Any Question Answered

[Caley Jim]

I'm in the same boat re. shop 1. I was assuming Gareth was on holiday. If I don't hear anything by tonight I'll email him direct.

 

Jim

[MrSimon]

Thanks for your answers everyone - I’ll get an order off this week (it’s my mission to build and working underframe this year!)

 

I’ve got a follow up question.

 

I found these in a stock box from when I had a go at building some association wagon kits 10 years ago, I’m going to clean them up and finish them off but I’m not sure if they should have a vac-cylinder:

 

I folded up the tab when I originally built them but I don’t know if I need to fit them - I assumed they were unfitted but I can’t remember which brake variety these are and if they should be fitted or not...

 

Thanks in advance!

Simon

[Richard Hall]

Thanks very much everyone who replied to my post about solder cream / paste, several useful suggestions there for me to try. I already tried the Easi Print paste, it's OK but not nearly as nice to use as the Loctite/Multicore.

 

Richard

[Nig H]

Thanks for your answers everyone - I’ll get an order off this week (it’s my mission to build and working underframe this year!)

 

I’ve got a follow up question.

 

I found these in a stock box from when I had a go at building some association wagon kits 10 years ago, I’m going to clean them up and finish them off but I’m not sure if they should have a vac-cylinder:

 

388825BC-D22F-472F-B14E-B401F32EBE4E.jpeg

2ABFB591-400B-4377-8ECF-8CABA3653738.jpeg

I folded up the tab when I originally built them but I don’t know if I need to fit them - I assumed they were unfitted but I can’t remember which brake variety these are and if they should be fitted or not...

 

Thanks in advance!

Simon

As they are in unfitted grey livery, they shouldn't have a vacuum cylinder. Most 16T mineral wagons had two shoe morton brakes, although a lot had double sided independent brakes, mainly I think for those wagons with bottom doors. I can't see for certain from your pics, but it looks like you've got a combination of the two types of brake on your wagons. If you want more information on 16T minerals, there was a 3 part series in Modellers Backtrack, and 'An illustrated History or BR wagons, vol 1' by Bartlett et al has a lot of information on these wagons and wagon brake systems in general. You could also try the product instructions for these kits and chassis.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Nig H

[D869]

As they are in unfitted grey livery, they shouldn't have a vacuum cylinder. Most 16T mineral wagons had two shoe morton brakes, although a lot had double sided independent brakes, mainly I think for those wagons with bottom doors. I can't see for certain from your pics, but it looks like you've got a combination of the two types of brake on your wagons. If you want more information on 16T minerals, there was a 3 part series in Modellers Backtrack, and 'An illustrated History or BR wagons, vol 1' by Bartlett et al has a lot of information on these wagons and wagon brake systems in general. You could also try the product instructions for these kits and chassis.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Nig H

 

Looks like they are builts as 4 shoe Morton from the photos. I'm not completely sure but I don't think there were any 9' wheelbase minerals like this. The 9' wheelbase fitted ones had 8 shoe gear - a different etch.

 

The same chassis etch is used for china clay wagons where 9' wheelbase and 4 shoe Morton brakes are needed. For the 16T mineral 2 shoe variant you should ideally delete some bits.

 

If you look closely the brake levers should be slightly different where they meet the 'V' hanger - there is a reversing cam on one side. This side should have the brake pushrods and shoes. The non-cam side should have no pushrods or shoes.

 

There should also be no tie rods between bottoms of the 'W' irons.

 

The double sided independent (DSI) variant is different again - this has two 'V' hangers per side and no cross-shaft, thus leaving the middle clear for bottom doors. This is a different etch from the one in your photos.

 

Regards, Andy

[Chris Higgs]

Looks like they are builts as 4 shoe Morton from the photos. I'm not completely sure but I don't think there were any 9' wheelbase minerals like this. The 9' wheelbase fitted ones had 8 shoe gear - a different etch.

 

The same chassis etch is used for china clay wagons where 9' wheelbase and 4 shoe Morton brakes are needed. For the 16T mineral 2 shoe variant you should ideally delete some bits.

 

If you look closely the brake levers should be slightly different where they meet the 'V' hanger - there is a reversing cam on one side. This side should have the brake pushrods and shoes. The non-cam side should have no pushrods or shoes.

 

There should also be no tie rods between bottoms of the 'W' irons.

 

The double sided independent (DSI) variant is different again - this has two 'V' hangers per side and no cross-shaft, thus leaving the middle clear for bottom doors. This is a different etch from the one in your photos.

 

Regards, Andy

 

Once the bottom doors were omitted, as they were on diagram 1/108, 4 shoe Morton was possible and I believe fitted on occasion. Having said that the vast majority of photos of 1/108 are of 2-shoe Morton.

 

There is a photo in the Bartlett et al book of a rebodied 1/108 with 4-shoe fiited brakegear, tiebars and a grey body. So basically one of these with a vacuum cylinder added. Here are a couple of 4-shoe fitted examples, original colour is anybody's guess

 

http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brmineral108internal/h1A161222#h4073c84

 

http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brmineral108internal/h1A161222#h1b14406b

 

Chris

Edited January 9, 2018 by Chris Higgs

[Caley Jim]

I'm in the same boat re. shop 1. I was assuming Gareth was on holiday. If I don't hear anything by tonight I'll email him direct.

