Any Question Answered

[2mm Andy]

Ah! You sent me off to flick through some books this evening David and appear to be quite correct. I'd previously lumped together all 16xx/54xx/64xx/74xx into one pile, not really noticing that only the former appears on non-special workings. Perhaps it's not the quick-win mundane works horse I'd planned. Never mind, it's still a cute little model.

 

 

I'd probably go for 6412 as it was a local machine; although there's photo of 6437 in the Forest. Where does one source number plates for these steam devices?

 

Pix

 

Bear in mind that there were quite a few variations in the 64xx class;

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/no-64xx.html

 

I'm not sure that you could accurately model 6437 without hacking the body about a bit.

 

Andy

[Pixie]

Cheers Andy - I'll just go for the simple life and keep mine as 6412.

 

Cheers,

Pix

[queensquare]

Bear in mind that there were quite a few variations in the 64xx class;

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/no-64xx.html

 

I'm not sure that you could accurately model 6437 without hacking the body about a bit.

 

Andy

Thanks for the link Andy....so much for Swindon standardisation!

 

Jerry

[D869]

I'd probably go for 6412 as it was a local machine; although there's photo of 6437 in the Forest. Where does one source number plates for these steam devices?

 

Looks like I'm late to the party but FWIW I had a similar dilemma. The NGS distributes the ModelMaster ones but could never manage to supply the ones that I wanted and for a while stopped supplying plates and decals entirely... at which point I stopped paying my subs because the ModelMaster items were the only things that I really wanted.

 

In the end I took matters into my own hands and had mine etched in 8 thou brass so I also have artwork (Inkscape in this case) for GW name and numberplates. Ian Smith started the ball rolling with plates for his Edwardian locos and then kindly let me have his SVG when I wanted to do the Hall. I added some more characters and also fiddled with the dimensions to get a better fit onto the Dapol Hall mouldings.

 

I guess that you'll get a result with the CAD from Chris, but I'd be happy to share my Inkscape stuff if you want.

 

Regards, Andy

[2mm Andy]

Has anyone got one of the 64XX in the flesh? I'm interested in whether the footplate is separate from the body as I am contemplating doing a 3D printed footplate to make a 54XX.

 

Chris

 

I had the chance to take the body off the 64xx again earlier this evening. It looks as though the footplate is moulded as part of the body, so a replacement footplate would require fairly brutal surgery.

 

Andy

[Chris Higgs]

I had the chance to take the body off the 64xx again earlier this evening. It looks as though the footplate is moulded as part of the body, so a replacement footplate would require fairly brutal surgery.

 

Andy

 

OK, I also had an alternative idea of a set of three splashers 3D printed, cut off the original ones, widen the slots that remain in the footplate and then insert the new set of splashers from underneath. Then a new etched bufferbeam to account for the buffers being mounted lower on a 54XX.

 

EDIT: reading through the reports of the 4mm version, I get the impression that Bachmann may have done the splashers more of a 54XX size to accomodate the overscale wheel flanges. So perhaps this is a blank alley.

 

Chris

Edited August 12, 2016 by Chris Higgs

[Donw]

There maybe some mileage in the new footplate idea. I have a Farish body acquired from Tony White which has been milled to remove the footplate with a replacement Nickel Silver Footplate. A lot will depends on how easy it is to accurately slice the footplate off the body.

Don

[Chris Higgs]

There maybe some mileage in the new footplate idea. I have a Farish body acquired from Tony White which has been milled to remove the footplate with a replacement Nickel Silver Footplate. A lot will depends on how easy it is to accurately slice the footplate off the body.

Don

 

Provided you are happy to destroy the footplate in the process, I would have thought it easy enough with a large file to just remove it when it is plastic.

 

Chris

[2mm Andy]

OK, I also had an alternative idea of a set of three splashers 3D printed, cut off the original ones, widen the slots that remain in the footplate and then insert the new set of splashers from underneath. Then a new etched bufferbeam to account for the buffers being mounted lower on a 54XX.

