, far easier than making by hand Jenkinson style via individual strips. Been there…….!

 

Bob

 

 LMS roofs are mostly a semi-elliptical profile, whereas a BR roof is a triple-arc. LNER roofs were also semi-elliptical, so the LMS will be closer.

 

Chris   

[Izzy]

18 minutes ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

 LMS roofs are mostly a semi-elliptical profile, whereas a BR roof is a triple-arc. LNER roofs were also semi-elliptical, so the LMS will be closer.

 

Chris   

 

Thanks Chris, that's useful info. it's funny because this afternoon I've been struggling with the next coach and almost came to the conclusion that the association BR roof was a better match and I'd made a mistake using the LMS.

 

Bob

[Chris Higgs]

A Thompson underframe should look something like this. I haven't put the fittings on this one but hopefully you can see where they go. Worth noting that LNER carriages had a different smaller dynamo than the dome-ended LMS/BR type that the Association sell. There is/was a very nice Ultima casting of this. The dynamo should go on the side next to the voltage regulator - which is that small box on the opposite side to the battery box, there is one of these provided on the LNER Battery boxes etch 4-732.

 

There is a very detailed drawing of this underframe that can be seen in a number of the Harris LNER Carriages books - Harris incorrectly describes it as a Gresley 51' underframe although it is clear from the dimensions that it is a Thompson.

 

Chris

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Chris Higgs

[Chris Higgs]

I hesitate to mention this, but you seemed to have used shell ventilators (shop item 4-455) on the roof, whereas LNER coaches had torpedo ventilators (shop item 4-456)

 

Chris 

[Chris Higgs]

13 hours ago, Izzy said:

 

Thanks Chris, that's useful info. it's funny because this afternoon I've been struggling with the next coach and almost came to the conclusion that the association BR roof was a better match and I'd made a mistake using the LMS.

 

Bob

 

Well, yes, there is also the issue of the width. Thompsons had a narrower width at cantrail height than either Gresley or Stanier coaches. This gives the sides a more pronounced angle above the waist. 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Chris Higgs

[Chris Higgs]

On 11/12/2022 at 08:49, Richard Hall said:

Another excellent set of posts and timely for me as I start to look at building a Gresley non corridor brake third. Did the corridor and non-corridor stock have the same roof profile, I wonder?  In my scrapbox I have a Minitrix corridor coach with damaged sides which might give me a roof.  

 

Richard

 

Technically speaking not, although for most coaches it is indistinguishable. And the Quad-Arts had a slightly wider roof than other non-corridor stock. I chose to ingore that when designing my  kits.

 

But a Thompson roof profile differs from a Gresley. 

 

Now I come to think of it, the plastic Ultima Gresley roof would probably form a better starting point than either of the ones the Association sell.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Chris Higgs

[Izzy]

9 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

A Thompson underframe should look something like this. I haven't put the fittings on this one but hopefully you can see where they go. Worth noting that LNER carriages had a different smaller cylinder dynamo than the dome-ended LMS/BR type that the Association sell. There is/was a very nice Ultima casting of this.

 

There is a very detailed drawing of this underframe that can be seen in a number of the Harris LNER Carriages books.

 

Chris

 

Oh what a nice underframe. Thanks again Chris. I feel a lot of re-working is going to have to happen.

 

2 minutes ago, Chris Higgs said:

I hesitate to mention this, but you seemed to have used shell ventilators (shop item 4-455) on the roof, whereas LNER coaches had torpedo ventilators (shop item 4-456)

 

Chris 

 

Yes, I realised this a  couple of days back. Really making a bit of a pigs ear of these aren’t I. At least other may benefit from seeing these and avoid them. This is the result of having just brief info to go on. Basically the web page from Steve Banks which is very helpful in itself but not nearly enough.

 

https://www.steve-banks.org/prototype-and-traffic/408-lner-thompson-non-gangwayed

 

I have no carriage books of any description these days, having reduced my library by 75% some years back. 

[Chris Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Oh what a nice underframe. Thanks again Chris. I feel a lot of re-working is going to have to happen.

 

 

Yes, I realised this a  couple of days back. Really making a bit of a pigs ear of these aren’t I. At least other may benefit from seeing these and avoid them. This is the result of having just brief info to go on. Basically the web page from Steve Banks which is very helpful in itself but not nearly enough.

 

https://www.steve-banks.org/prototype-and-traffic/408-lner-thompson-non-gangwayed

 

I have no carriage books of any description these days, having reduced my library by 75% some years back. 

 

The sloping sides are prominent in some of the photos within this excellent link.

