Any Question Answered

[A. Bastow]

Hi all,

 

When I built my latest loco chassis (see the workbench thread) I thought that I had managed to get everything straight and square, but when I came back to it after a few weeks it seemed to have developed a slight bend across the length of the chassis. It may just be me and my soldering. 

 

Is there anything I can do to stop this bending? Should I be making/using a jig to assemble rather than the axle steel through the bearings? Should I include sacrificial bits for the brass jigs sold by the association? Should I be using the PCB spacers sold by the association shop rather than the etched spacers that I have been using? 

I remember reading/seeing somewhere about using a block of wood to help construction...

A lot to unpack there, and probably less of an issue than it needs to be, I was just curious as how others get it all straight and true. 

 

Cheers! 

Edited July 6, 2022 by A. Bastow

[queensquare]

Hi Adam,

 

the simple answer is, when assembling the chassis frames, check, check and check again. What can appear square from one angle may have a twist which throws it out - this is a particular problem with etched frames and is where those who advocate heavy frames have an advantage. The downside of the latter of course is that you have to cut/dril/file them yourself.

I like the little bobbin jigs that the Association sells and use them with differnt internal spacers depending on the thickness of the frame material. I also use as many visual aids as possible - 1.5mm axle steel in every hole and also a steel rule to make sure no bananna bend has appeared whilst soldering up.

As for etched v PCB spacers. I dont think they have a huge bearing on the squarness of the chassis as both need equal care to ensure it is square and twist free. I find the PCB spacers much quicker than the Raithby/Hunt etched spacers on pcb pads although I think the latter are easier to assemble ensuring no twist. They also give a bit more room under the loco for gubbins such as gears, chips etc. I also very much like the Raithby/Hunt method of having the tender body pivot between the two rear axles with weight bearing on the rear of the loco. That said, for a basic tender chassis I tend to just run a single piece of PCB down  the centre which, when combined with axle steels, pretty much gaurantees a square chassis.

 

Ive attached a couple of pictures which will hopefully be of help.

 

Jerry

 

[Nick Mitchell]

I clamp the bobbin spacers in the jaws of my watchmakers' vice to make sure there is no twist in the frames.

The flat jaw of the vice acts like the ruler in @queensquare's previous answer to ensure no bending along the length.

 

 

 

[Caley Jim]

I have made my two etched chassis with sacrificial 'spacers' running across between the lower edges of the wheel positions.  The frames fold up from these, ensuring they are square, and then the etched spacers and gearbox were attached with thin pcb pads.  Once these were all in place I cut away the 'spacers'.  I didn't take a photo before removing the spacers, but here is a screen snip of the etch artwork. 

 

 

The parts in the centre are the front and rear spacers and the drawbar.  The two rectangular lugs and the tapered projections are to accurately locate the gearbox and are also sacrificed.

 

This is the chassis ready for the gears and wheels.

 

 

 

For the tender chassis the sacrificial connectors were on extensions of the frames.

 

Jim

[bécasse]

A common cause is poor soldering practice, with unequal thermal expansion inducing a slight bend when the frames cool again after the hot iron is removed. The thinner the metal, the more likely it is to happen.

[Nig H]

22 hours ago, A. Bastow said:

Hi all,

 

When I built my latest loco chassis (see the workbench thread) I thought that I had managed to get everything straight and square, but when I came back to it after a few weeks it seemed to have developed a slight bend across the length of the chassis. It may just be me and my soldering. 

 

Is there anything I can do to stop this bending? Should I be making/using a jig to assemble rather than the axle steel through the bearings? Should I include sacrificial bits for the brass jigs sold by the association? Should I be using the PCB spacers sold by the association shop rather than the etched spacers that I have been using? 

I remember reading/seeing somewhere about using a block of wood to help construction...

A lot to unpack there, and probably less of an issue than it needs to be, I was just curious as how others get it all straight and true. 

 

Cheers! 

Hello Adam,

 

I've had this happen once or twice. I clamped the chassis between two straight lengths of rocket stick wood, and held this firmly in a vise. I then went along the soldered spacer joints one at a time re-soldering them. After this I released the chassis and if there was still some bend noticeable, I'd repeat the process. This method seemed to work for me so maybe worth you trying. Good luck.

 

Nigel Hunt

[A. Bastow]

Thanks to everyone that replied on this banana bend topic. It's settled in my mind that it's not a deal-breaker anymore if this happens. Lots of care up front and perhaps corrective action afterwards could save future builds. 

 

I have since however, completely disassembled the loco chassis. There were too many little errors that need correction. I enjoyed getting it to that stage though. Very satisfying to see what I had got right in the etch design and where I can improve. 

