Wright writes.....

[westerner]

Thought I'd drop this in.

 

A quiet time at Blackney

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tony,

 

'Roy, John and Geoff built High Dyke and stocked it in less than a year'

 

I'm sure they did, but what about mere mortal modellers? 

 

Stoke Summit was built in less than a year, by six of us (twice as many, but mere mortal modellers). Yes, it's far less complex than High Dyke, but we built over 40 (accurate) trains for it (at least twice as many as on High Dyke) and scores of locos (with correct domes!). That wouldn't have been possible if we'd had to build over 50 fiddle yard points as well. Granted, many locos and some stock had been built already, but I was building a loco a week just prior to its first exhibition. 

 

I state again, I wished I'd gone EM all those years ago when I was offered the chance, but, looking back, to build the likes of Stoke Summit, Charwelton and now Little Bytham in EM would have taken much longer. Counting up the fiddle yard points on all three comes to over 200! Not as many as on Retford, I know, but the layouts were all finished within lifetimes. 

 

Looking at some of the recent pictures, the 'flow' of EM bespoke points/crossings is a joy to see, though hand-made OO can trick the eye. On first seeing pictures of Little Bytham (obviously not in the flesh, because of the visible fiddle yard), many have told me they thought it was built in EM!

 

As for those who'd have chosen OO had it been good enough 40+ years ago, I'll mention no names (that would be unfair), but they certainly produced plenty! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Even modellers of the quality of John, Geoff and Roy don't have a magic wand to expand time. I think you probably work quicker than any of the three of them, so that shouldn't be a factor. I don't think Roy ever built a DJH Pacific in an afternoon like you seem to do.

 

The vast majority of the locos and stock on Stoke Summit were either homemade (and just as easy to build in EM) or ones that would be easy to convert to EM by drop in replacement wheels and if you allow an hour and a half to make a copperclad point (my record is 5 in 7 hours so that is quite achievable), 6 people would build 50 points in a couple of days.

 

So to go EM for Stoke Summit back in the day would have added a tiny amount of extra time to the construction.

 

Nowadays, the Peco/EMGS points would be available to do away with even that extra few days. Maybe back in the day, the ready to lay EM points from Marcway/SMP might have done for the fiddle yard for anybody who didn't want to spend time building their own.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

Even modellers of the quality of John, Geoff and Roy don't have a magic wand to expand time. I think you probably work quicker than any of the three of them, so that shouldn't be a factor. I don't think Roy ever built a DJH Pacific in an afternoon like you seem to do.

 

The vast majority of the locos and stock on Stoke Summit were either homemade (and just as easy to build in EM) or ones that would be easy to convert to EM by drop in replacement wheels and if you allow an hour and a half to make a copperclad point (my record is 5 in 7 hours so that is quite achievable), 6 people would build 50 points in a couple of days.

 

So to go EM for Stoke Summit back in the day would have added a tiny amount of extra time to the construction.

 

Nowadays, the Peco/EMGS points would be available to do away with even that extra few days. Maybe back in the day, the ready to lay EM points from Marcway/SMP might have done for the fiddle yard for anybody who didn't want to spend time building their own.

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I'm not so sure locos are as easy to build in EM as OO, especially big ones with outside cylinders and motion. Take a DJH A2/2, for instance. In order to get the requisite clearances between the rear of the crosshead and the leading crankpin, I've had to plug the hole in the cylinders for the piston rod, then re-drill it at least a mil further out. Similar situations exist with the likes of K3s and V2s, among others. That's using Markits drivers, of course; wheels with thinner treads don't need that, but I can't get on with them.

 

In your assessment of making 50 EM points, you're assuming that all six in the Stoke group could make track (or wanted to). As it happened, only two (Rob Kinsey and Tony Geary, as they did with Charwelton) made trackwork. The time priorities were taken up with making locos and stock, out of necessity. A 'tiny amount of extra time'? Do you really believe that? I bought over 50 Peco points for Stoke's fiddle yards, plus dozens of yards of Peco Streamline, and in less than two days I'd laid the lot, and in no time it was wired up. With a deadline of less than a year (actually nine months) between cutting wood and Stoke being first exhibited, where was I going to get 50 hours from to build points? Granted, Stoke would have been better in EM, but it would have taken a lot longer before it saw its first exhibition outing. 

