Any Question Answered

[65179]

2 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

Bob Jones is the man to answer these questions. He designed the kit. 

 

Jim 

 

I thought Chris Higgs did the Farish  replacement chassis?

 

Looking at the etch,  it looks like any motor can be used; glued directly to one of the spacers or mounted on one of the Association motor mounts as required to line  up the motor shaft and the coal hole. The narrow Farish body precluded the usual cantilever gearbox arrangement so it looks like (unless I've missed it) that either L shaped support brackets with a bearing for the worm shaft fitted to the spacers fore and aft of the wormwheel, an equivalent U shaped bracket or a milled equivalent will be needed. 

 

Simon

[Yorkshire Square]

8 hours ago, Nig H said:

Hi,

 

Tony Heywood was asking me about the Association Farish Black 5 chassis kit. He wanted to know how to link the worm to the worm wheel. Also, how are the loco and tender chassis to be linked, and what is the intention regarding motors? Something mounted in the tender on the frame spacers?

 

Apologies if the answers are already there, sometimes I can't see for looking!

 

Nigel Hunt

 

4 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

Bob Jones is the man to answer these questions. He designed the kit. 

 

Jim 

 

Are you talking about the chassis for the Association Kit (1:152) or the replacement chassis for the Farish model (1:148)?

 

The Association Kit chassis was designed by Bob Jones (as was the rest of the Kit) and has a fold up unit to carry the worm.

 

The Farish replacement chassis was designed by Chris Higgs and doesn't.

 

All way too modern for me! 😆

Edited June 25, 2023 by Yorkshire Square

[Nig H]

On 25/06/2023 at 16:39, 65179 said:

 

I thought Chris Higgs did the Farish  replacement chassis?

 

Looking at the etch,  it looks like any motor can be used; glued directly to one of the spacers or mounted on one of the Association motor mounts as required to line  up the motor shaft and the coal hole. The narrow Farish body precluded the usual cantilever gearbox arrangement so it looks like (unless I've missed it) that either L shaped support brackets with a bearing for the worm shaft fitted to the spacers fore and aft of the wormwheel, an equivalent U shaped bracket or a milled equivalent will be needed. 

 

Simon

Thanks Simon,

 

It looks like you have to come up with your own arrangement for the power train and drawbar then. I’ll let Tony know.

 

Nigel Hunt

[Matloughe]

I have a (potentially) silly question to ask, and that is - what do you need to model in 2mmFS?

Is it a state of mind, or attention to detail or desire for greater detail perhaps?
I've dabbled in N Gauge and - I've kept the stock, but it never ran well. Whereas I have seen numerous layouts on here and YouTube where the stock runs seemingly flawlessly what is the secret? My inclination is that everything is to a consistent standard which causes it to work together properly - whereas N is a bit of a mash-up.

If I were so inclined to give it a go, obviously first port of call would be the 2mm Society - but would a distinctly amature modeller such as myself be able to model successfully in 2mmFS?
Keep up the great work - its inspiring.

Kind Regards,
Gary

[Nigelcliffe]

5 minutes ago, Matloughe said:

I have a (potentially) silly question to ask, and that is - what do you need to model in 2mmFS?

Is it a state of mind, or attention to detail or desire for greater detail perhaps?

 

Mostly approach.  Which you might call "state of mind" or "attention to detail".    

 

I find it is a bit of "attention to detail" and an approach of being methodical - there will be a reason it isn't working (or isn't looking right), and that a change will make it work well (or look better).     

That applies to commercial products as well as home-built  (I've lost count of the number of N models where I've been asked to look at them and found pickups not connecting with wheels on locos which are brand-new,  lack of pickup equals bad running). 

 

Quote

I've dabbled in N Gauge and - I've kept the stock, but it never ran well. Whereas I have seen numerous layouts on here and YouTube where the stock runs seemingly flawlessly what is the secret? My inclination is that everything is to a consistent standard which causes it to work together properly - whereas N is a bit of a mash-up.

 

N can work really well.  But if there isn't sufficient attention to detail it can be unreliable.  