 

Now that's to bed for a while I think I might do some painting before tackling that loco kit that I've been threatening. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by A. Bastow
typo

[Mr chapman]

I have an etch of DG couplings to play with. For an inglenook layout where nothing will be rotated do people recommend fitting a loop on each coupling or just one end? For locomotives loop or no loop? I have seen both. 

[Ian Morgan]

Loop at one end only for me. Saves time and materials, and they don't get in each others way.

 

With a run round loop, I still need couplings both ends of the loco, but have the loops on the rear end. Lucky for me, the convention on the Isle of Wight was that locos ran forwards in the direction of Freshwater, although there were probably the odd exceptions. There were no triangular tracks, and the rare turntable was only used as a sector plate.

 

Having an end loading bay, it makes sense to keep the loops at the other end so they don't get damaged.

 

 

 

[bécasse]

10 hours ago, Ian Morgan said:

Lucky for me, the convention on the Isle of Wight was that locos ran forwards in the direction of Freshwater, although there were probably the odd exceptions. There were no triangular tracks, and the rare turntable was only used as a sector plate.

 

 

 

 

 

Until 1956, three years after the closure of the Freshwater branch, there was, of course, a triangle in the Isle of Wight - Newport, Ryde, Sandown - and O2 tanks, usually the ones allocated to Newport (and therefore the very locos that worked the Freshwater line) certainly got turned at times working trains round it. Ryde Works could only accept locos with their bunkers facing north, so if a loco needing works attention turned up the other way round, it was put on the Bembridge branch turn and turned on the turntable there at the end of the day before returning to Ryde (goods to Sandown, LE thence to St.John's Road); as you suggest that Bembridge turntable was only otherwise used as a central-pivot sector plate.

[queensquare]

16 hours ago, Mr chapman said:

I have an etch of DG couplings to play with. For an inglenook layout where nothing will be rotated do people recommend fitting a loop on each coupling or just one end? For locomotives loop or no loop? I have seen both. 

 

I would suggest you try it both ways as there are pros and cons of both. I'm a strong advocate of loops both ends on stock and none on locos. That way it doesnt matter what way round the stock is and also makes fitting couplings to locos easier.

 

jerry

[Donw]

As Jerry says there are pros and cons.  It needs careful thought as once you start it will set the standard for your future layouts if the stock is used for them. 

With cassettes if you want to turn them for quickness or because you are operating single handed you need stock to have hoops and hooks at both ends. However if you have a system with a separate short cassette for the loco which couples to the main cassette for the train you can move the cassette to the other end  to reverse a train.  Tender locos are a problem if you want to turn them.  So double ended stock has advantages and Jerry' solution has the advantage that tender locos look better with just a hook IMO.

 

Don

[Mr chapman]

Thanks for the recommendations chaps. I shall have a play with both methods. I have some old farish wagons with missing couplings to experiment with :) 

[Ian Smith]

Because on Modbury there are traintables at each end all stock gets rotated, therefore like Jerry I have loops on both ends of rolling stock but only hooks on both ends of my locos. One side effect of this is that it allows me the flexibility to run my engines cab or smokebox first.

Ian

[Mr chapman]

Sorry, one more question regarding the D G's. Looking at the wagons the preferred fixing location appears to be flush with the bottom of the buffer beam. Locomotives again the same. How do you deal with coaches? 

[Izzy]

14 hours ago, Mr chapman said:

Sorry, one more question regarding the D G's. Looking at the wagons the preferred fixing location appears to be flush with the bottom of the buffer beam. Locomotives again the same. How do you deal with coaches? 

Using mainly diesels alongside some corridor bogie coaches I have found that I needed to fix the couplings onto the bogies to get sufficient clearance and get around curves easily, and this meant they had to be set 1mm lower than the normal hard up against the bottom of the buffer beams to prevent them fouling on things as they swing through their arc of travel. So I had to adopt this lower height across all my stock. With corridor coaches I also found there wasn’t the clearance to fit the delay loops. They hit the underside of the corridor connections and can’t rise up sufficiently to allow un-coupling to take place. Since I only use manual un-coupling and run them in mostly fixed formations this hasn’t been an issue for me. Being only home based layouts which won’t be exhibited helps in that I can just do what suits me.

 

With DG’s you can bend them to suit past the pivot points for the loop for attaching to whatever you want. I can sort out a few shots to illustrate if that would help at all.

 

Bob

Edited July 18, 2022 by Izzy

[2mmMark]

The dimensions I use for DGs are:

Bottom of buffing plate to rail - 4.5mm
Mounting platform of coupler to rail - 5.5mm

That seems to cope with most situations. 

Mark

[Mr chapman]

On 15/07/2022 at 23:15, Ian Morgan said:

Loop at one end only for me. Saves time and materials, and they don't get in each others way.

