Wright writes.....

[Clive Mortimore]

21 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Chassis jigs?

 

I've probably tried them all at one time or another. 

 

I was kindly given a Hobby Holidays' jig, but only used it once. Though accurate, it just took too long to set up (not good for one of impatient mind). I handed it back to Phil Atkinson, with thanks.

 

I took an Avonside one to Missenden one year, where a 'pupil' tried it out, finding it 'too complex and expensive'. I'm sure some excellent results can be achieved using it, but, in my experience no more accurate than the following..........

 

 

A Comet chassis jig, acquired when the group of four had the business (whether it's still available in this form, I have no idea). I used it once, but disliked the fact that the bearings were not soldered in first.

 

 

Has anyone tried these jig axles? Available (or were) from Markits or London Road Models, they're quite effective. The 'pointy bits go through the rods and the 'fat' bits go through the bearings, though they're impossible to 'lock' together. 

 

 

Chassis making from the days of John Ahern. Hardly a 'jig', one just shines a light over the one eighth rods and 'reads' the shadows until they're all parallel. These sorted out this  dreadfully-complex Brassmasters' 0-8-4T chassis (well, I found it dreadful). 

 

 

The Poppy's Wood MDF jig, here being used to assemble a set of South Eastern Finecast A4 frames. 

 

I found it worked well.

 

Despite all the above............

 

 

I've now gone back to using my ancient Jamieson jig (the others were just 'punctuations' in my frame building history).

 

I must have made over 500 locos using this, and it's never let me down. It's probably the simplest, and aren't they usually the best?

 

I use it even if the frames have screw-together spacers. 

 

 

 

 

Hello Tony

 

Having never built the frames for a steam loco I have done so for many diesel shunters and GT3 by scratch and kits. Homemade are by the old fashioned way of sweating the frames and rods together, drilling the holes for the rods and centres for the bearings. Removing the rods and enlarging the holes for the bearings. I use the Perseverance version for the Markits / London Road pointy things and never had a chassis that is not free running. I have a Poppy's jig which works equally as well. Now kit chassis are a different proposition, the Gibson class 03 chassis has cut outs for the hornblocks with a solid coupling rod, where the old A1 class 05 chassis kit no means of compensation on the chassis but the rods between all wheels and the drive are individual so both were not good to start with. Others the rods and frames hole centres are not always the same. Thankfully using the Perseverance jigs any errors show up as nothing fits before anything is soldered.

 

My first scratchbuilt chassis, an LMS jackshaft drive shunter, an 0-8-0 with one wheel in mid air. The look on Richard's face in Karlgarin models that was in Chelmsford when I asked for four axles and seven wheels. 😮

 

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Chassis jigs?

 

I've probably tried them all at one time or another. 

 

Ahh yes, but then you cheat and solder the bearings into the frames, not like on a real locomotive. 

[cctransuk]

14 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Ahh yes, but then you cheat and solder the bearings into the frames, not like on a real locomotive. 

 

If 'cheating' produces a loco that runs as freely as the prototype, so be it!

 

Of course, if track-laying is suspect,  some may find it necessary to have wobbly wheels ...... ?

 

CJI.

[Tony Wright]

19 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Ahh yes, but then you cheat and solder the bearings into the frames, not like on a real locomotive. 

Cheat?

 

Perhaps, but then nothing I've ever made is really like a 'real' locomotive (except in, perhaps, outline), so do I cheat all the time then? 

 

All are too narrow in the gauge (even EM).

Instead of water in the boiler and fire in the firebox, there's an electric motor.

None of my steam-outline locos smoke (unless there's a problem).

The crews are stuck to the footplates with superglue, so cannot move.

None is compensated or sprung (a couple were, but they've now been 'solidified').

They're mainly soldered together, not riveted or bolted together. 

 

The list could go on and on.

 

As John Isherwood has commented, if the result of 'cheating' ends up with hundreds of free-running, powerful and reliable model locomotives, then I'll carry on being 'dishonest'. 