[Izzy]

8 minutes ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

Well, yes, there is also the issue of the width. Thompsons had a narrower width at cantrail height than either Gresley or Stanier coaches. This gives the sides a more pronounced angle above the waist. 

 

2 minutes ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

Technically speaking not, although for most coaches it is indistinguishable. And the Quad-Arts had a slightly wider roof than other non-corridor stock. I chose to ingore that when designing my  kits.

 

But a Thompson roof profile differs from a Gresley.   

I think this is at the core of where I’ve been going wrong, the basic drawings on Steve Banks site not being quite right besides the rest of what I’ve messed up. Many thanks for all this Chris, I hate not getting things basically right even if the quality isn’t great.

 

Time to take a break and think it all through I reckon, perhaps start again.

 

Bob

[Chris Higgs]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

 

I think this is at the core of where I’ve been going wrong, the basic drawings on Steve Banks site not being quite right besides the rest of what I’ve messed up. Many thanks for all this Chris, I hate not getting things basically right even if the quality isn’t great.

 

Time to take a break and think it all through I reckon, perhaps start again.

 

Bob

 

I have the Isinglass drawings of these coaches, they give the width details.

 

Here are some comparative roof cantrail widths.

 

Gresley corridor 8' 10 1/2"

Gresley non-corridor 8' 10 1/2 or 8' 10 5/8"

Gresley Quad-Art 8' 11 7/8"

 

Thompson (corridor/non-corridor) 8'9"

 

LMS 8' 10 1/4"

BR MK1 8'9"

 

Some might think one and a half inches (0.25mm in 2mm scale) is neither here nor there, but it makes a lot of difference to how the coach side profile presents itself. So I can see width-wise the Mk1 matches, but the roof profile is all wrong. You might consider thinning the LMS roof down a touch width wise to get the proportions right.  

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Chris Higgs

[Izzy]

4 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

Some might think one and a half inches (0.25mm in 2mm scale) is neither here nor there, but it makes a lot of difference to how the coach side profile presents itself. So I can see width-wise the Mk1 matches, but the roof profile is all wrong. You might consider thinning the LMS roof down a touch width wise to get the proportions right.  

 

 

I guess people not working in this scale wouldn't perhaps appreciate just how much difference the smallest size change can make. I find it can sometimes be like night and day in how something looks.

 

Interesting about the roof size differences because the association roofs are pretty much the same width, in fact the LMS is very slightly narrower than the BR.  Indeed comparing the two I think you might be forgiven for thinking they were the same.

 

BR on the left. LMS the right.

 

 

 

There is a difference that can be felt if you lay them end to end and run your finger over them. I think all this is part and parcel of attempting to make things from separate items. often nothing quite matches up but it becomes really difficult if as in my case you don't have a baseline from which to judge things.

 

As I've just had a box of goodies finally arrive from shop 3 - it's been in the post 16 days - I'll give it a break and think it all through, how best to proceed from here to get the best results I can under the circumstances. I've been here with the class 309's so it's familiar territory.

 

Bob

 

 

 

[Izzy]

 

Re-rimming and converting some Farish driving wheels

 

In recent years the 2mm association has sold it’s steel wheel rims separately for those with the desire and capacity to fit them to their own wheel centres or convert N gauge wheels to 2FS standards. Now for some years past I have at times re-machined N gauge wheels of various types, wagon, coach, loco, to allow them to run on track laid to 2FS, but this has always just involved machining (skimming) the front and backs of them, to reduce the flange thickness and the overall width of the wheel.

 

Over time I’ve ended up with a few spare Farish N gauge wheels for steam locos where these have been replaced with the association wheels and when recently I decided to make another steam loco, the exGE J15, I thought trying my hand at using some of them for it might be a nice challenge and provide experience if I faced a situation in the future where getting association wheels wasn’t an option. If it didn’t work out nothing would be lost and I could then take the latter option.

 

In order to do this it would involve both re-rimming the driving wheels, and making stub axles for both the loco and tender ones to fit association muffs, which have bores of 1.5mm. The tender ones could only be re-machined and not re-rimmed because the wheel castings did not have enough spare metal on them to be re-rimmed at the size needed, 8.0mm, the centres needing to be 0.5mm smaller than the rims used with a reasonable amount of metal left at the periphery.

