Any Question Answered

[Crosland]

The thickness of a piece of paper is a pretty good working clearance.

 

Jerry

 

I use the tissue that Nigel Hunt wraps his etches in and add a drop of light oil (Braun shaver oil in my case) to the paper, to help prevent the solder flowing down the crank pin and soldering everything up solid.

 

Andrew

[Nig H]

I've just finished quartering my first chassis and have got to the stage where I'm ready to fix the coupling rods to the crankpins, but I'm not sure how tight up against the wheels the crankpin washers should be - I was going to put a piece of paper between the washer and the coupling rod to try and stop locking everything up solid when I solder the washer to the crankpin, but otherwise how much play should there be between the washers and the coupling rod?

 

Thanks for your time.

 

David V.

I use a single layer of greaseproof paper , without oil, between the coupling rod and washer. This gives enough clearance unless you press hard down on the washer as you apply solder.

 

Nig H

[garethashenden]

Has anyone built the N Brass Pecket kit?

[Donw]

This might be of interest Mark's blog

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1345/entry-14132-peckett-y-class-framed-part-1/

 

Don

[garethashenden]

This might be of interest Mark's blog

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1345/entry-14132-peckett-y-class-framed-part-1/

 

Don

Thanks

[2mmMark]

Reminds me that I need to crack on a bit with the project. The first part is here:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1345/entry-13931-peckett-y-class-bodywork/

 

I would recommend the option of a pre-rolled saddle tank that Nick Tilston offers.

 

Mark

 

 

 

[MarkAustin]

Reminds me that I need to crack on a bit with the project. The first part is here:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1345/entry-13931-peckett-y-class-bodywork/

 

I would recommend the option of a pre-rolled saddle tank that Nick Tilston offers.

 

Mark

Mark,

 

In the link you mention Railway Bylines Summer Special. Is that number one with the narrow gauge loco on the front cover? The Railway Bylines webpage has this, but I can't see a table of contents for it.

 

Mark A

[DavidLong]

Mark,

 

In the link you mention Railway Bylines Summer Special. Is that number one with the narrow gauge loco on the front cover? The Railway Bylines webpage has this, but I can't see a table of contents for it.

 

Mark A

 

Nearly right, Mark, it's actually Summer Special Number 2. Mainly red binding with a pic of Budleigh Salterton on the cover.

 

David

[Tim V]

I need some wagons to be pulled. Period is the 1950s. I am wary of buying standard Grafar wagons etc, knowing the errors in 4mm - over-length minerals being one prime example.

 

Do the N gauge 16T, 13T minerals meet these basic specs i.e. are they 16'6" over headstocks or are they built onto standard 17'6" underframes?

 

Compare the 4mm Dapol minerals with the Bachman minerals for example.

[2mm Andy]

I need some wagons to be pulled. Period is the 1950s. I am wary of buying standard Grafar wagons etc, knowing the errors in 4mm - over-length minerals being one prime example.

 

Do the N gauge 16T, 13T minerals meet these basic specs i.e. are they 16'6" over headstocks or are they built onto standard 17'6" underframes?

 

Compare the 4mm Dapol minerals with the Bachman minerals for example.

 

Tim,

 

I've just measured a Farish 16t 1/108 mineral wagon and it's 34mm over headstocks. At 1:148 scale this equates to 16ft 6in, so they do seem to be pretty close to scale for N.

 

The etched 16t mineral wagon kits that Stephen Harris produces are slightly smaller as they are to 2mm:1ft scale.

 

Andy

[Tim V]

Thanks for that. Do you have any 13T ex PO wagons to measure the length on please?

[2mm Andy]

Thanks for that. Do you have any 13T ex PO wagons to measure the length on please?

 

The 'Ketton Cement' 8 plank wooden open example I have just measured had v. similar dimensions to the steel mineral wagon. Hope that helps.