 

With a run round loop, I still need couplings both ends of the loco, but have the loops on the rear end. Lucky for me, the convention on the Isle of Wight was that locos ran forwards in the direction of Freshwater, although there were probably the odd exceptions. There were no triangular tracks, and the rare turntable was only used as a sector plate.

 

Having an end loading bay, it makes sense to keep the loops at the other end so they don't get damaged.

 

 

 

Thanks so far for the help. I'm assembling some couplers and the thing that is giving me the biggest headache is the latch. I see you have an odd one in the last photo. Do they normally have so much side play? It will drop on the centre hook freely but also appears able to drop either side of the main hook. It's captive but I am assuming not tight enough somewhere? Thanks for your patience 

[PMP]

Does anyone know are there any replacement etched coupling rods available for the current Grafar 08, outside frame version, as a separate item rather part of a complete kit?

[Izzy]

13 minutes ago, PMP said:

Does anyone know are there any replacement etched coupling rods available for the current Grafar 08, outside frame version, as a separate item rather part of a complete kit?

Yes, they are on the Farish coupling rod etch 3-205. Also used for the J94, same wheelbase. Plenty of etched outside cranks on the sheet as well so quite useful all round for different non-Farish locos.

 

Bob

[John57sharp]

Having had a good search I can’t seem to find any information about the prototype for the Association GE 10t Cattle Wagon, can anybody assist? 
 

cheers

John

[Sithlord75]

35 minutes ago, John57sharp said:

Having had a good search I can’t seem to find any information about the prototype for the Association GE 10t Cattle Wagon, can anybody assist? 
 

cheers

John

As far as I have been able to determine from the GER society web page and my 1976 edition of Tatlow's "A Pictorial Record of LNER Wagons" it dates from 1910 when the GER moved over to building Large wagons with a moveable partition.  I believe it should (assuming the 1910 part is correct) be on a wooden underframe.  Mine isn't - so either a) I've built it wrong (possible as I didn't have the information at the time I built it some 10-12 years ago) or b) it is a large one built prior to the 1910 order for 425 (which is my story until proved wrong!!!).  It is likely that the relevant volume of the complete history will shed more information but I only purchased the one on GNR wagons when last in Bath.

 

Hope this helps a little.

 

Cheers

Kevin

 

[Chris Higgs]

2 hours ago, Sithlord75 said:

As far as I have been able to determine from the GER society web page and my 1976 edition of Tatlow's "A Pictorial Record of LNER Wagons" it dates from 1910 when the GER moved over to building Large wagons with a moveable partition.  I believe it should (assuming the 1910 part is correct) be on a wooden underframe.  Mine isn't - so either a) I've built it wrong (possible as I didn't have the information at the time I built it some 10-12 years ago) or b) it is a large one built prior to the 1910 order for 425 (which is my story until proved wrong!!!).  It is likely that the relevant volume of the complete history will shed more information but I only purchased the one on GNR wagons when last in Bath.

 

Hope this helps a little.

 

Cheers

Kevin

 

 

According to Tatlow (the large 4? volume set) in Volume 1 page 219, there were diagrams 5,6,7 and 71. Diagram 7 (800 built in 1905) having steel underframes, Diagram 71 (375 built plus 50 VB) reverting to wood underframes. There are pictures of both. Tatlow speculates that cow urine corrodes steel hence the reversion to wood. The book states they were of different lengths (diagram 7 being 19'3").

 

Chris

[chrisveitch]

I have a (possibly naive) question regarding interpretation of the instructions for the 2-382 Peco 10’ wheelbase wagon chassis replacement etch. I’m working my way through a batch and I’ve come unstuck on bufferbeams.

 

They state “Solder into place, ensuring they are accurately located over the buffer holes, and that the etched channel section faces inwards in the case of the steel bufferbeam.” (my emphasis). Am I right in thinking this means that the outer (visible) face is flat and the channel forms a void in the end of the bufferbeam? If so, what does this represent?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Chris

[Chris Higgs]

23 minutes ago, chrisveitch said:

I have a (possibly naive) question regarding interpretation of the instructions for the 2-382 Peco 10’ wheelbase wagon chassis replacement etch. I’m working my way through a batch and I’ve come unstuck on bufferbeams.

 

They state “Solder into place, ensuring they are accurately located over the buffer holes, and that the etched channel section faces inwards in the case of the steel bufferbeam.” (my emphasis). Am I right in thinking this means that the outer (visible) face is flat and the channel forms a void in the end of the bufferbeam? If so, what does this represent?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Chris

 

It represents that a steel bufferbeam is a U shape (same as a solebar) with the open side of the U facing inwards. So indeed the outer face of the bufferbeam is flat.

 

And the end of the bufferbeams both sides of the beam are visible.

 

Chris