 

Really, my last comment is not for me to say. That's the prerogative of all those who've visited and operated Little Bytham, or those who've watched Stoke Summit or Charwelton at shows in the past. Of course, they might disagree!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[polybear]

9 hours ago, Buhar said:

You'll struggle to find either Avonside or Hobby Holidays versions, although Phil was considering a run of his (HH) if there was sufficient interest. That was a good while ago, so I suspect interest hasn't materialised.

 

 

For anyone interested in a HH Jig it may be worth phoning Phil and asking, just in case he has a wait list; he's making some dummy axles with 1mm ends for me at the moment (for my jig) - as he's semi retired he tends to make stuff on request now.

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Cheat?

 

Perhaps, but then nothing I've ever made is really like a 'real' locomotive (except in, perhaps, outline), so do I cheat all the time then? 

 

All are too narrow in the gauge (even EM).

Instead of water in the boiler and fire in the firebox, there's an electric motor.

None of my steam-outline locos smoke (unless there's a problem).

The crews are stuck to the footplates with superglue, so cannot move.

None is compensated or sprung (a couple were, but they've now been 'solidified').

They're mainly soldered together, not riveted or bolted together. 

 

The list could go on and on.

 

As John Isherwood has commented, if the result of 'cheating' ends up with hundreds of free-running, powerful and reliable model locomotives, then I'll carry on being 'dishonest'. 

 

Really, my last comment is not for me to say. That's the prerogative of all those who've visited and operated Little Bytham, or those who've watched Stoke Summit or Charwelton at shows in the past. Of course, they might disagree!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I definitely want to add smoke to all my models, even just for the smell (the fluid will be a mix of the film industry stuff, some coal ash, coal dust, and steam oil).  Sound also is an amazing specticle if you do it right, that being a double speaker set-up, with a large low bass/woofer and crossover set-up (which is being figured out).  Done poorly, it makes a realistic model seam like a toy, which does have its own special charm, but when done well, makes it feel that bit more real.  Of course, its wholly unnecessary, but its a lot of fun in itself to pursue such ambitious modelling goals.

 

Rohan

[jwealleans]

10 minutes ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

I definitely want to add smoke to all my models, even just for the smell

 

The late Graham Varley put a smoke unit into a kit built B1 we ran on Thurston.   He took it out after 3 shows.   The volume of smoke was never really convincing, the smell was awful and some of the boiling oil spat out of the chimney and stripped the paint off the boiler.  

 

I'm not sure whether sound can be a spectacle, but the most effective I've ever seen at a show was Mostyn, years ago before loco speakers were common.   I think it was a Class 40 but they had what must have been a huge speaker under the baseboard.   You could feel it through your feet as the loco approached and the volume was turned up.   That was just like the real thing.  

 

 

 

[65179]

I saw this photo of a LMS Crab 2-6-0 on a 2 coach local:

 

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p265322570/hdc55881d

 

and thought of you Tony.  Why? The loco has no lamps!

 

Regards,

Simon

Edited March 1 by 65179

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

The late Graham Varley put a smoke unit into a kit built B1 we ran on Thurston.   He took it out after 3 shows.   The volume of smoke was never really convincing, the smell was awful and some of the boiling oil spat out of the chimney and stripped the paint off the boiler.  

 

I'm not sure whether sound can be a spectacle, but the most effective I've ever seen at a show was Mostyn, years ago before loco speakers were common.   I think it was a Class 40 but they had what must have been a huge speaker under the baseboard.   You could feel it through your feet as the loco approached and the volume was turned up.   That was just like the real thing.  

 

 

 

Hi Jonathan

 

I did a similar thing with Hanging Hill, my eldest took some diesel loco sounds, mainly idling and short burst of revs along with some brake noises and flange sequel. These were then looped and over dubbed. All clever stuff I wouldn't know how to do. Using an under baseboard sound system , Ok some speakers and a CD player, the noise would begin. We would get complaints from from people the other side of the hall because of the bass sound, still something very missing from on board sound.