 

Andy

[Graham Hughes]

Here's a track question. Which of the 2mm track systems do people think gives the best representation of pre-grouping bullhead track? I surmise from the name that easitrac is the easiest but I am more concerned with which will give the more accurate appearance. It won't be a big layout so the work involved is not an issue, besides I like making track. Any opinions would be welcome.

[Tim V]

We are talking 2mm?

 

Even in 4mm you can't give that good a representation of pre-group track. The rail is a standard section, based on BS95R. You would need 9' sleepers. You might need inside keyed track. You might need flatbottom rail, spiked to sleepers (depending on company).

 

Easitrack is based on 8'6" sleepers, so is out.

 

Versaline would give a reasonable representation, using 9' sleepers. The rail section would be wrong (to deep), but in 2mm you can get away with a lot of things - hence the attraction!

[Donw]

The best representation of Edwardian pre-grouping track in my opinion would be to cut your own sleepers from 1/32" ply not an onerous task . I used a stanley knife and a steel rule. I used several strokes rather than trying a single cut. It would be perfectly simple to cut 9ft sleepers  and also to cut the wider sleeprs used for turnout timbers. You can use the chairs supplied for easitrac turnouts. They stick down well with 1 2 Butanone. For turnouts I make the crossing assembly using small pieces of scrap etch these can be fixed down to the timbers with a bit of epoxy.  Chair details can be added from bits of the easitrac chairs ( I have occasional chairs which get dmaged trying to thread them on these can be canabalised).  This will not be as quick as using the easitrac section for straight track . You could simply add a small piece either side of the normal easitrac section but I am not confident it will look right and would show the joints. You could cut the timbers from black plasticard instead of the ply. Or a bit of experimentation may show the shorter sleepers on the easitrac sections is not clearly apparent and simply use that.

The other features of that time is most of the turnouts were straight switches although the heel switches were being replaced with sprung ones by some railways which led to the semi-curved switches commonly designated A,B C etc. Again this detail is not obvious in the 2mm but a bit of experimentation will enable you to produce something satisfactory. Prototypical loose heel switches are not usually made in any small scale as the switch blades is held by the fishplate leaving sufficient flexibility. However a dummy effect can work although I would suggest increasing the switch blade length a little to increase the clearance.

 

This shows a crossing assembly under construction with the ply timbers on the board behind.

Don

 

edit to remove duplicate picture bad fingers again

Edited December 11, 2014 by Donw

[Izzy]

 

In my experience using ply sleepers with easitrac chairs would be the way to go. There is no bolt detail on the chairs, which isn't noticeable, and saves the angst/worry over how many there should be (2/3/4 bolt etc) for the particular company/time period. I wouldn't bother trying plasticard sleepers, they just warp/curl after a while. I believe 95lb bullhead was pretty standard fare for most companies from quite early days, and well represented by the code 40 available. I wouldn't personally try inside keyed track, there just isn't the clearance over the flanges - it's nip & tuck as it is. The end results are quite good, but I'm still experimenting with the best construction for pointwork. David Long has cleverly used the easitrac cast brass chairs in combination with paxolin sleepers in certain places, but being awkward I'm trying to stick with ply throughout.

 

Izzy

[Ian Smith]

Here's a track question. Which of the 2mm track systems do people think gives the best representation of pre-grouping bullhead track? I surmise from the name that easitrac is the easiest but I am more concerned with which will give the more accurate appearance. It won't be a big layout so the work involved is not an issue, besides I like making track. Any opinions would be welcome.

Graham,

 

For pre-grouping, Great Western Baulk Road is the way to go 

 

Ian

Edited December 12, 2014 by Ian Smith

[DavidLong]

Graham,

 

For pre-grouping, Great Western Baulk Road is the way to go 

 

Ian

 

There's always one, isn't there?

 

Still impressive though, Ian.