 

The J15’s used 4’10”/4’11” driving wheels and their tenders 4’0” ones. In my collection of spare Farish I had wheels for a Ivatt 2MT, LMS 4F, and a 3FT Jinty. At 9.5mm the Jinty wheels seemed acceptable for the J15 drivers, while the 4F’s tender ones at slightly over 8.2mm looked usable instead of 8.0mm ones. In actual fact the tender wheels had already been re-worked to 2FS standards via machining and had been used in the Farish 4F’s tender before being replaced by association ones in a brass chassis, so they could be used as they were, they just needed mounting in association muffs and having the pin-point ends used for current collection filed off since they would now be used in an inside frame brass tender chassis.

 

Although it might be possible to use 10mm drivers I choose the 9.5mm size because of the need to take into account the 1mm extra diameter for the flanges, otherwise loco splashers can end up too big in order to give enough clearance, and that the Farish wheels these days are the correct size for N, so are a bit larger than the equivalent for 2mm. So both the 2MT and 4F drivers were too large to consider using anyway.

 

Re-rimming turned out easier than I feared in most respects, as did actually making and fitting the stub axles. Where I found problems was with trying to use my ER collets to machine the wheel backs by holding the wheel rims, which I will detail when I get to that stage.

 

I should start by saying that these particular Farish wheels are easier to machine than most because they are those produced for use with the split axle current collection Farish employed on a few steam locos and which has now seemingly been ditched in favour of a return to the previous system of wiper contacts on the rear of the wheels, so these wheels have a large rear stub with which they can be held for accurate turning of the diameter. This is of course a crucial aspect of the re-rimming.

 

To start with I mounted the wheels on a simple arbour to remove the flange – after first knocking out the plastic centre bush. Take the overall diameter down to that of the front outside wheel tread bearing in mind that the wheel treads are coned and not flat. I used a small round nosed cutter for this.

 

 

 

I say arbour but it’s not quite that, rather a length of 5/16” round steel tapped 8ba and with a cheese head bolt that has both a nut and a coned nut fitted on the end. So it’s all locked together on the end of the bolt and screwing it into a wheel bore has the effect of mostly centralising the wheel whilst also keeping it’s face flat against the face of the arbour. So good for skimming back and front faces but does not guarantee any level of concentricity. This has to be taken into account when undertaking machining of wheels mounted on it the 8ba bolt being a loose fit in the wheel bores. I’ve mainly used it for the afore mentioned skimming of N gauge wheels to 2FS where no touching of the tyre profile occurs so concentricity isn’t an issue.

 

 

Machining mazak needs care. It can be quite ‘buttery’, a soft metal that can clog and jam cutters and sometimes not cut cleanly. Small cuts are the only safe way but even then flash can result as with this particular wheel. It didn’t with any others.

 

 

Next I changed the collet to one that the rear wheel boss fitted and mounted the wheels to reduce the front outside diameter to be a tight fit inside the rims. The basic figure is around 0.5mm less than the rim diameter, so for the 9.5mm rims I was using the wheel needed reducing to about 9.0mm – but no less. The wheels were measured to make sure there would be enough solid rim left in the casting at this base figure. I judged there was.

 

I changed the cutting tool to a sharp square edged one for this, actually an Eclipse 1/16” parting-off tool because the work was right up against the collet. An alternative tool shape to get to the work without hitting the chuck would have been a sharp point one set at 45degrees. Although this tool is a plunge type one with light cuts it can be used for sideways cuts, which is what I did here, the cut being slightly more than the inside depth of the rim.

 

I didn’t actually remember to take any shots at of this stage, so here’s a staged one using an un-machined wheel to show the setup.

 

 

Using very small cuts I reduced the diameter until a rim would – just – start to feel as if it would fit. The final cuts to achieve this were very small, perhaps just 1/5000 1/10000. Just a nudge of the handwheel. At this stage the machining was stopped. The wheel centre removed, and tapped into the rim using a small hammer. So it was a good tight fit.

 

Once all the rims had been fitted I loaded the 10mm ER collet with the intention of skimming the rear of the wheels to bring the wheel centre level with the rear flange face. Remove any excess material and that large rear stub to enable the fitting of the stub axles I would produce. Except I couldn’t, it didn’t work.

 

Now I’ve often read that you need to hold the wheels by the tyres/rims to face off the rear, grip the coned tyre, and that using a collet such as the ER type to hold them is one way to do this. On my small/baby Sieg lathe I have a collet chuck with a series of ER16 colletts so thought these would be ideal for this part. I’ll leave the aspect that trying to grip a coned surface doesn’t seem to me a way to guarantee absolute concentricity in all planes, that’s another matter. (In larger scales I’ve seen people grip wheels by the profiled tyres in 3 and 4 jaw chucks to do such work, which I have always viewed with horror. Changing the machining order so the tyre profiling is the last thing done is the safe way).

