Wright writes.....

[polybear]

How much do women spend on a dress they only wear once?

Richard

Dangerous ground, that one - you never know who may be reading.....

The retaliation may go something along the lines of "Well just how many un-built kits do YOU have sitting in the cupboard that never see the light of day? And how much did they cost?

Brian   

[St Enodoc]

Dangerous ground, that one - you never know who may be reading.....

The retaliation may go something along the lines of "Well just how many un-built kits do YOU have sitting in the cupboard that never see the light of day? And how much did they cost?

Brian   

As I've mentioned before, Veronica and I have a deal. I don't ask how many pairs of shoes and handbags she has and she doesn't ask how many trains I have.

[polybear]

As I've mentioned before, Veronica and I have a deal. I don't ask how many pairs of shoes and handbags she has and she doesn't ask how many trains I have.

Seems like a good plan.  Mind you, have you seen the price of a designer handbag? (not that I ever buy them, you understand  )

Cheers,

Brian

[St Enodoc]

Seems like a good plan.  Mind you, have you seen the price of a designer handbag? (not that I ever buy them, you understand  )

Cheers,

Brian

No, and I don't think that I want to!

[DougN]

I have and I did.... Let's just say a Martin finney loco and tender are similar! Saying that I keep looking at the V2 I have here the tender is almost complete except for the coal tool irons. Then off to painting... The loco looks lovely though complicated, I was going to start with the body then move down onto the chassis.

[Mallard60022]

I only have 19, 10 made from plastic card, 6 cut and shuts (the best being a cut down Lima 40), 1 Heljan and these two proposed rebuilds. One with a uprated version of the class 20 8 cylinder engine and the other a 18 cylinder Deltic as found in the grown up Deltics.

 

Now then Clive, presumably none of them actually work, as per the prototype?

 

Phil

[Clive Mortimore]

Now then Clive, presumably none of them actually work, as per the prototype?

 

Phil

Some might   

 

Some might not 

Edited May 29, 2016 by Clive Mortimore

[billbedford]

Last evening, I added a few more bits and the first one is not far off being basically complete. Yes, I have to fit the grab rails (which are beautifully-formed in lost-wax brass), end handrails, roof detail, buffers, couplings and finish off the underframe, but the body-construction was so easy and swift that, even with the fiddly bits to add, the finishing time will be less than half of the hours required to, say, build a brass equivalent. My only criticism (though it's more of an observation) is that I don't think the resin is really suitable for the trussing. Both sides broke on removing them from the cast sprue and, though I've repaired them, I can't see them surviving long in a 'layout coach' environment. Simple brass queen-posts and suitable diameter brass wire will do the trick.

 

 

I find that using the tip of a sharp scalpel and making sure that the component to be cut out is well supported helps to avoid breaks. Also cutting through the sprue/frame so that the component isn't compressed when cut is advantageous.

 

I'm not sure about the suggestion that the trusses should be made of brass. Locating the ends of the true rods would need careful thought and tensioners would be difficult to make near scale.

 

One thing that was left off the assembly sheets was a list of the numbers of these coaches:

 

 

Diagram 277 brake third.

 

336, 799, 808, 1421, 1431, 1454, 1581, 1605, 1615, 1628, 1635, 1645 (12 built)

 

Diagram 129 composite.

 

61, 134, 140, 144, 284, 313, 322, 485, 486, 626, 1302, 1379, 1452, 1550, 1576, 1595, 1595, 1617, 1619, 1629, 1642, 1646, 1647, 2102, 2921-2950 (54 built)

 

2925 was destroyed in an accident at Selby.

 

Post grouping, all numbers were prefixed 4, ie 1647 became 41647

[Focalplane]

I have just finished (more or less, there is no coal in the tender, so it really is ex-works) my construction of the Connoisseur LMS 4F.  It's been a delight to build though I did manage to make a few rectifiable mistakes along the way.  The last thing to be done was add DCC sound and after my experience of jamming everything into the firebox of the Jinty (aka Dobbin) I decided to use the capacious Fowler tender's interior.  How this was achieved is detailed on my Legge Lane blog so I won't go into it here, but one innovation was to be able to switch from DC to DCC and back without removing either engine or tender body.  Here is 44571, a Saltley 21A loco in the late 1950s:

 

 

Edited to lighten the exposure of the image.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Focalplane

[Tony Wright]

I find that using the tip of a sharp scalpel and making sure that the component to be cut out is well supported helps to avoid breaks. Also cutting through the sprue/frame so that the component isn't compressed when cut is advantageous.