 

EDIT: reading through the reports of the 4mm version, I get the impression that Bachmann may have done the splashers more of a 54XX size to accomodate the overscale wheel flanges. So perhaps this is a blank alley.

 

Chris

Having measured the splashers on the N gauge model and compared them to the 54xx drawing I have, they appear to be a little undernourished for the 54xx. I don't have a scale drawing for the 64xx, but working from photos to judge the proportions, I suspect that they're slightly overscale. I made up an wheelset with 10.5mm wheels (54xx wheel diameter 5'2" = 10.6mm @ 1:148 scale) this morning and tried it in the loco. The wheels do go round, although they're rubbing lightly on the body somewhere. I suspect that a little work with a scalpel (or a burr in a Minicraft drill if you're brave!) might get you the necessary clearances for it to run.

 

If I were to replace or modify the splashers, I'd try to do them in thin brass or nickel silver rather than 3d printing. Filing the footplate off of an £80 model for what I perceive to be relatively little benefit strikes me as somewhat masochistic!

 

I don't think any comparison with the old 57xx model is particularly valid either - the 64xx is light years ahead in appearance and running.

 

Andy

[Chris Higgs]

Having measured the splashers on the N gauge model and compared them to the 54xx drawing I have, they appear to be a little undernourished for the 54xx. I don't have a scale drawing for the 64xx, but working from photos to judge the proportions, I suspect that they're slightly overscale. I made up an wheelset with 10.5mm wheels (54xx wheel diameter 5'2" = 10.6mm @ 1:148 scale) this morning and tried it in the loco. The wheels do go round, although they're rubbing lightly on the body somewhere. I suspect that a little work with a scalpel (or a burr in a Minicraft drill if you're brave!) might get you the necessary clearances for it to run.

 

If I were to replace or modify the splashers, I'd try to do them in thin brass or nickel silver rather than 3d printing. Filing the footplate off of an £80 model for what I perceive to be relatively little benefit strikes me as somewhat masochistic!

 

I don't think any comparison with the old 57xx model is particularly valid either - the 64xx is light years ahead in appearance and running.

 

Andy

 

I must admit my experiences with etched splashers tends up end up with a fair bit of cursing trying to solder the tops on. 3D printing can be done extremely thin (0.5mm) so I might look at new splashers that just slide over the existing ones, with cutiing the originals back inside where needed to clear the wheels.

 

Or perhaps just an etched strip stuck on over the 64XX splashers to make them a bit bigger.

 

Chris

[MarkAustin]

Thanks for the link Andy....so much for Swindon standardisation!

 

Jerry

Swindon standardisation didn't mean everything was identical: it meant that everything fitted together. That's what causes the problem. Boilers etc moved around from class member to class member. There's at least one case of a pannier tank going in to Swindon works and coming out with saddle tanks.

 

That's why, for accurate modelling, you need a photgraph of the correct period to see which member of the clas had which variant at any time

Mark A.

[PeteDavey]

Apologies in advance if this is in the wrong spot. I have come to the conclusion that converting locos to 2mm fine scale is a time consuming matter, so bearing in mind my current project is intended as a learning curve from the offset I thought why not put a simply branch line through station to one side with hand built line and siding to standard n gauge rail width (9mm). My question is, if I was to do this can I simply shorten a 2mm association brass roller gauge by 0.2mm (by parting in half, running a tap up the middle and re assembling on stud locked to nuts on the outside) or would the check rail gaps be incompatible with modern n gauge rtr wheels? If I can make this work I can still run my locos whilst the fleet undergoes conversion. Hopefully by the time the "master layout" is ready to commence, which will be when I have acquired the necessary skills to do it justice my entire fleet will be converted.