 

Anyway, once I’d machined the wheel casting to take the rim I went to carry out this operation to face off the rear and found extreme difficulty in getting the collet to hold a wheel. Tighten it up and the wheel would just be forced out, 'pop' out in fact. Hmm...

 

To cut a long story short I eventually discovered that ER collets have a chamfer on the bores back and front. It’s part of the ER specs but not present in most specification drawings so generally you wouldn’t know they are there. Indeed even looking at the collets they are not easy to see under most lighting conditions. But they do have a serious impact on holding narrow/thin pieces of work such as these rims, in this particular case making it virtually impossible.

 

Looking at all the ER colletts I have, from 1.0mm up to 10mm, it seems that the size of the chamfer is related to the bore size. About 0.5mm depth between 1.0-2.0mm, 0.75mm between 3.0-5.0mm, and 1.0mm between 6.0mm-10mm. The latter thus prevented 9.5mm rims being held in a 10mm collet since their tyre width is only 1.0mm. Of course there is nothing wrong with the collets, the idea with them is to hold lengths of stock material securely and concentrically, not what are basically discs, (actually they were originated to hold round shank cutting tools in machines but this is immaterial to this issue).

 

 

You can - just - see the chamfer in some of these ER's. It depends on the lighting and angle.

 

 

So I post this as something to watch out for when trying out re-rimming wheels. That a different holding tool/fixture will probably be needed. Something like a watchmakers stepped collet possibly but more likely a bespoke tool, possibly for each individual wheel rim diameter. Or a different maching order so the rims are fitted last. I'm still thinking that through for the future.

 

Being me I took the easy way out and got away with it. For the majority of the operation I went back to mounting the wheels on the arbour and after removing the bulk of the excess metal from the rears I cut off the stubs using a razor saw and then cleaned up the wheel backs by gently rubbing them on fine grade oxide paper.

 

 

The new stub axles were produced from 1/8” brass rod. A crib sheet with the basic measurements helped me remember what was needed.

 

 

As with many operations where a number of identical parts are being produced I basically use what I call the ‘numbers game’. This involves a cutting tool of a specific shape and measurement, in this case a miniature parting off tool, ¼” HSS ground to be exactly 0.5mm wide. This can be used to make either plunge cuts or light sideways ones. These stub axles needed to be 1.9mm dia for 1.2mm to fit in the wheel bore, have a full dia 0.1mm flange, and then be 1.5mm dia, to fit in the muff, for about 3.5mm. This is where resettable/indexable handwheels are a must, an essential for a lathe in my opinion.

 

Not all small lathes have indexable handwheels. The little Sieg didn’t come with them as you can see with the tailstock, just the cheap fixed handwheel type, so I made some for the carriage and cross-slide.

 

 

 

 

Luckily I had equipment with which to do this, another, larger, lathe. milling machine, rotary table, indexing tools and cutters, number and letter stamps etc. The Seig was quite cheap at the time, about £200 with the additional ER collet chuck so acceptable, but I’d suggest anyone seeking a small lathe should discount any that don’t have indexable handwheels. The electronics on the Seig packed up after about 18 months and with a replacement board costing over £100 I re-motored it with a 24v scooter motor, PWM controller, and power supply from ebay costing about £25 all up. I post this information to warn about the problems you can face with machine tools these days. It’s nice and useful to have a lathe, or milling machine etc. but if you can get away without needing them it saves a lot of hassle, and money…..

 

So back the tool up to the work, zero index, withdraw tool, move along bring up to the dia, zero other handwheel index, and then cut depths/widths using them. So much along until the right depth, withdraw, move along, in again and along etc. multiple light cuts to the correct dia needed. Keep a note of the total movements until parting off and use for the next one, so they are the same. Useful for such as buffers etc. Anything in multiple really.

 

As with the wheel centres in the rims I wanted the stub axles to be a tight – interference – fit in the wheels so I first roughed out the stub axle then went back and took the front stub down to 1.9mm with light cuts and testing the wheel until again it just felt as if the axle would enter the bore.

 

 

 

Then I stopped, parted off, and tapped the axle into the wheel.

 

 

 

I did all this to try and ensure good electrical continuity from wheel rim to axle since the wheels were for split chassis current collection. All were tested with a MM after machining to ensure this occurred, which thankfully it did.