 

Setting up use to be fun, we would get the sound system going first and have mainly Goth music playing. Something else that didn't always go down too well.

 

Too many complaints and on board sound put an end to our fun. To me both Mostyn and Hanging Hill gave a more realistic diesel locomotive sound than the high pitch whine of sound fitted model locos.

 

There is nothing better than trying to get the layout up and working before the Fields of the Nephilim have finished "The Last Exit for the Lost".

Edited February 29 by Clive Mortimore

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I put the frames in an engineers V block with the rods resting on each side of the V

That's a great idea, Tony.

[billbedford]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Cheat?

 

 

Yep, you really missed the point about the two sophisticated jigs. They were both designed to allow people with limited skills to assemble etched loco kits designed with separate horn guides and were intended to use some form of springing, at least on the drivers. Something none of the devices you wrote about were able to do. 

 

 

 

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

5 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

The late Graham Varley put a smoke unit into a kit built B1 we ran on Thurston.   He took it out after 3 shows.   The volume of smoke was never really convincing, the smell was awful and some of the boiling oil spat out of the chimney and stripped the paint off the boiler.  

 

I'm not sure whether sound can be a spectacle, but the most effective I've ever seen at a show was Mostyn, years ago before loco speakers were common.   I think it was a Class 40 but they had what must have been a huge speaker under the baseboard.   You could feel it through your feet as the loco approached and the volume was turned up.   That was just like the real thing.  

 

 

 

Probably a mineral oil or glycerin based smoke unit.  There is some stuff that is used in small smoke units for the film industry which is ethylene glycol with propylene glycol.  The difference is night and day.  If I was really desperate though, I could use some titanium tetrachloride or a few other fluids, however dangerous they seem.  I remain unconvinced that I’ll have to resort to those measures though, as the small fog machines used in the film industry produce satisfactory results, and I can put more heat into the fluid due to not being restrained by a health and safety brigade!🙃

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

3 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Jonathan

 

I did a similar thing with Hanging Hill, my eldest took some diesel loco sounds, mainly idling and short burst of revs along with some brake noises and flange sequel. These were then looped and over dubbed. All clever stuff I wouldn't know how to do. Using an under baseboard sound system , Ok some speakers and a CD player, the noise would begin. We would get complaints from from people the other side of the hall because of the bass sound, still something very missing from on board sound.

 

Setting up use to be fun, we would get the sound system going first and have mainly Goth music playing. Something else that didn't always go down too well.

 

Too many complaints and on board sound put an end to our fun. To me both Mostyn and Hanging Hill gave a more realistic diesel locomotive sound than the high pitch whine of sound fitted model locos.

 

There is nothing better than trying to get the layout up and working before the Fields of the Nephilim have finished "The Last Exit for the Lost".

All RTR locos that come with sound are set up poorly.  They have the exact wrong speakers, sound files, sound equalisation, and everything.  A great example of what can be fixed simply through CVs in DCC is on one YouTube channel called Fishplate Films.  
 

However, if you find a speaker that can go down low, put it in a well designed enclosure, and get everything else set-up right, it’s amazing.  I’ve only seen it a few times, but I am always left speechless due to the rumble and the realism.  

 

Either way, pursuing a great target, even if you can never reach it, has always been a fun past time for me, so I’ll keep chasing the unattainable.

 

Rohan

[NHY 581]

5 hours ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

All RTR locos that come with sound are set up poorly.  They have the exact wrong speakers, sound files, sound equalisation, and everything.  A great example of what can be fixed simply through CVs in DCC is on one YouTube channel called Fishplate Films.  
 

However, if you find a speaker that can go down low, put it in a well designed enclosure, and get everything else set-up right, it’s amazing.  I’ve only seen it a few times, but I am always left speechless due to the rumble and the realism.  

 

Either way, pursuing a great target, even if you can never reach it, has always been a fun past time for me, so I’ll keep chasing the unattainable.