 

Jim

Just had an email reply from Gareth saying that he has been very busy at work, but hopes to deal with orders by the end of the week.

 

Jim

[Lacathedrale]

Just had an email reply from Gareth saying that he has been very busy at work, but hopes to deal with orders by the end of the week.

 

Jim

 

Same here too, that's great to hear.

 

EDIT: as just a rather random question, when re-wheeling steam locomotives, it is assumed that one will also fabricate new outside valve gear where appropriate? I have never been able to wrap my head around this, only JUST managing to put coupling rods on an EM-gauge Jinty without wishing to chuck it out the window. Are there any guides/videos/blog entries/etc. which detail this at all? 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[Donw]

I don't think you can apply a general rule to this. The etched replacement chassis generally include new coupling rods which ensures they match the chassis.  If you just replace the wheels the question becomes fitting crankpins to the wheels to suit the coupling and con rods. Of course the existing valve gear may be oversize in which case you could decide to make new ones. Getting them etched might be an option. When making your own the vital thing with coupling rods is to ensure the spacing of the crankpin holes matches the wheelbase using one as a jig for setting the other is the best option.

Sorry if this is rather vague but trying to generalise is difficult.  I suggest you look first to see if any of the association etched rods match your needs. If you are looking for replacement valve gear perhaps one of the small suppliers like Nigel Hunt has an etched set which would suit. The chances are that someone has tackled any commercial N gauge British loco you can get so asking what others have done with a specific loco is the best way forward.

 

Don

[Lacathedrale]

Understood, thank you - My only thoughts were that larger, more modern steam locomotives would provide more space for motors and gearboxes (but then have that outside valve gear too deal with) and so wished to get a broad idea.

 

I guess I was looking at the 2mm Association chassis list and seeing a half dozen, and realising that should I wish to convert (purely as an illustrative example) an Ivatt 4MT, what I'd need to do to get it done.  Maybe for us mere mortals (and I do appreciate the association has a vested interest in portraying most things as accessible to the layman) inside valve gearing is most appropriate. Which isn't altogether bad when one's default predilections are in the grouping-and-earlier era.

[Chris Higgs]

I don't think you can apply a general rule to this. The etched replacement chassis generally include new coupling rods which ensures they match the chassis.  If you just replace the wheels the question becomes fitting crankpins to the wheels to suit the coupling and con rods. Of course the existing valve gear may be oversize in which case you could decide to make new ones. Getting them etched might be an option. When making your own the vital thing with coupling rods is to ensure the spacing of the crankpin holes matches the wheelbase using one as a jig for setting the other is the best option.

Sorry if this is rather vague but trying to generalise is difficult.  I suggest you look first to see if any of the association etched rods match your needs. If you are looking for replacement valve gear perhaps one of the small suppliers like Nigel Hunt has an etched set which would suit. The chances are that someone has tackled any commercial N gauge British loco you can get so asking what others have done with a specific loco is the best way forward.

 

Don

 

Indeed there are lots of options in a) what you replace and b) is available. Quite common for an outside framed loco is to replace the coupling rods (and perhaps also connecting rods) and then to file down the existing valve-gear to be a bit finer to taste. Others have produced modified crankpins and then just reuse the RTR stuff as-is. My opinion is that the existing stuff often does not look too bad to the naked eye and it is only in closeup photos it really stocks out as overscale.

 

If looking to replace it all Nigel Hunt has done quite a few sets of valve-gear for LMS/BR prototypes. http://2mm.org.uk/small_suppliers/nigelhunt/

 

In my case being better at etching than fettling I have drawn up new valve-gear for the LMS Duchess and Dapol A3/A4 (neither yet available). 

 

Or on this site you will find some inspriing work by Tim Watson hacking valvegear out of solid steel for his P2. Emulate that if you dare.

 

 

Chris

Edited January 9, 2018 by Chris Higgs

[Donw]

Understood, thank you - My only thoughts were that larger, more modern steam locomotives would provide more space for motors and gearboxes (but then have that outside valve gear too deal with) and so wished to get a broad idea.

 

I guess I was looking at the 2mm Association chassis list and seeing a half dozen, and realising that should I wish to convert (purely as an illustrative example) an Ivatt 4MT, what I'd need to do to get it done.  Maybe for us mere mortals (and I do appreciate the association has a vested interest in portraying most things as accessible to the layman) inside valve gearing is most appropriate. Which isn't altogether bad when one's default predilections are in the grouping-and-earlier era.

 

You may find this thread interesting http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81104-finescaling-a-farish-ivatt-2-6-0/

 

Don

[Chris Higgs]

I guess I was looking at the 2mm Association chassis list and seeing a half dozen, and realising that should I wish to convert (purely as an illustrative example) an Ivatt 4MT, what I'd need to do to get it done.  Maybe for us mere mortals (and I do appreciate the association has a vested interest in portraying most things as accessible to the layman) inside valve gearing is most appropriate. Which isn't altogether bad when one's default predilections are in the grouping-and-earlier era.