 

After all this machine work adding the crankpins was done simply with association crankpins, a bit of Albion alloy 1.0mm OD/0.5mm ID brass tube, and a crankpin washer. The Farish wheels are tapped 14ba and the 1.0mm tube is a good fit. So a 1.0mm length soldered on the end of a 0.5mm crankpin can be inserted from the rear, and soldered/locked in place using a crankpin washer on the front. This latter item also helps space the coupling rods away from the front wheel face. The round flange at the rear end of the crankpin needs a flat filing on it to clear the stub axle flange when doing this.

 

And that’s job done. A usable and fairly decent set of wheels to 2FS resulted.

 

 

Not nearly as good looking as the new association Mk5’s, but useful to have to build the loco with if nothing else.

 

Bob

[Nigelcliffe]

Tip for the ER collets....

 

Yes, they pop anything out that is short in length, for the reasons you explain.   

Fix that by putting a short piece of bar in the other end as a stopper to stop the other end closing up to form the taper.  Ideally that bar is either exactly the same as the work, or a fraction larger than the work so the taper runs in your favour.   In many cases, a small button with a flange will fit, though possibly not with the largest diameter collets. 

 

When machining right up to the face of the collet, I usually put a bit of shim in there so the tool hits the shim and not the collet nut or collet.  

 

 

 

I'd have removed most of the material from the back of the wheel at the first stage, when removing the flange and making things ready for the 2mm tyre.  Then less to remove at later stages.

 

 

- Nigel

 

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Nigelcliffe said:

Tip for the ER collets....

 

Yes, they pop anything out that is short in length, for the reasons you explain.   

Fix that by putting a short piece of bar in the other end as a stopper to stop the other end closing up to form the taper.  Ideally that bar is either exactly the same as the work, or a fraction larger than the work so the taper runs in your favour.   In many cases, a small button with a flange will fit, though possibly not with the largest diameter collets.

 

Yes, I do use that, and tried but it made no difference. My ER16's came from ArcEurotrade as with the lathe and other bits over the years. Just musing I'm just wondering if there are different standards with the ER's. Whether some are made without such a deep chamfer which of course would make a big difference given the spec drawings around without any real chamfer. Just broken edges might help them seat up against the tyre root radius.

 

Bob

Edited December 15, 2022 by Izzy

[Nigelcliffe]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

 

Yes, I do use that, and tried but it made no difference. My ER16's came from ArcEurotrade as with the lathe and other bits over the years. Just musing I'm just wondering if there are different standards with the ER's. Whether some are made without such a deep chamfer which of course would make a big difference given the spec drawings around without any real chamfer. Just broken edges might help them seat up against the tyre root radius.

 

Bob

 

Must be batch differences.    I've just gone down to check mine, ER25, ER16 and ER11.  Most of them from ArcEurotrade.  The ER25's are this year (sizes above ER16, because I've had an ER25 chuck kicking around for years which I finally got round to mounting on the lathe). 

I can't date the others, but at least eight years old.    There is a break of edge, but not a significant chamfer, very different to what you show in the pictures.    It may be worth ordering another set to see if they are different/better.    

 

- Nigel

[Izzy]

Thanks for checking that Nigel, I appreciate the time and effort taken to do that. I may well contact them first and explain before getting any, although thinking about it a bespoke tool might be a better option, a guarantee of what is required. I've plenty of suitable stock material hanging around with which to give it a try as well as the tools and time.

 

Bob

 

 

[Izzy]

A Steam Era Branch Train pt 2

 

Having converted the Farish loco wheels I’ve started on the loco by making up a chassis. Originally I sketched it out to use the common two stage gear reduction, a 30-1 worm gear followed by a 14/18T second to give around 38-1.

 

 

 

 

But following the posts on here from those using the new brass machined gearbox that takes the 30-1 worm set in a couple of similar tender locos with good results I thought that I would give that a go. It seems to run nicely and certainly has great advantage space wise. I've just got to work out how to use it with my keeper plate system. Using DCC and with another Zimo MX615 to power it I don’t foresee any slow running issues. I might try to incorporate a flywheel with the U/J's as discussed elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

Now I’ve moved on to the loco body. The footplate and cab have been made and assembled so it’s on to producing the boiler.

 

 

 

 

I’ve never rolled a boiler in 2mm so far (not expecting to mainly modelling diesels!), the N7/3 using some correct sized brass tube I had to hand, so it will be interesting. I have Cherry make rolling bars with which I’ve rolled them in 4/7mm scale over the years but that’s far too big to use here and I don’t really want to get involved making a miniature one just for this job, a nice challenge thought that might be. So a bit of simple crudity might be involved along the line…..

 

Bob