 

Rohan

 

Sorry, that's not true. As an example, the Accurascale Class 37 is exceptional straight from the box. In addition, the recent Bachmann releases, such as their 9F and Austerity 2.8.0 are pretty good, as is their 94xx as is their Class 24/Class 25 on the subject of which, the Sutton Locomotive Works equivalents are again, exceptional. Rapido's locos are also well thought out with their Hunslet and 15xx, for all it's troubles, both make a nice noise. 

 

DCC is as hard as the individual makes it but these days, it is very easy to buy a decent RTR factory fitted sound loco and be satisfied with it. 

 

If however you feel compelled to tinker then carry on. It is after all a subjective subject but if you think you can do better, tinker away.  Remember, things are improving all the time but to make such a sweeping statement regarding the poor state of factory fitted sound locos is wholly inaccurate and somewhat misleading especially for someone who may be considering moving into DCC Sound using RTR fitted models. 

 

They are more than good enough for the vast majority. 

 

Rob. 

 

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

Yep, you really missed the point about the two sophisticated jigs. They were both designed to allow people with limited skills to assemble etched loco kits designed with separate horn guides and were intended to use some form of springing, at least on the drivers. Something none of the devices you wrote about were able to do. 

 

 

 

Good morning Bill,

 

I'm good at missing points, especially if they're ambiguous.

 

'designed to allow people with limited skills' Really? I take that snippet in two ways (or conjoined). One being an inherent lack of 'skill' to build anything and, two, a lack of experience (they're not mutually exclusive). People with limited skills and/or experience are unlikely to fork out hundreds of pounds on sophisticated jigs. Knowing well the designer/manufacturer of the Hobby Holidays' jig as a good friend (and having used the jig when I've been a tutor at one of Phil Atkinson's Hobby Holidays' residential courses), it was agreed that the jig (as an investment) really came into its own if one were experienced and skilful and were contemplating building many locomotives, especially with compensation/springing. Interestingly, on one of the courses, two chassis were built (both rigid, I admit); one using the HH jig and the other my Jamieson jig. One jig cost well over a hundred, the other (if it were still available today) a tenner. One chassis was built in a quarter of the time it took to build the other (the setting up period being the difference) and, in the end, both were accurate and ran well. 

 

I agree that those more-sophisticated jigs might make it easier to erect frames with compensation/springing, but the simpler jigs (Comet's, for instance) are capable of being used for such purposes - Comet's frame kits have potential built into the designs for this. 

 

Really skilful and experienced modellers have been erecting accurate/reliable chassis for generations without the need for sophisticated jigs. Granted, the two sophisticated jigs mentioned might well enable those not so gifted/experienced to get nearer to those two ideals. As intimated, those with experience/skill might find those jigs a boon, if only for speeding their build times up - professional builders, for instance. With that in mind, knowing that there are some professionals who contribute here, may I ask do they use the sophisticated jigs? 

 

The 'sophisticated' jigs are well-made and certainly accurate, but they're expensive. My initial postings showed jigs which were not expensive, but still made accurate chassis. Perhaps my explanations were ambiguous, meaning readers missed the point. If so, my apologies. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited March 1 by Tony Wright
tautology

[Barclay]

The way I see it the jigs are probably more use when building a rigid chassis, because it has to be absolutely true. A compensated loco doesn't of course which sounds awful I know and you naturally do your best, but I've never felt the need for more than the pointy LRM jig axles. @Clive Mortimore, I remember Karlgarin Models with great fondness - Richard was always so helpful to this know-nothing teenager! (Still know nothing, but not a teenager any more...)

[cctransuk]

9 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

Yep, you really missed the point about the two sophisticated jigs. They were both designed to allow people with limited skills to assemble etched loco kits designed with separate horn guides and were intended to use some form of springing, at least on the drivers. Something none of the devices you wrote about were able to do.

 

I attempted to assemble frames with separate hornguides, and I would describe myself as having more limited skills. The chassis is still incomplete, and will be replaced by a rigid version.

 

I cannot, for the life of me, see why a person with limited skills would try and assemble equalised or sprung frames.

 

CJI.