 

Quote

 

If I were so inclined to give it a go, obviously first port of call would be the 2mm Society - but would a distinctly amature modeller such as myself be able to model successfully in 2mmFS?

 

 

There isn't a 2mm Society.    There is The 2mm Scale Association.      As to whether you'd be successful or not, is largely down to personal approach to making things work.  

 

 

- Nigel  

 

[Yorkshire Square]

I think we're almost all amateurs of varying experience, ability and approach.

 

As Nigel says, methodical working and attention to detail are important. Even with conversions of N gauge commercial items, a measure of care will be needed; it's not just open the box and play.

 

I guess it's a case of what do you want from your railway modelling? For me it's building and creating; locos, stock, trackwork, buildings, scenery, controls, all with varying levels of success. Often I will redo things as my first (or second!) attempt is not to my satisfaction. I like playing trains too on occasion!

 

Try the wagon taster kit (available from our website) and see if there is an area group near you to talk to other members. This will give you a good idea whether 2FS is for you.

 

Good luck!

[Caley Jim]

I can only endorse everything Nigel and Tony have said. I decided to model the Caledonian Railway in N way back in the late '60's, so committed myself to scratch building, but became totally disillusioned with the crude wheels and track. I discovered the 2MM SA, joined, and have never looked back. The range of products available now through the Association make life so much easier than it was back then! I would add patience and perverence to the list of requirements. 

 

Jim 

[Chris Higgs]

On 26/06/2023 at 17:29, Nig H said:

Thanks Simon,

 

It looks like you have to come up with your own arrangement for the power train and drawbar then. I’ll let Tony know.

 

Nigel Hunt

 

Indeed there was no room laterally for the 'normal' cantilever gearbox inside the Farish body, and anyway people were always complaining about how they flex and have no way to adjust the mesh. So I stopped doing them a while ago. I did etch an alternative sort of worm holder that would bolt onto spacers front and rear of the worm, but they are still sitting in a bag somewhere. Or a cantilever gearbox that has multiple folds on it to move it towards the centre of the chassis. In the same bag I think. 

 

Chris

 

[ShadowinLinby]

Gary – it’s fairly simple – a dissatisfaction with what commercial N gauge offers and a desire for something better. You’ll need to learn some new skills and accept that you learn by getting it wrong. The only difference between you and what you see on here an Youtube is time. Fundamentally though the only way to know if it’s for you, is to join the association and give it a go.

[VRBroadgauge]

Can you model successfully in 2mm FS. Yes you can. Does it require effort? Yes it does.

I've learnt more in the past 3 years in 2FS than I have in the previous 50. There are many in the 2mm Association that will help you when you need it and many have (and still are) helping me. I'm modelling 5'3" broad gauge (10.5mm) Victorian Railways (Australia) so I'm scratch building everything.

It's way more satisfying to build things that you just can't get commercially. N scale doesn't cut it for what I'm achieving. 2FS is much better for scale (2mm to the foot). I try not to compromise on my models which I my case is a problem with converting N scale commercial beasties.

It just requires effort and knowledge.

[nick_bastable]

can someone advice the correct size of Deeley tender  wheels  as used on the SDJR  7f /2p etc  or better still a plan of the tender online  or otherwise

 

Its for a maybe idea at this stage

 

Nick B

[Izzy]

The standard wheel size for many Johnson/Deeley/Fowler tenders was 4'3" 12 spoke. The current 8.5mm carry wheel is 10 spoke with the smaller 8mm being 12 spoke. I can scan the Deeley tender drawing in the Roche book and PM it if of any use to you.

 

Bob

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, nick_bastable said:

can someone advice the correct size of Deeley tender  wheels  as used on the SDJR  7f /2p etc  or better still a plan of the tender online  or otherwise

 

The 7Fs and 2Ps had different tenders. The 7Fs had "Deeley" tenders, i.e. the same pattern fitted to the Deeley Compounds and 999s; those of the 2Ps were either of the Johnson 3,250 gal type or, for the 1928 engines, LMS standard "Fowler" 3,500 gal tenders.