 

It's interesting to note that some 'EM-ed' locos shown on here of late are the work of professionals (not the owners, it would appear). Which rather suggests that EM isn't quite so easy as it seems (though, I concede, many have their locos built in OO by professionals, but that is less so now with the ever-higher standards of RTR). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, AdamOrmorod said:

Sorry to jump back here, but perhaps it was sensible to fit just one A4 with a double and see how it went before fitting the other three? 

Logical, but the equipment had already proved itself on the P2s (apart from 2005, which only had a single chimney). HUMORIST was also similarly-equipped with a double Kylchap. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Michael Edge]

34 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I'm not so sure locos are as easy to build in EM as OO, especially big ones with outside cylinders and motion. Take a DJH A2/2, for instance. In order to get the requisite clearances between the rear of the crosshead and the leading crankpin, I've had to plug the hole in the cylinders for the piston rod, then re-drill it at least a mil further out. Similar situations exist with the likes of K3s and V2s, among others. That's using Markits drivers, of course; wheels with thinner treads don't need that, but I can't get on with them.

 

 

Markits wheels are significantly overscale width in EM gauge, however DJH cylinders are almost always set too wide. I always move the cylinders in to the correct spacing and can still fit all the motion in in EM gauge, I do use Gibson wheels though. Much of the problem occurs as a result of overwide crankpin fasteners and con. rod little ends, many outside cylinder locos had recessed fasteners on the wheel behind the slidebars.

[t-b-g]

43 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I'm not so sure locos are as easy to build in EM as OO, especially big ones with outside cylinders and motion. Take a DJH A2/2, for instance. In order to get the requisite clearances between the rear of the crosshead and the leading crankpin, I've had to plug the hole in the cylinders for the piston rod, then re-drill it at least a mil further out. Similar situations exist with the likes of K3s and V2s, among others. That's using Markits drivers, of course; wheels with thinner treads don't need that, but I can't get on with them.

 

In your assessment of making 50 EM points, you're assuming that all six in the Stoke group could make track (or wanted to). As it happened, only two (Rob Kinsey and Tony Geary, as they did with Charwelton) made trackwork. The time priorities were taken up with making locos and stock, out of necessity. A 'tiny amount of extra time'? Do you really believe that? I bought over 50 Peco points for Stoke's fiddle yards, plus dozens of yards of Peco Streamline, and in less than two days I'd laid the lot, and in no time it was wired up. With a deadline of less than a year (actually nine months) between cutting wood and Stoke being first exhibited, where was I going to get 50 hours from to build points? Granted, Stoke would have been better in EM, but it would have taken a lot longer before it saw its first exhibition outing. 

 

It's interesting to note that some 'EM-ed' locos shown on here of late are the work of professionals (not the owners, it would appear). Which rather suggests that EM isn't quite so easy as it seems (though, I concede, many have their locos built in OO by professionals, but that is less so now with the ever-higher standards of RTR). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

As Mike Edge says, building in EM isn't such a problem. I have done a Royal Scot and a Duchess in EM using Comet parts and Romford/Markits wheels and I had no clearance problems once I had a technique for a recessed leading crankpin. A Romford crankpin stands out much further than is needed or is desirable, especially if you use their thick washers as retainers.

 

If it took two modellers a couple of weeks to make all the points and added an extra hour per loco, that is a tiny proportion of the total time spent on the layout as a whole.

 

Of course it all depends on your priorities and your ambitions. There was a time when EM was seen as very much a "niche" interest for a handful of modellers and that 00 was "for the vast majority". That may well still be the case.

 

It is difficult comparing the motivation from 40 plus years ago with the motivation now. We all have 40 years less time to build what we want to build and we all have access to much improved RTR models as well.

 

 

[JamesSpooner]

40 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

As Mike Edge says, building in EM isn't such a problem. I have done a Royal Scot and a Duchess in EM using Comet parts and Romford/Markits wheels and I had no clearance problems once I had a technique for a recessed leading crankpin. A Romford crankpin stands out much further than is needed or is desirable, especially if you use their thick washers as retainers.

