Any Question Answered

[Yorkshire Square]

14 minutes ago, Matt.S. said:

6mm dia, 12.25 axle - centres to suit. I've spotted disc and three hole. 

 

12 hours ago, John57sharp said:

Which wheels are appropriate for the Association Presflo kit please? I can’t see any indication on the instructions.

 

TIA

 

John

 

Don't forget there are the "i" info links in the headings - takes you to http://www.2mm.org.uk/products/instruction_sheets/wagons-br.pdf

 

and suggests 2-005, 3 hole disc on (of course) 12.25mm axles.

[2mm Andy]

On 10/11/2022 at 09:15, Lacathedrale said:

I'm fitting my very first automatic couplings, ever, with assocation DGs. I have a few small questions if that's OK?

1. Is the dropper on the DG Coupling meant to come back towards the wagon in a straight line when viewed from above (like a '9' on an old LCD clock) or towards the centreline?
2. How long should the steel/iron wire be? Right now when laying flat they reach just about to (and under) the near axle.
3. Should the tails of the lifting tongue be twisted fore and aft, or port/starboard? I have noticed in once instance the rear-bent tail is knocking against the PB wire pivot.
4. This is a very silly question - but is there any way to test the couplings other than with the use of a magnet under a track? I don't have a test track presently, so if so, I'll have to knock one up! 

 

 

 

Have you looked at the section of the new Finescale Manual that covers DG couplings? I think it might answer some of your questions.

 

http://www.2mm.org.uk/2FS_Manual/2fs-manual-dg-couplings-v2.pdf

 

Andy

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

I had not, Andy - thank you! re: turning down the Farish Wheels - it seems that I had managed to forget to order the ACTUAL LOCOMOTIVE so I guess there's time to practise...

[Lacathedrale]

Thank you for the tips on the test track. I have seen that 6mm square neodymium magnets are going for about £7/pack and I have a couple of gaugemaster electromagnets still to use up, so I'll use those.

 

With the C-class not forthcoming, I defer to what I was planning to build next, a Worsley E4:

 

 

It is not a split-frame chassis by default, so I am planning to solder in spacer material below the flats, drill through for the mounting holes, and then file back the nickel silver and copper cladding to split the chassis for pickup.  I am planning on using the association gearbox with an 8mm coreless motor, and am going to give Simpson springing a miss on this particular model.

 

In reality, the cost of the experiment so far is not too high, but I'd rather not make a rookie mistake and have to start over this early in the game. As such, I would like to confirm next steps:

 

1. Spacers fitted, then chassis split

2. Rolling tested with non-geared wheels temporarily (reamed looser muffs, etc.)

3. Gearbox

4. Wheels

5. Brakegear

6. Couplers

 

Is that correct? Does anyone know of a 'gotcha' that's going to bite me?

[65179]

What width does the fold up etch give between the frames?

 

Regards,

Simon

[Lacathedrale]

34 minutes ago, 65179 said:

What width does the fold up etch give between the frames?

 

Regards,

Simon

 

Bang on the 7mm required for the 2mm loco frame spacing stock from the association shop. I've fitted PB bushes to the axle holes too - they were the perfect size to be broached to fit. I guess Allen knows his market? :) 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[queensquare]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

Thank you for the tips on the test track. I have seen that 6mm square neodymium magnets are going for about £7/pack and I have a couple of gaugemaster electromagnets still to use up, so I'll use those.

 

With the C-class not forthcoming, I defer to what I was planning to build next, a Worsley E4:

 

 

It is not a split-frame chassis by default, so I am planning to solder in spacer material below the flats, drill through for the mounting holes, and then file back the nickel silver and copper cladding to split the chassis for pickup.  I am planning on using the association gearbox with an 8mm coreless motor, and am going to give Simpson springing a miss on this particular model.

 

In reality, the cost of the experiment so far is not too high, but I'd rather not make a rookie mistake and have to start over this early in the game. As such, I would like to confirm next steps:

 

1. Spacers fitted, then chassis split

2. Rolling tested with non-geared wheels temporarily (reamed looser muffs, etc.)

3. Gearbox

4. Wheels

5. Brakegear

6. Couplers

 

Is that correct? Does anyone know of a 'gotcha' that's going to bite me?

I always paint the chassis and wheels before fitting them - I only ever intend to fit them once.

Cocktail sticks in the axle holes and Maskol on the tyres then spray primer and top coat. 
 