 

There's a good set of drawings of Midland tenders in R.J. Essery & D. Jenkinson, Midland Locomotives Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 1984). (More trustworthy the Roche.) Or go to 

https://www.midlandrailwaystudycentre.org.uk/catalogue.php

And search for item 77-12378, a downloadable scan of a drawing for the frames etc. for the Deeley tender, and 77-11807 for one of a Johnson 3,250 gal tender. There are more drawings there, though not all with downloadable high-res scans, yet.

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by Compound2632

[Hendreladis]

In the middle of bodging together a single and need to address the drive system. Preference would be a powered loco via motor in the tender but simple number crunching suggests the all up weight of the loco will be pretty feeble. The alternative is a driven tender which would offer 4 small powered wheels on a chassis carrying about the same weight as the loco. 

 

Not sure having the tender fall plate resting on the loco would add much adhesive value to a 14mm driver. 

 

So... Powered tender with loco leaning on to that OR powered loco with heavy Tender weighing down the back and potentially inviting the front of the loco to pop a wheelie? 

 

Or just give it up as a bad job? I'm easy any which way. It will run in sequence with a Dean 4-2-2 which will invite the same questions and likely solution. 

 

Weighting will simply be lead. I don't have any copper tungsten or neutron stars lying about. 

 

Any advice gratefully received. 

 

Andrew 

[CF MRC]

There are many ways of making Singles pull decent length trains. The Ivatt / Stirling 7’ 2-2-2 on CF will pull 12 bogie coaches. It has a pivot between the loco and tender that only allows movement in the horizontal direction - so much so that the engine can be picked up by the tender.

The tender chassis is free floating at the front end but pivots at the rear end on a fixing screw and the rear wheels support the back of the tender; in that way most of the weight of the tender can be used by the engine. The rear loco wheels just go along for the ride with light springing. 

This avoids the see-sawing effect that could happen with a 2-2-2. The front wheels have two independently pivoted chassis blocks that are kept apart from each other by using a counterbored hole to accommodate the muff which then runs inside the blocks. 

These blocks were made out of copper tungsten, but could just as well be brass. 

This avoids the need for springing (so taking away traction) and allows for almost independent movement of the front wheels, rather like a Triumph Herald suspension. 

 

My Stirling 8’ Single actually worked better without the tender loaded onto the back - it’s construction was described in MRJ a while back. 
 

Hope this helps. 
 

Tim

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by CF MRC

[Hendreladis]

Many thanks Tim. Truly grateful. 

 

So as long as the majority of the weight of the tender can act through the driver it is feasible for a single pair of wheels to haul a few coaches - I doubt I'll ever have twelve of them to test with... 

 

And the front pair are largely independent of any tractive force but keep the pony axle as heavy as possible?? Let's see where we end up with this experiment. 

 

Thanks again. 

 

Andrew 

 

[A. Bastow]

Hi all, 

 

I have designed a kit for an L&Y 21' Covered Carriage Truck. The body is 3d printed and the chassis is an etch.

 

How much demand do you think there is and would it be unreasonable of me to ask for indications of interest before the etch is sent to production?  Or would it be better for me to order just a single sheet of the etch and see how it goes, ordering more as demand increases? 

 

Cheers,

 

Adam

[cctransuk]

9 minutes ago, A. Bastow said:

Hi all, 

 

I have designed a kit for an L&Y 21' Covered Carriage Truck. The body is 3d printed and the chassis is an etch.

 

How much demand do you think there is and would it be unreasonable of me to ask for indications of interest before the etch is sent to production?  Or would it be better for me to order just a single sheet of the etch and see how it goes, ordering more as demand increases? 

 

Cheers,

 

Adam

 

I think that it would not be unreasonable for potential purchasers to expect that you had undertaken a test-build before offering the kit for sale.

 

CJI.

[Caley Jim]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

I think that it would not be unreasonable for potential purchasers to expect that you had undertaken a test-build before offering the kit for sale.

