Any Question Answered

[Izzy]

As promised, here is an explanation of the arrangement in some documents which formed part of an article in the 2MM Magazine back in 2001/2.

 

391 Drawings.doc

Tender chassis.doc

Loco chassis 1.doc

Loco chassis 2.doc

 

Jim

 

Thank you Jim, that's most interesting and very clever. Talk about squeezing a quart into a pint pot. And then there's the decoder. Good job CT are so small, especially the latest ones.

 

Izzy

[Caley Jim]

Thank you Jim, that's most interesting and very clever. Talk about squeezing a quart into a pint pot. And then there's the decoder. Good job CT are so small, especially the latest ones.

Thanks, Izzy.  391 has a CT DCX75 lying underneath the tender spacer.  In another tender loco it sits vertically on its side alongside the Faulhaber 0816 motor.

 

Jim

[2mmMark]

2017 is the diamond jubilee of the launch of Lone Star "Treble-O-Trains" (the push-along range).  I know the range was announced in the Railway Modeller during 1957 but I can't recall the issue.Does anyone happen to have RMs for that year and can confirm this?

[Chris Higgs]

2017 is the diamond jubilee of the launch of Lone Star "Treble-O-Trains" (the push-along range).  I know the range was announced in the Railway Modeller during 1957 but I can't recall the issue.Does anyone happen to have RMs for that year and can confirm this?

 

A quick scan through 1957 did not reveal anything about Treble-O, and the summary of the year did not mention it. By contrast the advent of Triang's TT range receives wide coverage. If it was just an advert, I may well have missed it, but it is not coveed in the editorials or trade news sections.

 

Perhaps the esteemed Mr Freezer missed the significance of it, as he did later with Protofour, and Copenhagen Fields? In 1960 he did draw a "Plan of the Month" for OOO, this was after the introduction of the powered models, and the "2mm Scale Magazine" gets a mention.

 

Chris

Edited March 11, 2017 by Chris Higgs

[Valentin]

Which of the following is the better option to scratch-build a chassis for a locomotive?

• 0.7 mm thick P/B for the frames, and 6.4 mm wide PCB for the spacers, OR
• 0.4 mm thick brass or N/S plus P/B bearings, and 7.0 mm wide PCB for the spacers

Is it more difficult to cut two stuck together P/B frames than two brass, or N/S, ones? Would be an issue, using a 25 W soldering iron, to solder the thick P/B frames to the PCB spacers? I would like the robustness given to the chassis by thicker frames but not if the other option has more advantages.

 

Thank you,

[Yorkshire Square]

Hi Valentin

 

I'm using P/B frames for my H&BR F3 (LNER N13) although these are 0.5mm thick. Slightly thicker would be even better, I'd guess.

 

I think, when you're scratchbuilding a chassis, it's easier to achieve in-line axleholes when you're not soldering bearings into frames. This is just my personal opinion. I'll be springing my chassis using the Simpson method too.

 

Cheers

Tony

[2mmMark]

Which of the following is the better option to scratch-build a chassis for a locomotive?

• 0.7 mm thick P/B for the frames, and 6.4 mm wide PCB for the spacers, OR
• 0.4 mm thick brass or N/S plus P/B bearings, and 7.0 mm wide PCB for the spacers

Is it more difficult to cut two stuck together P/B frames than two brass, or N/S, ones? Would be an issue, using a 25 W soldering iron, to solder the thick P/B frames to the PCB spacers? I would like the robustness given to the chassis by thicker frames but not if the other option has more advantages.

 

Thank you,

 

I find it easier to cut out the thicker material when using a piercing saw. The thinner material can pick up on the blade. It could be that my sawing technique leaves something to be desired!

 

Half-hard 0.5mm or 0.7mm phosphor-bronze will give you frames that wil last a lifetime. As you can see from my blog, I prefer to mechanically assemble my chassis. PCB is fine as long as you don't overheat it when soldering. Having said that, my J69 chassis was put together using 0.5mm P/B & PCB spacers at least 20 years ago and it's still going strong.

 

The thicker frame material allows the fixing screws to be countersunk. If you want a robust chassis, then P/B frames combined with an Acetal spacing block will provide it. You can build a chassis this way with hand tools. 1/4" acetal sheet is readily available. It''s very easy to cut and shape.

 

Mark

[2mmMark]

A quick scan through 1957 did not reveal anything about Treble-O, and the summary of the year did not mention it. By contrast the advent of Triang's TT range receives wide coverage. If it was just an advert, I may well have missed it, but it is not coveed in the editorials or trade news sections.