Jerry

[John57sharp]

On 11/11/2022 at 07:36, Yorkshire Square said:

 

 

Don't forget there are the "i" info links in the headings - takes you to http://www.2mm.org.uk/products/instruction_sheets/wagons-br.pdf

 

and suggests 2-005, 3 hole disc on (of course) 12.25mm axles.

Ah yes, I do often overlook that link. Thank again.

 

And thank to Matt too for his info

 

John

[Ian Lilley]

Hi

   I am converting a Farish 64XX to 2mmFS using the appropriate  Association components but when assembling the wheelsets I found that the muffs were too long to allow the wheels to close up to the correct back-to-back.I tried to reduce the length of the muffs but,being ham-fisted,shortened them too much such that they won't now hold the wheels in proper alignment.Replacement muffs are on order but I wondered whether they were meant to be used without modification,in which case I must have used the wrong muffs in the first place,or,if they do need to be shortened,what the correct length should be (a crude measurement shows there to be 3.5-4.0mm between the faces of the bearings when placed in the chassis)Any assistance would be most welcome.

  Thanks in anticipation,Ian Lilley

[Nig H]

1 hour ago, Ian Lilley said:

Hi

   I am converting a Farish 64XX to 2mmFS using the appropriate  Association components but when assembling the wheelsets I found that the muffs were too long to allow the wheels to close up to the correct back-to-back.I tried to reduce the length of the muffs but,being ham-fisted,shortened them too much such that they won't now hold the wheels in proper alignment.Replacement muffs are on order but I wondered whether they were meant to be used without modification,in which case I must have used the wrong muffs in the first place,or,if they do need to be shortened,what the correct length should be (a crude measurement shows there to be 3.5-4.0mm between the faces of the bearings when placed in the chassis)Any assistance would be most welcome.

  Thanks in anticipation,Ian Lilley

Hi,

did you use 3-323 plain and 3-322 geared muffs? These are what you need for these conversions, and I would have thought they are produced to the correct width.You can use the ordinary standard muffs instead, but you will need to reduce the width as you say.

 

Nigel Hunt

 

 

[Ian Lilley]

Yes,according to the packet they came in they are the correct items,but I shall see when the replacements arrive,

 

Ian Lilley

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Ian Lilley said:

Yes,according to the packet they came in they are the correct items,but I shall see when the replacements arrive,

 

Ian Lilley

 

I had the same problem when I converted my Farish Ivatt 2MT. They were fine for the Jinty & 4F and it appears the bearing specifications changed at some point. Was the 64xx produced before the Jinty/4F like the 2MT? Can't remember now but that would possibly account for it. Looking back through the thread:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/82934-farish-jinty-4f-2fs-dcc-with-stay-alive-now-also-ivatt-2mt-a-re-build-for-better-haulage/page/3/#comment-4195517

 

It seems I reduced the muffs to 4.7mm, 4.6mm, and 4.5mm width to restrict the play behind the crossheads but give more elsewhere. I trim them with a sharp No 10 scalpel blade.

 

Bob

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[2mm Andy]

I did a conversion of the Farish 64xx not long after they were released (to test the etched coupling rods which are now in Shop 3) and I don't remember having to shorten the muffs. The muffs I used were a slightly translucent white plastic though, so maybe the design has changed since I did it (the photos on the shop listing shows black ones now).

 

Are the inner faces of your bearings recessed as per the left hand bearing below, Ian?

 

PS> to answer Bobs question, I think the 64xx locos were released in 2016. The 2MT and Jinty locos preceded them, having come out in 2013 and 2014 respectively. I'm not sure when the 4F appeared on the scene.

 

regards,

 

Andy

[Ian Lilley]

Thanks Bob and Andy,I knew I had seen a thread regarding the conversions,Bob,but could'nt remember where!It will be useful to refer to should the replacement muffs need modification.Yes,Andy,the bearings do have a recess on the inner face,though they don't seem to be quite as deep as those on the Shop 3 illustration(though that might just be my failing eyesight!)I understand from Jon at shop 3 that the replacement muffs are on their way so I will see how to proceed when they arrive,

  Again,thanks,Ian

[Guest WM183]

Hi all.

I am back in the 2mm association, and back to my teeny 42xx. I actually have two questions, if I may?

 

1) in the "Jubilee for the Jubilee" videos on the 2mm SA site, the builder uses very thin copper clad to attach the spacers to both frames, thus leaving the spacers themselves neutral. Where can that very thin copper clad be bought? It's much thinner than what the association sells, I think?

And 2) Those who have finished the little 42xx, how did you do the rear of the bunker? Do the two small panels in the etch pictured below fill the "curved" part? Julia's wonderful model on the Worsely Works site doesn't have a photo from the back. Any ideas would be appreciated.