[nick_bastable]

Apologies in advance if this is in the wrong spot. I have come to the conclusion that converting locos to 2mm fine scale is a time consuming matter, so bearing in mind my current project is intended as a learning curve from the offset I thought why not put a simply branch line through station to one side with hand built line and siding to standard n gauge rail width (9mm). My question is, if I was to do this can I simply shorten a 2mm association brass roller gauge by 0.2mm (by parting in half, running a tap up the middle and re assembling on stud locked to nuts on the outside) or would the check rail gaps be incompatible with modern n gauge rtr wheels? If I can make this work I can still run my locos whilst the fleet undergoes conversion. Hopefully by the time the "master layout" is ready to commence, which will be when I have acquired the necessary skills to do it justice my entire fleet will be converted.

or use finetrax  http://www.britishfinescale.com/

 

on my own stalled main layout i have  laid a simple auto shuttle ( ie no points) using easitrac  as a means of testing / running in N gauge locos prior to conversion

 

Nick

[PeteDavey]

I plan on using easitrac throughout but thought this might be a great opportunity to get my copper clad skills upto scratch and gives me a little more operational interest by having a siding. I'm just not sure if 2mm check rail gaps will cut it with standard rtr n gauge wheels so was hoping someone may have past experience. Ultimately my current layout will be stripped for parts and binned in the next couple of years as it was only ever started to learn from so my modellers licence on this one is pretty much unlimited.

Edited August 19, 2016 by PeteDavey

[nick_bastable]

I plan on using easitrac throughout but thought this might be a great opportunity to get my copper clad skills upto scratch and gives me a little more operational interest by having a siding. I'm just not sure if 2mm check rail gaps will cut it with standard rtr n gauge wheels so was hoping someone may have past experience. Ultimately my current layout will be stripped for parts and binned in the next couple of years as it was only ever started to learn from so my modellers licence on this one is pretty much unlimited.

finetrax is a  n gauge version of easitrac should work with modern ie non pizza wheels

 

NIck

[Izzy]

Apologies in advance if this is in the wrong spot. I have come to the conclusion that converting locos to 2mm fine scale is a time consuming matter, so bearing in mind my current project is intended as a learning curve from the offset I thought why not put a simply branch line through station to one side with hand built line and siding to standard n gauge rail width (9mm). My question is, if I was to do this can I simply shorten a 2mm association brass roller gauge by 0.2mm (by parting in half, running a tap up the middle and re assembling on stud locked to nuts on the outside) or would the check rail gaps be incompatible with modern n gauge rtr wheels? If I can make this work I can still run my locos whilst the fleet undergoes conversion. Hopefully by the time the "master layout" is ready to commence, which will be when I have acquired the necessary skills to do it justice my entire fleet will be converted.

 

You would have to take 0.42mm out of the roller gauge to get back to 9mm gauge as 2FS is 9.42mm. However, another issue would be that the current standard Farish/Dapol wheels have a nominal 0.5mm flange width and are thus really too tight a fit through the 2FS flangeways, quite apart from the differing b-t-b measurement that would be needed.

 

Finetrax would be a good practice for building easitrac 2FS pointwork since with the new easitrac point kits construction is virtually identical but of course Finetrax takes N gauge RTR wheels.

 

Izzy

[PeteDavey]

You would have to take 0.42mm out of the roller gauge to get back to 9mm gauge as 2FS is 9.42mm. However, another issue would be that the current standard Farish/Dapol wheels have a nominal 0.5mm flange width and are thus really too tight a fit through the 2FS flangeways, quite apart from the differing b-t-b measurement that would be needed.

 

Finetrax would be a good practice for building easitrac 2FS pointwork since with the new easitrac point kits construction is virtually identical but of course Finetrax takes N gauge RTR wheels.

 

Izzy

Thank you Izzy, I suspected it may be troublesome. And thanks Nick, I will take a look at the finetrax point work, I just want to be able to "play trains" occasionally whilst the bigger picture unfolds if that makes sense?