 

If it took two modellers a couple of weeks to make all the points and added an extra hour per loco, that is a tiny proportion of the total time spent on the layout as a whole.

 

Of course it all depends on your priorities and your ambitions. There was a time when EM was seen as very much a "niche" interest for a handful of modellers and that 00 was "for the vast majority". That may well still be the case.

 

It is difficult comparing the motivation from 40 plus years ago with the motivation now. We all have 40 years less time to build what we want to build and we all have access to much improved RTR models as well.

 

 

 I agree. I am most definitely not a professional modeller, regarding myself more as a ‘bodger’ than anything else.  Attached is a photo of a Hornby B17 I converted to EM and renumbered/ named to Raby Castle. Again I use Gibson wheels and crankpins, which seem to give me perfectly good service and fit behind the Hornby motion (which I then don’t need to modify).

 

Nigel

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I'm not so sure locos are as easy to build in EM as OO, especially big ones with outside cylinders and motion. Take a DJH A2/2, for instance. In order to get the requisite clearances between the rear of the crosshead and the leading crankpin, I've had to plug the hole in the cylinders for the piston rod, then re-drill it at least a mil further out. Similar situations exist with the likes of K3s and V2s, among others. That's using Markits drivers, of course; wheels with thinner treads don't need that, but I can't get on with them.

 

In your assessment of making 50 EM points, you're assuming that all six in the Stoke group could make track (or wanted to). As it happened, only two (Rob Kinsey and Tony Geary, as they did with Charwelton) made trackwork. The time priorities were taken up with making locos and stock, out of necessity. A 'tiny amount of extra time'? Do you really believe that? I bought over 50 Peco points for Stoke's fiddle yards, plus dozens of yards of Peco Streamline, and in less than two days I'd laid the lot, and in no time it was wired up. With a deadline of less than a year (actually nine months) between cutting wood and Stoke being first exhibited, where was I going to get 50 hours from to build points? Granted, Stoke would have been better in EM, but it would have taken a lot longer before it saw its first exhibition outing. 

 

It's interesting to note that some 'EM-ed' locos shown on here of late are the work of professionals (not the owners, it would appear). Which rather suggests that EM isn't quite so easy as it seems (though, I concede, many have their locos built in OO by professionals, but that is less so now with the ever-higher standards of RTR). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

You could have done your first show with two or three fewer trains. Nobody would have noticed.

 

Whether it be one person building all 50 points or 5 people building 10 each, the total modelling time for the project would have gone up by the same amount of time, around 75 hours over 9 months shared between 6 people. If 4 or 5 people were not working on points, their extra hours could have been put into what the point builders would have been doing otherwise.

 

The point I am trying to make is that if you had chosen to build Stoke Summit in EM, you would have still got there, a little bit slower but not by a huge margin. I would think an extra month would have covered it and the worst case scenario would have been that you wouldn't have had every train on the layout first time out. So the decision to build it in 00 was a decision made out of choice, not a necessity.

 

I have been in the situation of committing a layout to a show then building it to a deadline, so I understand the self imposed pressures that come with that and that does to the "Do we do things the hard way or the quick and easy way?" questions but with hindsight, knowing the skills of some of the people involved, I am sure you could have done it in EM.

[Curlew]

26 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

You could have done your first show with two or three fewer trains. Nobody would have noticed.

 

Whether it be one person building all 50 points or 5 people building 10 each, the total modelling time for the project would have gone up by the same amount of time, around 75 hours over 9 months shared between 6 people. If 4 or 5 people were not working on points, their extra hours could have been put into what the point builders would have been doing otherwise.

 

The point I am trying to make is that if you had chosen to build Stoke Summit in EM, you would have still got there, a little bit slower but not by a huge margin. I would think an extra month would have covered it and the worst case scenario would have been that you wouldn't have had every train on the layout first time out. So the decision to build it in 00 was a decision made out of choice, not a necessity.

 

I have been in the situation of committing a layout to a show then building it to a deadline, so I understand the self imposed pressures that come with that and that does to the "Do we do things the hard way or the quick and easy way?" questions but with hindsight, knowing the skills of some of the people involved, I am sure you could have done it in EM.