 

I'm not sure about the suggestion that the trusses should be made of brass. Locating the ends of the true rods would need careful thought and tensioners would be difficult to make near scale.

 

One thing that was left off the assembly sheets was a list of the numbers of these coaches:

Thanks Bill,

 

I did use a sharp scalpel and supported the pieces as well as I could, but both sides broke on cutting them out. I agree that the tensioners would be difficult to replicate (a piece of very small-bore brass tube slid over the brass trussing?).

 

My concern for non-metal trussing, whether it's turnbuckle or angle, is born out from years of taking hundreds of carriages to shows and then putting them on and taking them off large exhibition layouts. I admit, none had resin trussing but anything made of plastic which was a fine representation (not the chunky RTR stuff) used to break quite regularly, to the extent that most had to be replaced. Even picking up a carriage can result in non-metal trussing breaking.  

[Tony Wright]

Yesterday, at the excellent Railex Show, a younger modeller (of some status in the hobby) asked me why I sorted out and sold collections of deceased modellers for their widows. I replied, why not? I have the time, enough know-how to fix things if possible and plenty of contacts. Surely, any reasonable human being would do the same if they could. 

 

Today, I looked at a very large collection of OO models, built/modified/collected by a chap who died just over a year ago. To say it's eclectic is an understatement. An hour's rummaging revealed (loco-wise) anything from an RTR A4 to a motorised Kitmaster Stirling Single, taking in Hughes Baltics, Reid NB locos, Sentinels, L&NWR Railmotors and Midland Singles along the way. The rolling stock is equally-mixed and extremely interesting (and rare in part). 

 

Most of the RTR-based stuff had been extensively modified (and improved) but before he died the chap must have purchased a Heljan Beyer-Garratt, Hornby P2, Bachmann BUTLER HENDERSON and Bachmann Wainwright C, all of which were as supplied. There was also the Bachmann Ambulance Train. In the next month or so I'll make a list of the major items and post some pictures. I'll also check and see that all the locos work before offering them for sale. Please, watch this space. 

[billbedford]

My concern for non-metal trussing, whether it's turnbuckle or angle, is born out from years of taking hundreds of carriages to shows and then putting them on and taking them off large exhibition layouts. I admit, none had resin trussing but anything made of plastic which was a fine representation (not the chunky RTR stuff) used to break quite regularly, to the extent that most had to be replaced. Even picking up a carriage can result in non-metal trussing breaking.  

 

 

But surely this doesn't apply to the trusses used on RTR coaches? This resin, even in fine sections, is much more resilient than styrene.

[micklner]

Thanks Bill,

 

I did use a sharp scalpel and supported the pieces as well as I could, but both sides broke on cutting them out. I agree that the tensioners would be difficult to replicate (a piece of very small-bore brass tube slid over the brass trussing?).

 

My concern for non-metal trussing, whether it's turnbuckle or angle, is born out from years of taking hundreds of carriages to shows and then putting them on and taking them off large exhibition layouts. I admit, none had resin trussing but anything made of plastic which was a fine representation (not the chunky RTR stuff) used to break quite regularly, to the extent that most had to be replaced. Even picking up a carriage can result in non-metal trussing breaking.  

 

No idea of coach length , MJT etches for the Turnbuckles etc if they fit ?.

[Tony Wright]

But surely this doesn't apply to the trusses used on RTR coaches? This resin, even in fine sections, is much more resilient than styrene.

Bill,

 

I thought I'd excluded RTR carriages. 

 

I agree, resin is stronger than styrene, but I don't think I'm particularly clumsy in cutting pieces off a sprue. As I said it's more of an observation than a criticism, but I still think metal trussing is better for longevity. 