 

The inside valve gear locos are easier to build, and also (probably because of this) sell better. They are also easier to design! There is a Black 5 replacement chassis in the shop which I designed, reality is the chassis is the same complexity to build as that for  the full Black 5 kit done by Bob Jones, and to my mind the chassis is more tricky to build than the body is. 

 

Most of the outside framed stuff is being done by people who first wanted it for themselves, and therefore dont have to think about whether the number of resulting sales justify all that design and test build time.

 

Chris 

[Lacathedrale]

Interesting food for thought and there's much to ponder.

 

Could one assume then that there should be no space concerns for putting motors and gearboxes into early locomotives? (Terriers, P-class, etc. notwithstanding)

[Ian Morgan]

Plenty of room in a Terrier for motor, DCC decoder and 'stay-alive' capacitors.

Smaller motors and DCC decoders are available for even earlier locos.

 

[Chris Higgs]

Interesting food for thought and there's much to ponder.

 

Could one assume then that there should be no space concerns for putting motors and gearboxes into early locomotives? (Terriers, P-class, etc. notwithstanding)

 

These days we have lots of small motors, 6mm, 7mm, 8mm diameter that were not available 10 years ago, at often at bargain prices.

 

Chris

[Ian Smith]

Interesting food for thought and there's much to ponder.

 

Could one assume then that there should be no space concerns for putting motors and gearboxes into early locomotives? (Terriers, P-class, etc. notwithstanding)

 

It really does depend on your prototype.  For my GWR 1906 period, most (if not all) tank engines were open cabbed, ie the space available to fit motor and gearbox is in the bit between the smokebox door and the back-head.  It's not a huge issue for me because being a dinosaur I haven't and will not be embracing DCC so don't have to find additional space for those electronics, and what space is available I want to fill with something heavier than a DCC chip.

 

Ian

[Mim]

Got a question on rail chamfering. For things like turntables, sector plates and traversers, where moving sets of rails meet fixed sets, does it help to chamfer the insides of the rail ends to compensate for slight misalignment. If so, how much chamfer should be put in? Half the width of the rail top, full width? How far back should the chamfer start (angle)? I suppose the same question applies to baseboard joints too.

 

Thanks,  Mim

[Donw]

Just rounding of the top of the inside edge is usually enough any problems and you just take a bit more off or sort out the alignment. Check rails either side of the gap would help align vehicles if you have concerns (e.g fiddle yard entrance hidden under a tunnel).

 

Don

[Caley Jim]

I've never used chamfers in any of these situations. Far better to have an accurate means of alignment. The fact that a chamfer will introduce a section which is wide to gauge is likely to cause more problems than it's worth IMHO.

 

Jim

Edited January 14, 2018 by Caley Jim

[Mim]

Just rounding of the top of the inside edge is usually enough any problems and you just take a bit more off or sort out the alignment. Check rails either side of the gap would help align vehicles if you have concerns (e.g fiddle yard entrance hidden under a tunnel).

 

Don

 

That makes a lot of sense. Will try it without check rails first. It will be plain PCB each side, so they can be added if need be.

 

I've never used chamfers in any of these situations. Far better to have an accurate means of alignment. The fact that a chamfer will introduce a section which is wide to gauge is likely to cause more problems than it's worth IMHO.

 

Jim

Thanks Jim, I will go easy with the file for this bit. A bit of rounding off, but no chamfering.

 

Mim

[Lacathedrale]

Waiting for shop1 stock to arrive to commence tracklaying and to make meaningful progress on my layout, I'm at something of an impasse.  For want of something to do, I read the "how to scratch build an 0-6-0 on the association website" and am eager to give it a try particularly because it seems the brass or etch (i.e. only consumables that will be lost if there is a failure somewhere) are quite affordable due to their meagre size.

 

Are there any beginner friendly books that might be relevant for 2mm modelling that can take me from zero to hero (I've built a 7mm Connosseur Kits  0-4-0). In the meantime, I take it that I should look for an 0-6-0 with a closed cab?

Edited January 14, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[Caley Jim]

Are there any beginner friendly books that are 2mm oriented?

There are several listed on P18 of the Yearbook, though some of them are getting a tad out of date now.

 

Jim

[MrSimon]

Thank you for your help, I re-read the instructions and realised that when I built them originally I wasn't sure which bit to remove so I left them on.

 

I think I've cut off all the right bits off now to be a normal 2-shoe Morton underframe (and I've since given it a scrub with some CIF).  I've found another one I'd made where I'd fitted a vacuum cylinder...

 

Thanks again

 

Simon

[Ian Smeeton]

I have started a thread here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/130137-scissors-diamonds-etc/ to document the building of various crossings etc for Paisley St James.

 

I have just started work on the single slip, and would like to tap the assembled knowledge on the best order of costruction.

 

Next up is the scissors crossing. I am thinking that rather than starting from one side and working across, the best way would be to start with the diamond in the centre and build outwards.

 

Any opinions and advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Regards

 

Ian