If someone has never built pointwork before there is a steep learning curve. Surely you can't just expect them to jump straight into it and work at the same speed as you might do?

[t-b-g]

5 minutes ago, Curlew said:

If someone has never built pointwork before there is a steep learning curve. Surely you can't just expect them to jump straight into it and work at the same speed as you might do?

 

You are right. I don't expect that at all.

 

I don't know exactly how much experience the Stoke Summit crew had of building points but it certainly wasn't their first layout and I am pretty sure, as Tony W has already said, that two of the crew had the skill and ability. So it wasn't as if they would have started from scratch with no skill or knowledge.

 

It took me a few attempts to get the confidence and speed. I built my first one when I was about 11 years old, using balsa wood sleepers and Peco Code 100 rail recovered from a length of flexible track glued on with UHU glue. It works and I still have it but hopefully I have moved on.

 

I then built a couple of SMP point kits when I was about 16 years old. There was a gap until I was about 19 or 20 and joined a club which was made up of mainly EM and P4 modellers. Then I really got going. Firstly with copperclad pcb and soldered construction, then ply and rivet and more recently with plastic chairs glued to wooden sleepers. I even (usually) make my own plain track now just because I enjoy it and I can accurately model prototypical individualities like sleeper sizes, number of holes in the chairs and sleeper spacing. It is one of the trade offs I am happy to accept by building smaller layouts. It allows me to consider such things.

 

I must have built somewhere around 600 or 700 points now and although it is nothing like the amount that people like Norman Solomon have done, it is enough experience that they don't really present any difficulties to me now. 

 

To me, it has always been about having a go and trying to make things, rather than thinking of reasons to not do something.

[Tony Wright]

44 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

You could have done your first show with two or three fewer trains. Nobody would have noticed.

 

Whether it be one person building all 50 points or 5 people building 10 each, the total modelling time for the project would have gone up by the same amount of time, around 75 hours over 9 months shared between 6 people. If 4 or 5 people were not working on points, their extra hours could have been put into what the point builders would have been doing otherwise.

 

The point I am trying to make is that if you had chosen to build Stoke Summit in EM, you would have still got there, a little bit slower but not by a huge margin. I would think an extra month would have covered it and the worst case scenario would have been that you wouldn't have had every train on the layout first time out. So the decision to build it in 00 was a decision made out of choice, not a necessity.

 

I have been in the situation of committing a layout to a show then building it to a deadline, so I understand the self imposed pressures that come with that and that does to the "Do we do things the hard way or the quick and easy way?" questions but with hindsight, knowing the skills of some of the people involved, I am sure you could have done it in EM.

Points taken, Tony.

 

However, the 'necessity' was not to do with the gauge - it was the number of 'correct' trans we had to make to make the whole experience for watchers worthwhile. I've been told by many that Stoke Summit was the first main line layout they'd seen where the trains were 'correct' - many professional railwaymen, too. That was the priority, that was the necessity, not the gauge. OO was chosen because I'd already made many locos in 16.5mm (though not enough). Imagine the time needed to re-gauge some 40+ OO locos (mostly big ones, without outside motion) to EM? And build a 30' x 10' layout in less than a year! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[lezz01]

EM is not hard to do. The plain track is available from at least 3 sources turnouts are available as both kits and ready built or you can simply build your own using the templates available from two or three sources or Templot. Lots of RTR items can be converted easily, sometimes just by moving the wheels out on their axles or dropping new wheels. Unlike P4 you don't need to spring or compensate everything although I find it much easier to build locos with compensation than without. If a rolling stock kit has some form of suspension I build it that way if it doesn't I don't bother with it. With loco building I like the greater space between the frames as it allows for either dummy or working motion and given that my main interest is the Midland there isn't many locos with outside motion that I need to worry about. I gave P4 up twenty years ago to build a green/blue diesel layout that despite having state or the art DCC sound and all the rest of the bells and whistles didn't get anywhere near finished as I was no longer getting what I really wanted from my layout so I've gone back to EM and I'm thoroughly enjoying my modelling once again. I didn't go back to P4 as I didn't want to have to spring everything but as I started with EM before I went to P4 I already had all the gauges and other kit to hand. Personally I love track building and everything else is just something to run on it.