[Valentin]

I have just read the latest update about the Forth and Clyde Area Group August meeting and I am very interested in the laser cut servo bracket. As I don't have a Google account (nor one of those listed there) I cannot post a comment on the FnC blog so I hope that Martin or Andy will se my question here: would be possible to buy two or three of these brackets?

 

Thank you,

[Caley Jim]

I have just read the latest update about the Forth and Clyde Area Group August meeting and I am very interested in the laser cut servo bracket. As I don't have a Google account (nor one of those listed there) I cannot post a comment on the FnC blog so I hope that Martin or Andy will se my question here: would be possible to buy two or three of these brackets?

 

Thank you,

I'll send mMartin a link to your post, Valentin.

 

Jim

[Ian Morgan]

http://www.merg.org.uk/ used to do a laser cut servo mount, and now supply 3D printed ones, which work out quite cheap.

 

Ian.

[nick_bastable]

http://www.merg.org.uk/ used to do a laser cut servo mount, and now supply 3D printed ones, which work out quite cheap.

 

Ian.

the merg units are very nice and work well with the association tie bar units

 

NIck

[Rammstein2609]

I have just read the latest update about the Forth and Clyde Area Group August meeting and I am very interested in the laser cut servo bracket. As I don't have a Google account (nor one of those listed there) I cannot post a comment on the FnC blog so I hope that Martin or Andy will se my question here: would be possible to buy two or three of these brackets?

 

Thank you,

 

Hi Valentin

 

Jim has pointed me in the direction of your post so I've sent you a PM.

 

Thanks

 

Martin

[2mmMark]

Apologies in advance if this is in the wrong spot. I have come to the conclusion that converting locos to 2mm fine scale is a time consuming matter, so bearing in mind my current project is intended as a learning curve from the offset I thought why not put a simply branch line through station to one side with hand built line and siding to standard n gauge rail width (9mm). My question is, if I was to do this can I simply shorten a 2mm association brass roller gauge by 0.2mm (by parting in half, running a tap up the middle and re assembling on stud locked to nuts on the outside) or would the check rail gaps be incompatible with modern n gauge rtr wheels? If I can make this work I can still run my locos whilst the fleet undergoes conversion. Hopefully by the time the "master layout" is ready to commence, which will be when I have acquired the necessary skills to do it justice my entire fleet will be converted.

 

Hi Pete

 

I've done the same to convert the Association gauges for narrow gauge use.  It's a workable solution but I found I had to tighten the threads somewhat by using a smaller than recommend tapping drill.  I looked at the normal  clearance on a BA thread and even on a 8 or 10BA bolt, there was a fair bit of slack.  The thread and locking nuts do make the gauge a little bit unwieldy.

 

I set the gauge using strips of rail accurately soldered onto a piece of PCB.

 

 

The other gauge in the picture is one shortened and mounted on a tube of brass, using original slow-setting Araldite, which easily withstands soldering temperatures.

 

Mark

[PeteDavey]

Hi Pete

 

I've done the same to convert the Association gauges for narrow gauge use.  It's a workable solution but I found I had to tighten the threads somewhat by using a smaller than recommend tapping drill.  I looked at the normal  clearance on a BA thread and even on a 8 or 10BA bolt, there was a fair bit of slack.  The thread and locking nuts do make the gauge a little bit unwieldy.

 

I set the gauge using strips of rail accurately soldered onto a piece of PCB.

 

 

The other gauge in the picture is one shortened and mounted on a tube of brass, using original slow-setting Araldite, which easily withstands soldering temperatures.

 

Mark

Thank you Mark, I hadn't considered using a smaller tapping drill, I was going to use ptfe, but rather like that idea, especially if combined with slow setting araldite.

[2mmMark]

The check rail gaps will still be wrong for N but I don't use the roller gauges to set them for 2mm finescale anyway. Instead I use slips of aluminium strip of the required thickness.

 

You should be able to find some which suits the N scale clearances. If you're using a consistent back-to-back and modern wheel profiles, you ought to be able to tighten them up somewhat compared to the whopping great channels that Peco use.