 

Perhaps the esteemed Mr Freezer missed the significance of it, as he did later with Protofour, and Copenhagen Fields? In 1960 he did draw a "Plan of the Month" for OOO, this was after the introduction of the powered models, and the "2mm Scale Magazine" gets a mention.

 

Chris

 

Thanks Chris. Maybe I mis-remembered and it's in another magazine, either the MRN or MRC. Perhaps the RM was a bit snooty about "push-along" diecast toys. Certainly one or two Lone Star Jintys gained powered 2mm chassis. Denys Brownlee had one and so did Bert Groves.

 

Mark

[Chris Higgs]

Thanks Chris. Maybe I mis-remembered and it's in another magazine, either the MRN or MRC. Perhaps the RM was a bit snooty about "push-along" diecast toys. Certainly one or two Lone Star Jintys gained powered 2mm chassis. Denys Brownlee had one and so did Bert Groves.

 

Mark

 

No luck in either of those. I could imagine they would not cover push-along stock, given the quality of some of the 7mm scae modelling visible in those days.

 

But does anyone know anything about the Vale of Penwal railway? 2mm scale, 4mm gauge as featured in the August 1957 MRN?

 

Chris

[Hendreladis]

Vale of Penwal?

 

http://www.zen98812.zen.co.uk/penwal.html

 

http://www.countarthurstrong.com/

[Chris Higgs]

Vale of Penwal?

 

http://www.zen98812.zen.co.uk/penwal.html

 

http://www.countarthurstrong.com/

 

That is indeed the article that I came across. But it is not a layout I ever heard mention of in the history of 2mm modelling, even though its some achievement given the motor technology of the day.

 

Chris

[Orange Cat]

I find it easier to cut out the thicker material when using a piercing saw. The thinner material can pick up on the blade. It could be that my sawing technique leaves something to be desired!

 

 

 

Or maybe you need a finer blade. 

 

That Vale of Penwall layout was rather good. The early years of 2mm modelling, when you not only made your own wheels and motors, you drew your own rail too. 

 

 

[2mm Andy]

But does anyone know anything about the Vale of Penwal railway? 2mm scale, 4mm gauge as featured in the August 1957 MRN?

 

Chris

Phil Copleston posted some information a little while ago in the 2mm narrow gauge thread here;

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/111723-2mm-scale-narrow-gauge-group/

 

Andy

Edited March 12, 2017 by 2mm Andy

[2mmMark]

Or maybe you need a finer blade. 

 

That Vale of Penwall layout was rather good. The early years of 2mm modelling, when you not only made your own wheels and motors, you drew your own rail too. 

 

 

 

I already have fine-toothed blades and a decent saw-frame. Things have improved as I how have a beeswax block to provide lubrication.

 

Vale of Penwal was in the August 1957 MRN and the following year, the MRN for August 1958 has a description of building the Leek & Manifold 2-6-4 "J.B Earle".

 

As you say, an era of 100% scratchbuilding.

 

It would be fascinating to see the models but they seem to have disappeared over the course of time.

 

An L&M 2-6-4 would still be a challenging build today, even with the small coreless motors and gears now available.

 

By contrast, Irish 3ft offers a lot of possibilities for 2mm

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1345/entry-15590-distracted-from-the-straight-onto-the-narrow/

 

Mark

Edited March 13, 2017 by 2mmMark

[garethashenden]

I've now reached the point where my 2mm models no longer fit in the box I've been storing them in. I'm planning on building a couple of trays to fit inside Really Useful Boxes, but I'm unsure if the stock would be better positioned on its side or on its wheels. I feel that on the wheels would be more secure, but on the sides would make it easier to find things. Any thoughts?

[queensquare]

I've now reached the point where my 2mm models no longer fit in the box I've been storing them in. I'm planning on building a couple of trays to fit inside Really Useful Boxes, but I'm unsure if the stock would be better positioned on its side or on its wheels. I feel that on the wheels would be more secure, but on the sides would make it easier to find things. Any thoughts?

Bit of a conundrum this one. I don't think there's much difference in terms of stock safety - so long as the stock can't move around it should be fine.

 

As you say, on its side it's easy to identify individual items but the height varies from bolsters and single plank wagons to full height vans and coaches so the storage has to be individually tailored to some extent.

On its wheels all stock is roughly the same width so making storage pockets is much easier and they are more flexible as to what goes in them. The problem comes when looking for individual items - one weathered roof looks much like another!

I have an assortment of boxes I take my stock out in depending on layout/ period to be run etc. Some have stock on its side, others on wheels though this has evolved more by accident than design! I use flight cases, all locos have their own boxes which sit in the bottom of the case with stock trays on top of them.