[Tony Teague]

1 hour ago, NHY 581 said:

 

They are more than good enough for the vast majority. 

 

? Are the 'vast majority' now buying sound fitted locos?

I personally doubt it.

I'm afraid that for me, the prospect of multiple locos emitting a solid background of tinny white noise is enough to put me off going near those layouts at shows where sound fitted locos prevail.

I prefer to hear the clickety clack of a smooth running set of wheels on a track (which of course can be achieved far more cheaply!)

Tony

 

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

1 hour ago, NHY 581 said:

 

Sorry, that's not true. As an example, the Accurascale Class 37 is exceptional straight from the box. In addition, the recent Bachmann releases, such as their 9F and Austerity 2.8.0 are pretty good, as is their 94xx as is their Class 24/Class 25 on the subject of which, the Sutton Locomotive Works equivalents are again, exceptional. Rapido's locos are also well thought out with their Hunslet and 15xx, for all it's troubles, both make a nice noise. 

 

DCC is as hard as the individual makes it but these days, it is very easy to buy a decent RTR factory fitted sound loco and be satisfied with it. 

 

If however you feel compelled to tinker then carry on. It is after all a subjective subject but if you think you can do better, tinker away.  Remember, things are improving all the time but to make such a sweeping statement regarding the poor state of factory fitted sound locos is wholly inaccurate and somewhat misleading especially for someone who may be considering moving into DCC Sound using RTR fitted models. 

 

They are more than good enough for the vast majority. 

 

Rob. 

 

The 37 must be well improved from the Deltic, as I heard one of those and wasn’t blown away.  Surprised about Bachmann’s steam engines being praised as the ones I’ve witnessed sounded rather nasally.  Perhaps  the difference is in the acoustics of the room?
 

 The low bass is what has never been enough for me, so how do these ones perform in that category?  I must admit, it is fundamentally difficult to make something small sound big.  I do also like track sound though, especially in larger scales and always when its coming from steel wheels on steel rail!

[NHY 581]

2 minutes ago, Tony Teague said:

? Are the 'vast majority' now buying sound fitted locos?

I personally doubt it.

I'm afraid that for me, the prospect of multiple locos emitting a solid background of tinny white noise is enough to put me off going near those layouts at shows where sound fitted locos prevail.

I prefer to hear the clickety clack of a smooth running set of wheels on a track (which of course can be achieved far more cheaply!)

Tony

 

 

Sorry Tony, when I said vast majority, I meant in the context of those so inclined to purchase factory fitted sound locos. 

 

Rob

[Michael Edge]

1 hour ago, Barclay said:

The way I see it the jigs are probably more use when building a rigid chassis, because it has to be absolutely true. A compensated loco doesn't of course which sounds awful I know and you naturally do your best, but I've never felt the need for more than the pointy LRM jig axles. @Clive Mortimore, I remember Karlgarin Models with great fondness - Richard was always so helpful to this know-nothing teenager! (Still know nothing, but not a teenager any more...)

At the risk of repeating myself, there is no point at all in trying to assemble a plate frame exactly square. Almost all the torsional stiffness in a steam loco is in the boiler and this will easily pull your exactly square frame out of true when it is bolted up. All plate frames, including full size ones, are able to twist a bit, if your assembled frame isn't true just get hold of each end and twist it. For good running the only things that matter are wheel quartering and an exact match between the rod centres and axle centres - any of the jigs will enable the latter to be checked, springing or compensation are irrelevant  in this context.

[Jol Wilkinson]

12 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

At the risk of repeating myself, there is no point at all in trying to assemble a plate frame exactly square. Almost all the torsional stiffness in a steam loco is in the boiler and this will easily pull your exactly square frame out of true when it is bolted up. All plate frames, including full size ones, are able to twist a bit, if your assembled frame isn't true just get hold of each end and twist it. For good running the only things that matter are wheel quartering and an exact match between the rod centres and axle centres - any of the jigs will enable the latter to be checked, springing or compensation are irrelevant  in this context.