Thanks all!

Amanda

[Caley Jim]

3 hours ago, WM183 said:

I am back in the 2mm association, and back to my teeny 42xx. I actually have two questions, if I may?

Hi Amanda.  Good to have you back!👍

 

3 hours ago, WM183 said:

 

1) in the "Jubilee for the Jubilee" videos on the 2mm SA site, the builder uses very thin copper clad to attach the spacers to both frames, thus leaving the spacers themselves neutral. Where can that very thin copper clad be bought? It's much thinner than what the association sells, I think?

You can get 0.25mm thick double sided PCB here.

3 hours ago, WM183 said:

And 2) Those who have finished the little 42xx, how did you do the rear of the bunker? Do the two small panels in the etch pictured below fill the "curved" part? Julia's wonderful model on the Worsely Works site doesn't have a photo from the back. Any ideas would be appreciated.

Not familiar with the loco in question ( foreign company!😀) but from the photo I would guess that is the case.  Others more knowledgeable on the Great Way Round will be able to be more definite.

 

Jim

[Guest WM183]

Thank you! I didn't realize Eileen's had it!

 

[richbrummitt]

I got a little but not much further with a 72xx. The two small panels don’t completely fill the space. There are some complex curves left as an exercise for the builder. The wider of the two pieces curves up and out from the lower portion of the bunker to the extension and the narrow part is bent to shape, fitting in the gap between the top pieces. The lamp iron was in that recessed area. Other GWR engines with similar shaped bunkers had the same basic features, e.g. large prairies, and pictures of these might be easier to find. 

Edited November 24, 2022 by richbrummitt

[Guest WM183]

In case anyone else comes along, what I managed to do is to cut one of the small patch pieces to represent the center of the highest panel of the bunker, and fit the other to the lowest part to complete the gap. I then added the curved piece with a cutout, and carefully filled in the "gaps" at the bunker corners with solder. I reshaped that, added the top most sticky-outy bit, and... here's the result! I lost some of the rivet detail in soldering and shaping, but once i add lamp brackets and all, I think it'll look just fine!

 

[Hendreladis]

I did the same. Essentially lead load the corner and carve it back.

Possible word of caution. Unless you open up the tank tops the firebox tends to sit very high on these kits. Only worked out on the third model that (I think) the design invites the builder to bend the tank tops up to form the trim between tank and boiler etc

then set the firebox between. The geometry wasn't idiot proof enough for me so hacked the tank tops with files to get the height above footplate correct.

[Guest WM183]

1 hour ago, Hendreladis said:

I did the same. Essentially lead load the corner and carve it back.

Possible word of caution. Unless you open up the tank tops the firebox tends to sit very high on these kits. Only worked out on the third model that (I think) the design invites the builder to bend the tank tops up to form the trim between tank and boiler etc

then set the firebox between. The geometry wasn't idiot proof enough for me so hacked the tank tops with files to get the height above footplate correct.

Huh. Thanks for letting me know!

I have both a GA for the 42xx as well as the drawings in Russell. I will peek and see how bad it is... ack.

Amanda

[Richard Hall]

Is Bob Jones still making locomotive kits?  I'm struggling to find any contact details, the "Small Suppliers" entry links to a blog last updated in 2013 and I haven't found an email address in the newsletter or yearbook.  I am going to need North Eastern engines and several of them. Do I need to move to Newcastle and join the NEAG or is there a simpler way?

 

Richard

[Caley Jim]

PM sent.

 

Jim

[Intraclast]

I have a question about the bosses on Jinty Coupling rod etch.  How are they supposed to go on the coupling rods? The instructions state: "These [the coupling rod etches] fold-up to form a double thickness rod (for strength) with a fold over washer to represent the boss."

 

Are the bosses supposed to fold over the with the coupling rod sandwiched between them? Or are they supposed to be folded over on themselves to form a thicker washer which is then soldered to the outer side of the coupling rod?

 

The former is what I thought at first due to the length of the folding tab between the washers, but in fact it does not seem to quite be long enough.

 

The latter would be a lot simpler, but the double thickness of washer seems over scale to me.

 

I’m of a mind to just put a single washer on the outer side of the rod to represent the boss, but I would like to know how the etch was intended to be used and do it that way if it is better.

 

Here is a picture of the etch which I was working on when trying to put a washer on each side:

 

I have a separate etch of crank pin washers to use to secure the coupling rods.

 

Thanks

 

Mark

[tapdieuk]

Mark I thought those were crank pin washers, not for soldering to the rods. 

Will