 

David

[richbrummitt]

Here's a track question. Which of the 2mm track systems do people think gives the best representation of pre-grouping bullhead track? I surmise from the name that easitrac is the easiest but I am more concerned with which will give the more accurate appearance. It won't be a big layout so the work involved is not an issue, besides I like making track. Any opinions would be welcome.

 

Versaline has the detail of the keys. It is much more labour intensive than any other method that I have tried. Tbh, once painted, you can barely tell the difference between the different systems in an exhibition hall unless your head is close enough to get hit by the trains.

[queensquare]

My personal preference is for easitrac with soldered points - pcb and chairplates, as Rich says, once painted and weathered its a job to tell one method from another.

I once had a chap stand in front of Highbury and pontificate about how rail and Pcb looked awful and how you should always use individual chairs, solder blobs, no matter how neatly done simply wouldn't do. I let him dig his hole for a while and then, when he inevitably asked how I had done my track which looked wonderful, told him it was rail directly on to pcb. My self proclaimed expert made his excuses and quickly slipped away.

In addition, Highbury probably has around 50% of the rail upside down as when I built it I didn't realise bullhead has a top and a bottom. Nobody has ever commented and even now I rarely bother to check if the rail is the correct way up as there is so little difference.

 

Jerry

[Donw]

It is the camera that spots the difference these close up shots producing larger than life images shows things that are not apparent to a normal observer. Highbury's trackwork does look good. However I personally find getting all the solder blobs to look similar a tad difficult and find the use of plastic chairs more to my liking. Find what suits you.

Don

[autocoupler942]

My personal preference is for easitrac with soldered points - pcb and chairplates, as Rich says, once painted and weathered its a job to tell one method from another.

I once had a chap stand in front of Highbury and pontificate about how rail and Pcb looked awful and how you should always use individual chairs, solder blobs, no matter how neatly done simply wouldn't do. I let him dig his hole for a while and then, when he inevitably asked how I had done my track which looked wonderful, told him it was rail directly on to pcb. My self proclaimed expert made his excuses and quickly slipped away.

In addition, Highbury probably has around 50% of the rail upside down as when I built it I didn't realise bullhead has a top and a bottom. Nobody has ever commented and even now I rarely bother to check if the rail is the correct way up as there is so little difference.

 

Jerry

As far as I can recall Bullhead rail first hit The Association at the Paddington Expo under the Products Officership of Mike Bryant. It was in straight lengths and noted to have a top and bottom "mass" but unfortunately the "top" was flat and the "bottom" was rounded  ie upside down and less easy to solder!  This showed up in some layouts where shiny flat tops conflicted with correctly orientated rail strips and caught the light annoyingly. Often suggested (but not by layout owners I venture), is that the rail top will eventually all become flat by cleaning with emery blocks!.

 

Later production addressed the problem but it now came in coils and, I believe, not quite 20 x 40 thou's. I have to assume the present supply in straight lengths is now dimensionally correct and your various jigs and gauges fit  (I've not recently purchased any as my tracklaying days are well over) - afterall, we had enough years to work at it!

 

....and finally -  neat and tidy ballasting is the making (or breaking) of all tracklaying.

 

Sorry if this is all in the book "Track" but I don't have a copy.

[Valentin]

If I am to use real coal as the tender load, how do I stick it to the tender's top, which is made of brass?

 

I was thinking to use double-tape then, like with the ballast, diluted PVA.

[Donw]

If I am to use real coal as the tender load, how do I stick it to the tender's top, which is made of brass?

 

I was thinking to use double-tape then, like with the ballast, diluted PVA.

 

That should work Ok, Alternatively if you want it to be removeable cut a piece of card the right size and glue the coal to that. It can be held in with a dab of blue tack if needed. I was thinking a curved bit of card with the coal glued to it might work on a low sided tender where the motor would protrude slighly above the normal top.

Don

[Valentin]

Thanks, Don. I like your approach more than the double-sided tape. It's good having the option to remove the "coal load".

 

There is no need for a curved cardboard as the tender top is flat, just above the motor; probably less than 10 thou