Which precisely describes the problems I had when building OO locos in my early days.,I always built the chassis first and get it running smoothly. Then I would bolt the loco body to it and it wouldn't run as well!

 

When I moved over to P4 and started building compensated chassis, originally using Perseverance axle jigs (with parallel ends in two diameters) and later the LRM taper end jigs, I never experienced the problem again. Why, because any twist the body imparts to the chassis is counteracted by the horn blocks.

 

I later took this further and now attach the body with a screw at one end and a relatively loose locator at the other, usually the coupling hook through the other end buffer beam and into the chassis front spacer. Where possible I included this in the locos I designed for LRM. 

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

The 37 must be well improved from the Deltic, as I heard one of those and wasn’t blown away.  Surprised about Bachmann’s steam engines being praised as the ones I’ve witnessed sounded rather nasally.  Perhaps  the difference is in the acoustics of the room?
 

 The low bass is what has never been enough for me, so how do these ones perform in that category?  I must admit, it is fundamentally difficult to make something small sound big.  I do also like track sound though, especially in larger scales and always when its coming from steel wheels on steel rail!

Low bass reproduction is a function of speaker size, or enclosure size if using a bass reflex (horn) arrangement.

 

Two choices in diesels: revert to a single bogie drive to free up room at the other end, or switch to O gauge.

 

Most steam loco tenders in 4mm are big enough to hold a decent speaker, but small tank locos will always be problematic.

 

One issue, though is an under-estimation of the necessary trade-offs between sound quality and haulage capacity. Creating space for a bigger speaker inevitably reduces that available for the weight needed to maximise haulage ability.

 

We really shouldn't be expecting something like a 14xx to manage 4-6 coaches on a gradient!

 

I'd like to see chassis blocks have a removable section to allow us to implement our own priorities.

 

John 

 

  

Edited March 1 by Dunsignalling

[Tony Wright]

25 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

At the risk of repeating myself, there is no point at all in trying to assemble a plate frame exactly square. Almost all the torsional stiffness in a steam loco is in the boiler and this will easily pull your exactly square frame out of true when it is bolted up. All plate frames, including full size ones, are able to twist a bit, if your assembled frame isn't true just get hold of each end and twist it. For good running the only things that matter are wheel quartering and an exact match between the rod centres and axle centres - any of the jigs will enable the latter to be checked, springing or compensation are irrelevant  in this context.

Good morning Mike,

 

I admit to having 'twisted' a set of etched frames true from time to time because there was a slight rock, even though they'd been Jamieson jig assembled.

 

As you allude to, when screwing the body on, it can impart a twist to the chassis. If this occurs (and it's often with an etched chassis), I identify where the diagonal rock is and fix little pads of thin Plastikard to the underneath of the body, diagonally opposite, where it meets the frames. This is a simple cure. 

 

In fairness, when I've built 'battleship' frames from one 16th brass (Jamieson-style) and then erected, say, a Jamieson sheet metal body, it's that body which 'twists' if necessary, not the frames.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[john new]

53 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

 

Sorry Tony, when I said vast majority, I meant in the context of those so inclined to purchase factory fitted sound locos. 

 

Rob

I am not quite as anti DCC as some as I am trying to modernise my 71 year old brain to master it. I have three diesels bought with sound as I wanted to try it out. Not finding them to be what I wanted. Horn sound on two of them is not right to my ear and for two of the others so many options that if you haven’t passed out as driver on the real thing you’ve  no idea when to use them or for things like flange squeal have forgotten the button sequence to activate them at an appropriate spot on the track! As for steam sounds most of what I have heard on other people’s examples is no better generally than Hornby’s old sand paper tricks. 

 

Won’t bother in future with sound if there is a plain DCC option at purchase. I’m sure DCC must have more advantages than the number of disadvantages I am finding but if they are then I’m missing them. At present it (DCC) does work for me and I am persevering. As of today though I am still finding that analogue controls are a better overall experience than DCC. When the club test track rewire is complete and we have a DCC oval it might get better but I’m disappointed with DCC on my small end to end set up.