Regards Lez.        

Edited April 6, 2023 by lezz01

[Chuffer Davies]

19 minutes ago, Curlew said:

If someone has never built pointwork before there is a steep learning curve. Surely you can't just expect them to jump straight into it and work at the same speed as you might do?

I might suggest that making points does not need superhuman skills nor is there a steep learning curve.  Ideally you need someone (or these days perhaps a YouTube video) to show you how to build them, then the first one needs a bit of thought, but after that most modellers should be able to take it in their stride.  They are definitely one of those things that people are overly scared of trying but in reality are really easy to make.  Possibly easier than even making a wagon kit once you know how.

Go on give it a try.

Frank

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

Points taken, Tony.

 

However, the 'necessity' was not to do with the gauge - it was the number of 'correct' trans we had to make to make the whole experience for watchers worthwhile. I've been told by many that Stoke Summit was the first main line layout they'd seen where the trains were 'correct' - many professional railwaymen, too. That was the priority, that was the necessity, not the gauge. OO was chosen because I'd already made many locos in 16.5mm (though not enough). Imagine the time needed to re-gauge some 40+ OO locos (mostly big ones, without outside motion) to EM? And build a 30' x 10' layout in less than a year! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

That changes things Tony. You gave me an impression that you built everything including the locos and stock in 9 months. If there were lots of locos and stock from earlier layouts, then that is a different matter altogether.

[polybear]

6 hours ago, Leander said:

So you can tick it off your list, here are a few examples of Pacifics converted to EM gauge by Karl Crowther (A3) and Timara Easter (the Standard 4-6-2s), for use on Leeds City North.

 

Thanks - nice examples; I'd already "ticked it off my list" though, as I've been aware of the Easichas Kits for some time.  The point I was making is that converting 00 RTR Steam Locos with outside valvegear often/usually becomes much more involved (with scope for more things going wrong) than the often used examples of 0-6-0's (with no valvegear) or D & E.

 

At the end of the day I think it fair to say that there's no such thing as "the perfect gauge" as all have their own advantages and disadvantages; it's up to the individual to decide what suits them best and what disadvantages they can overlook.

 

I've sometimes thought that if there was almost a "halfway house" between RTR and Kit-built (semi kit-built?) which involved the modeller making a chassis to their chosen gauge then being able to easily purchase ready-finished (and EM/P4 friendly) bodyshells to the latest standard (without having to resort to bidding wars on Ebay etc.) then perhaps even more might consider the benefits of EM/P4.  Sadly that's perhaps wishful thinking though as I very much doubt that the likes of H & B etc. will ever entertain selling bodyshells in such a manner.  The days of Margate spares are long gone, sadly.

[micklner]

6 hours ago, AdamOrmorod said:

Sorry to jump back here, but perhaps it was sensible to fit just one A4 with a double and see how it went before fitting the other three? 

Or the LNER which was always cash poor, perhaps they simply couldnt afford to buy anymore .

[Red Devil]

Interesting reading the thoughts on EM v OO, I'm currently doing 'some stuff' in EM as rtr track isn't an option so I might as well make it less wrong in EM than OO, I don't think I have the skills to do 18.83!

 

I'm still plodding on with a layout featuring Sheffield trams, the track was soldered up from three sections to give a girder rail look....But the biggest bugbear with short wheelbase trams and infilled track is reliable slow speed running so I thought I'd have a bash at dead rail with radio control and came up with my own spud type mechanism.

 

The basic mech is very simple a few sections of brass holding a 1020 dual shaft Tramfabriek motor, gears are Tenshodo but with this motor and running at 3.7volts reliable slow speed is ok. The box above takes all the other stuff (100mah lipo, charge port, fuse, switch etc. RC is Micron RC using an RX41d-v5 receiver) Running time on one charge is about 4 hours which is enough for me, re charge is about 15mins.

 

It's shown temporarily fitted into a 1927 Sheffield Standard in the unloved experimental green livery....This is a 3d print.

 

Like most on this thread I like building stuff, so going EM wasn't a problem but I can understand why many don't or don't want to.

 

Just thought it might be of a bit of interest as the spud type mech could be used in lots of things if anyone wanted to have a play with dead rail...