[gr.king]

But surely this doesn't apply to the trusses used on RTR coaches? This resin, even in fine sections, is much more resilient than styrene.

Hello Bill,

 

Are you able / willing to state what that particular resin is please?

[Focalplane]

Tony, a question if I may?  Have you ever experienced a problem with tightening the screws that hold a loco body to the chassis to the point where the strength of the body causes the chassis to bend ever so slightly and then brings the axles out of line?  I realize that with a plastic body this isn't going to happen but with brass kits, in particular, any twist to the body could be transferred to the chassis if the screws are down tight.

 

The reason for asking this is that my Jinty developed the problem of stalling on my turntable bridge.  The rails on the latter are slightly uneven (rails soldered to fishplates soldered to printed circuit board every 7 cms) and the Jinty began to stall at the same points along the bridge track.  After much fiddling I placed the body on the chassis without doing up the two fastening screws and everything worked fine.  The problem re-appeared when I screwed the body on firmly, so I slackened off one screw and things appear to be working fine.

 

I am sure I read or heard of this before, perhaps even on your videos, so is this a known problem?

[jwealleans]

I had that happen on a Crownline J19 I built. The solution was exactly as you say, slacken a body fixing screw slightly.

 

Funnily enough I built another one not long after and that also developed a twist. Whatever I did wrongly, I must have done it twice.

[richard i]

I had that happen on a Crownline J19 I built. The solution was exactly as you say, slacken a body fixing screw slightly.Funnily enough I built another one not long after and that also developed a twist. Whatever I did wrongly, I must have done it twice.

Ditto

Which is why when I pick my engines of the track there is the smallest drop in the chassis away from the body a compromise I will take for better running.

I have seen it suggested, but I have yet to try, screwing in from the back rather than the bottom with a clip at the front which the chassis sits in, perhaps this partly avoids the chance of the chassis twisting?

Richard

[Earl Bathurst]

Hi Tony

Just found this topic and i must say your work is superb and very inspiring. Since finding this i have watched all the Youtube videos available and im very impressed with the work and outcome which you have achieved. Its great to have something spark my interest back into gear. Will follow with great delight 

 

Scott

[Tony Wright]

Tony, a question if I may?  Have you ever experienced a problem with tightening the screws that hold a loco body to the chassis to the point where the strength of the body causes the chassis to bend ever so slightly and then brings the axles out of line?  I realize that with a plastic body this isn't going to happen but with brass kits, in particular, any twist to the body could be transferred to the chassis if the screws are down tight.

 

The reason for asking this is that my Jinty developed the problem of stalling on my turntable bridge.  The rails on the latter are slightly uneven (rails soldered to fishplates soldered to printed circuit board every 7 cms) and the Jinty began to stall at the same points along the bridge track.  After much fiddling I placed the body on the chassis without doing up the two fastening screws and everything worked fine.  The problem re-appeared when I screwed the body on firmly, so I slackened off one screw and things appear to be working fine.

 

I am sure I read or heard of this before, perhaps even on your videos, so is this a known problem?

Paul,

 

It is a problem, particularly with 'flimsy' chassis. By 'flimsy', I mean those made of thin brass/nickel-silver. Nearer to scale thickness they might be, but we're not in the business of building scale replicas as far as I'm concerned. 

 

Whenever a chassis is screwed up to body, if there is any distortion, it must be the body which takes out that flexing, not the chassis. In my scratch-building days, I used one-sixteenth brass for my chassis. When soldered up solid, any flexing occurred in a body when it was attached, whether it be made of plastic, white metal or sheet metal. I made such a traditional chassis for the resin-bodied J6 I've just completed. I have no idea whether Graeme King's lovely little loco body was distorted at all (unlikely?), but it certainly didn't twist the prehistoric set of frames I'd made.

 

If you have the body-bending chassis situation, there are a couple of tips I can pass on if I may, please? Identify where the high or low spots are on the chassis or body fixing-points and either file off the high points on the spacers or insert very thin packing material on the low spots. This can be 5 thou Plastikard, brass shim or even insulation tape to level it all up, fixed either to the underside of the body or tops of the frames/spacers. Failing that, don't tighten up the fixing screws and to prevent them falling out put a dab of paint on the threads as they're inserted. 