I totally agree with this.  I've found that even with a fairly simple etch there are often minor (and sometimes not  so minor!) errors that you pick up at the trail etch stage which you can then correct before you offer it to others.

 

Jim W

[Nig H]

2 hours ago, A. Bastow said:

Hi all, 

 

I have designed a kit for an L&Y 21' Covered Carriage Truck. The body is 3d printed and the chassis is an etch.

 

How much demand do you think there is and would it be unreasonable of me to ask for indications of interest before the etch is sent to production?  Or would it be better for me to order just a single sheet of the etch and see how it goes, ordering more as demand increases? 

 

Cheers,

 

Adam

Hi Adam,

 

In my experience not many people express an interest in a proposed product compared to sales once the production run is up and running. So, you might need to gamble on potential future sales and just go ahead anyway. As has been said, you should build a test etch before going to a production etch unless you feel very confident that the first version will be spot on, but you risk damaging your reputation if you produce something with errors in it, even if you correct the errors with supplementary parts (which add to your costs).

 

For almost every loco kit I have produced, I have needed to produce and build two test etches before going to a production version. Normally the second test etch has been good enough to produce a model for my own purposes, with final tweaks included in the production version. On occasions I have found errors in the production version not apparent in the test etches, usually resulting from variations in the etching process. This has sometimes necessitated the production of a supplementary etch, again adding to costs. 

You probably won’t make much from marketing 2mm kits, so consider producing what you want for your own purposes, and if you can sell some to offset your own production costs, great. Most of my kits have earned a surplus of income over production costs, but the most profitable have probably paid me an hourly rate of  less than £5, maybe closer to £1,for the research, drawing/design, handling the production etches, administration and bookkeeping, and despatch.

 

If you want to offer something, I’d suggest you provide as much prototype information as possible (within reason) so interested parties can judge what’s on offer.

 

Sorry if this has dampened your enthusiasm, but good luck if you proceed anyway.

 

Regards,

 

Nigel

 

[A. Bastow]

Thanks for the replies.

 

A test build goes without saying! At least in my book.

 

I did wonder whether folks put feelers out for how many people would be interested in a particular kit. It seems then as you say Nigel that the best way would be to produce for myself and offering the excess for sale. 
 

I guess I’ll have to prepare some other bits to do a full sheet test etch. 
 

Cheers,

 

Adam
 

 

[VRBroadgauge]

Sometimes providing kits is like herding cats.

 

I'd put it out there and see what happens. There's a finite number of etches that can be produced per sheet. That's your minimum sales.

 

It's easy to get all excited about what we've created and think that you can retire off the proceeds of sales. I have myself.

 

The reality is somewhat different. It's a very small market place.

 

For me I'm more about the art form. If I can create something that is a nice model I'm happy. If it fills a need in the modelling world then it's a big bonus.

 

[Caley Jim]

Bruce has hit the nail on the head. I design the etches for what I want for myself and those I sell to others are a bonus. I'm not out to make any money out of them, just cover the cost of the etches. Anything other people ask me to design I charge pro-rata the cost of the sheet per sq cm. 

 

Jim 

[cctransuk]

27 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

Bruce has hit the nail on the head. I design the etches for what I want for myself and those I sell to others are a bonus. I'm not out to make any money out of them, just cover the cost of the etches. Anything other people ask me to design I charge pro-rata the cost of the sheet per sq cm. 

 

Jim 

 

Careful - as I found out - you are likely to be accused of putting other kit designers out of business!

 

CJI.

[A. Bastow]

28 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

Bruce has hit the nail on the head. I design the etches for what I want for myself and those I sell to others are a bonus. I'm not out to make any money out of them, just cover the cost of the etches. Anything other people ask me to design I charge pro-rata the cost of the sheet per sq cm. 

 

Jim 

That’s kind of what I was aiming at with my original question. I don’t necessarily want to make money from it. I just wanted to gauge how others did it as I didn’t want a pile of etches sitting around that weren’t getting put to use, gloat box notwithstanding! 
 

Like in my reply to Bruce, I suppose the way forward is to have made what I need and offer the excess to members.