 

Oh yeah, wheelbase is 34mm, 10.5mm disc wheels and obviously 18.2mm gauge.

[Richard_A]

All this talk of em gauge is making me consider it, I haven't got a complete model of anything I've built or even a layout, just some old Hornby track to amuse my kids with. 

 

Perhaps I should think about it. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

That changes things Tony. You gave me an impression that you built everything including the locos and stock in 9 months. If there were lots of locos and stock from earlier layouts, then that is a different matter altogether.

If I gave that impression, then my apologies. 

 

That said, we still had to build quite a few locos as well in the nine months, plus many of the trains (though I'd already built 'The Elizabethan' and 'The Queen of Scots'. 

[Chuffer Davies]

21 minutes ago, rka said:

All this talk of em gauge is making me consider it, I haven't got a complete model of anything I've built or even a layout, just some old Hornby track to amuse my kids with. 

 

Perhaps I should think about it. 

Perhaps you should. You know where you can come for help if you need it.

Frank

[Curlew]

1 hour ago, Chuffer Davies said:

I might suggest that making points does not need superhuman skills nor is there a steep learning curve.  Ideally you need someone (or these days perhaps a YouTube video) to show you how to build them, then the first one needs a bit of thought, but after that most modellers should be able to take it in their stride.  They are definitely one of those things that people are overly scared of trying but in reality are really easy to make.  Possibly easier than even making a wagon kit once you know how.

Go on give it a try.

Frank

Trust me, I do have a lot of experience of building pointwork in a variety of scales and gauges. I do remember however how challenging it was at first - even more so if you need to learn Templot too.

 

I still see people starting for the first time with scratchbuilt track. The challeges should not be underestimated. Not just understanding track, but potentially soldering skills and other things that track purchasers can just take for granted.

[t-b-g]

38 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

If I gave that impression, then my apologies. 

 

That said, we still had to build quite a few locos as well in the nine months, plus many of the trains (though I'd already built 'The Elizabethan' and 'The Queen of Scots'. 

 

In that case, if it took six of you 9 months to build the layout and only a couple of days to do the fiddle yard, by far the most complicated bit, what were you messing about at for the rest of the time? 😉

[Northmoor]

This talk of building a layout for a future exhibition date; hats off to any group who accept an invite for a layout that doesn't exist then deliver that layout (even part built) for the event, but the thought of building to someone else's deadline would pretty much eliminate any enjoyment from modelling for me.  That sounds not much like a hobby and much more like going to work.

[lezz01]

P4 isn't really that much harder to do than EM. There are manufactures that produce chassis kits to go under commercial bodies eg. Brass Masters and High Level to name just two. As long as you use the jigs and gauges from the societies the track is no harder than 00 fine scale/EM. The fact is that things run through P4 point work much better than the other gauges because the gaps in the rails are close to prototype and there is a lot less air under a common crossing than in 00 or even EM. The problem you get is that you do need some sort of suspension because the flanges are close to prototype. Flanges on the real thing don't keep the vehicles on the track it's the angle of the track and the cone of the wheels that keep it on the track. The flanges are there to guide the stock at turnouts ensuring that the train doesn't split. The wheels naturally climb up the rail on curves and need some sort of suspension to counter this or the veh. is suddenly on 3 wheels not 6 in the case of 6 wheeled stock. The problem we have is that the curves we have are far too tight when compared the real thing and manufacturers compensate for this with over scale wheel flanges. 

With regard to using RTR bodies they are available from the manufactures. Bachmann have a spares site. I sure Hornby have something similar but I don't have many Hornby locos so I'll need to go looking. 

One example Midland 3F bodies are from £26 to £40 depending on livery. 

Example two GWR 64XX PT £32 to £40 again depending on livery.

So it doesn't need to cost the earth.

Regards Lez.      

[Ian Smeeton]

21 hours ago, zr2498 said:

 

Could do with going on a Templot course!

 

 

There is a 2mm Association set of videos on YouTube shot over a few weeks during Lockdown which works through Templot.

 

Gere: 

 

 

Alternatively, @Martin Wynne seems to be on 24/7 troubleshooting call on the Templot Club forum.

 

Regards

 

Ian