 

Jerry

[2mmMark]

My current standard gauge stock box has the stock standing on their wheels, my previous one had them on their sides. As long as the stock is safely restrained, I don't think it really matters.

 

What's important is to have a foam that doesn't "pick" at the details, doesn't degrade and is safely inert. Some foams give off a gas which can affect items stored.

 

My original "Mossmer N-box" foam degraded after about 20 years use and needed replacing.

 

I have seen sliced up camping mat used most successfully.

 

Mark

[Kylestrome]

I have stock boxes that I made in the mid-eighties which are lined with cut up camping mat. After thirty years the closed cell foam is still as good as new. All the vehicles lay on their sides for easier identification, low-sided wagons have their own reduced depth row.

 

Here is a section of the stock tray for one of my layouts.

 

[Izzy]

I've standardised on the A4 footprint size RU boxes for all my model railway storage needs, stock, equipment, materials etc, so they can be stacked in a cupboard. These come I think in 4 & 9 litre sizes and I use the 4 litre size for stock. With stock laid side down, three layers deep with six columns can be accomodated. I make the trays out of single thickness mount board as it's cheap and easy to change or replace as needed, with individual partitions to prevent too much damage. I do have one 9 litre box with a small amount of P4 stock in two trays made from 5mm foamcore board, with this standing on it's wheels. This stock is not nearly as easy to get out as the 2mm stuff laid on it's side, but the foamcore is good, however probably too thick to allow three layers deep with the 2mm stock.

 

Izzy

[Crosland]

Stock boxes: Does anyone worry about using "acid free" packaging?

 

There was one mention of foam degrading, but has anyone had problems with foam (or whatever) sticking to, and possibly damaging, stock if left for extended periods?

 

Any materials to definitely avoid?

[Chris Higgs]

Stock boxes: Does anyone worry about using "acid free" packaging?

 

There was one mention of foam degrading, but has anyone had problems with foam (or whatever) sticking to, and possibly damaging, stock if left for extended periods?

 

Any materials to definitely avoid?

 

Short answer: yes. I've got some commercial stock where the foam has degraded and stuck to the model. And I've heard of other people having issues too.

 

Fleischmann use moulded plastic inserts to their boxes, quite possibly for this reason.

 

 

Chris

[Pixie]

BcnPete recommend to me the KR Multicase for lugging stick around safely; it's great.

 

 

It contains three foam trays, each with a solid base and carry handles. Two had 7 rows (which are about the right height for minerals,hoppers and opens on their sides) which you can fit around 40 wagons in, then the other has 6 rows (which can hold locos, coaches and vans on their sides). It's got enough stock to keep Parkend busy for a weekend of operation.  

 

 

 

 

Usual disclaimer.

 

Cheers,

Pix

[2mmMark]

Stock boxes: Does anyone worry about using "acid free" packaging?

 

There was one mention of foam degrading, but has anyone had problems with foam (or whatever) sticking to, and possibly damaging, stock if left for extended periods?

 

Any materials to definitely avoid?

 

The open cell green foam in my Mossmer stock box was visibly crumbling. This happened over a fairly short space of time after a good few years of service with no degradation. The residue felt slightly sticky but fortunately brushed off the stock. It was similar to the crumbling of foam carpet underlay.

 

Fortunately, I was able to get some new closed cell foam cut for the trays. This came from Alan Smith's company "ABS Cases" and is what was used in commercially made rolling stock cases. I'm hoping it's the right stuff for the job.

 

Over in the Collectables forum, there are some examples of tinplate stock with paint damage from long term storage in open cell foam.

 

Sorry I can't be more specific than that.  Acid free tissue paper would be a good choice for long term storage for items that will not be disturbed but it's not very robust for a frequently used stock box.

 

I've seen the mains cable sheathing of a Marklin Z power unit affected by prolonged storage in its expanded polystyrene packing.

[Chris Higgs]

BcnPete recommend to me the KR Multicase for lugging stick around safely; it's great.

 

 

It contains three foam trays, each with a solid base and carry handles. Two had 7 rows (which are about the right height for minerals,hoppers and opens on their sides) which you can fit around 40 wagons in, then the other has 6 rows (which can hold locos, coaches and vans on their sides). It's got enough stock to keep Parkend busy for a weekend of operation.  

 

 

 

 

Usual disclaimer.

 

Cheers,

Pix

 

The Forest vandals are at it again. Looks like they smashed every single window in that DMU!

 

Chris

[nick_bastable]

  Acid free tissue paper would be a good choice for long term storage for items that will not be disturbed but it's not very robust for a frequently used stock box.

 

i lay this in a foam stock box insets  it was  45p for 5 A0 sheets in the local art shop when I obtained it in January

 

Nick