 

The same techniques of thin packing can also be used to straighten up a leaning loco body. 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

Just found this topic and i must say your work is superb and very inspiring. Since finding this i have watched all the Youtube videos available and im very impressed with the work and outcome which you have achieved. Its great to have something spark my interest back into gear. Will follow with great delight 

 

Scott

It's very kind of you to say so Scott. However, the use of the singular 'your' work is misleading, if I may be so bold. If anything you say is in reference to Little Bytham, then I must be reiterate that the layout is the work of many, highly-skilled modellers; many, far more skilled than I am in a variety of the constructional/electrical disciplines. 

 

I heartily dislike the notion of taking credit where that credit should go to others. 

 

However, it's nice of you to post what you did.

 

Kindest regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Returning to the topic of the strength of resin in small cross-section, I've now completed the underframe of the first Mousa Models' carriage. First, I must reiterate the fact that the overall design is exceptionally good and the fit of parts perfect. Second, I have yet to build a better-running bogie. Third, any 'weakness' in the trussing is mitigated by fixing on the central steps and the brake cylinder gear. However, after fixing on the steps (which are beautifully-cast) and leaving the superglue overnight to thoroughly set, when handling the underfame, I mistakenly picked it up by the steps and one side just broke off. I'm prepared to concede my clumsiness, but both steps now have brass reinforcements behind them, invisible from normal viewing angles/distances. Not only that, I've replaced the brake-actuating rods with brass (one resin one broke as I cut it out from the sprue). Again, I concede my clumsiness, but the end result is much stronger and able to be handled without fear of breakage. 

 

Nothing, however, should take away from how very good these kits are. My changing/altering materials/parts is a personal choice, born out of years of operating layout locos and layout carriages/wagons.  

Edited May 30, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Focalplane]

Thank you, Tony, for your detailed assessment from afar concerning the "flimsy chassis" phenomenon. On further review, I think the problem must stem from the ever so slightly uneven rails on the turntable bridge and the apparent fix of loosening the body bolts is a reflection of this error on my part. I am not sure about how to go about improving the bridge rails but that is my next task. It is all part of the learning experience.

 

Of interest is the "plate glass test". The Jinty is not sprung or compensated and all six wheels sit on the plate glass with no rocking movement, whether the body is loose or screwed down. So maybe the chassis is not all that flimsy? It is interesting to note that David Andrews suggests that the centre axle of a six coupled engine or tender be given some vertical freedom of movement by opening out the centre frame holes and letting the brass bush float up and down a millimeter or so within the frame. That is, the bushes are not soldered to the frames. This helps to keep the outer four wheels in contact with uneven rails while electrical contact can still be obtained from all six wheels.

 

Food for thought.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Focalplane

[Jol Wilkinson]

The plate glass test is okay provided all the wheels have exactly the same wheel flange diameters and tyre diameters. It only needs .001" difference for the wheels to lose electrical contact with the rail.

 

The chassis/body distortion problem should be easy to cure. Just leave one of the end fixings marginally "loose". An oversize fixing hole in the chassis spacer with a short piece of tube over the fixing bolt to prevent it being fully tightened down is one solution. Another is to have a fixing stud in the body mounting and use a nut to secure the body. Don't tighten the nut down fully and secure with  small drop of paint. 

 

The later LNWR locos in the LRM range use a tongue/slot as one body to chassis mounting which gives a small amount of "flexibility" to achieve the same results.

[Focalplane]

Just a quick word to thank not only Tony but the others who responded with their experiences, ideas, etc.  When you model in a social vacuum (I have yet to find a model shop in southern France closer than 100 kilometers and no club to join either) the fora* on RMWeb are extremely beneficial, Tony's especially.  The great benefit for me is to see a problem differently through others' experiences.

 

I have been working on the turntable bridge with some success.  It was a difficult kit to build and clearly I would probably make a second one much more efficiently bt I sincerely hope I don't have to.

 

* I failed O Level Latin miserably but I still can't come to terms with "forums".