Whats on your 2mm Work bench

[Caley Jim]

As well as all the other suggestions which have been made, the one @Donw alludes to can also cause a problem by making the switch under gauge at its tip. When fitting the first switch I use a button gauge to ensure that this doesn't happen. The second switch is then fitted with its top level with that of the first. If anything, it's better to have the tips of the switches a little too near the crossing than too far away. 

 

Jim 

[Donw]

good points there from Bob and Jim.  If you slide a button gauge along you can spot tight spots.

 

Don

[martin580120]

8 hours ago, Izzy said:

Have you removed the inside jaw on all the slide chairs Martin? These need doing, all of them, and filing completely flat before putting on the timbers. Perhaps I’m wrong but looking at the right hand side of the third shot it looks like they haven’t been. This would of course prevent the blade seating properly all the way along the stock rail.

 

Another aspect to watch out for is to ensure the blade is fully down on the tie-bar so it doesn’t sit above the stock rail, and no solder has crept under it to the other side also preventing proper seating. Just trying to think of odd things that might have happened. 
 

Bob

 

...nope, haven't removed the inside jaws of the slide chairs... must have missed that bit of the instructions... (if it's as simple as that I will kick myself...)

 

I'm currently heading South for Gilwell Reunion (A Scout Leader get together near London), and was explicitly told by the wife that I have to be "sociable" and that I'm not allowed to bring a tool box or projects with me. I will take a file to the slide chairs on Monday when I return to the workbench and see if this fixes the issue.

 

Again, thanks to everyone for their advice and input, greatly appreciated!

[nick_bastable]

I find a scalpel easier

 

as for kicking yourself we've all done it

[Sithlord75]

9 hours ago, nick_bastable said:

I find a scalpel easier

 

as for kicking yourself we've all done it

Sometimes more than once!

[ShadowinLinby]

Here's how I do the tiebar end of my points - the 4 pairs of etched chairs (1-145) help both to secure the stock rails and clear the inside to help the switch blades sit correctly. The set just after the last plastic sleeper helps with seating the straight stock rail and gives correct gauging at the tip of the switch blades. 

[Donw]

1 hour ago, ShadowinLinby said:

Here's how I do the tiebar end of my points - the 4 pairs of etched chairs (1-145) help both to secure the stock rails and clear the inside to help the switch blades sit correctly. The set just after the last plastic sleeper helps with seating the straight stock rail and gives correct gauging at the tip of the switch blades. 

 

 

Note the clear set in the curved stock rail and the way the planed side of the blades match the stock rails.  The only comment is the tip of the blade on the curved side is right on the set. Having the tip a fraction behind the set wouldn't hurt. It tucks the tip out of the way of wheels entering the turnout. The use of a joggle in the straight stock rail does the same. The GWR which used blunt ended blade tips was more inclined to use joggles.

 

Don 

[martin_wynne]

From the Templot web site:

 

 

Lots more at: https://85a.uk/templot/companion/real_track.php

 

Martin.

[ShadowinLinby]

Well spotted Don - set in correct position on this one, conveniently marked this time.

[martin580120]

A bit later than I intended, but I have removed the inner face of the slide chairs from the first of my "problem" turnouts.

 

And yep... that seems to have fixed it. Don't know how well it comes across in the photo, but with the tiebar held over the blades sit flushly and the test wagon doesn't jump, and stays on the rails, even at speed!

 

Thanks again to the support from everyone in solving this - I have procured some more FiNetrax units for my initial plank, but I havd a plan for these moving forwards :-)

[Caley Jim]

Finally got the Jumbo finished! (well, except for that missing number plate).

 

And here a comparison between the original Drummond design (top) and the Lambie (order No Y37) version.

 

Jim

[Atso]

This is what happens when I'm bored and get a crazy idea...

 

 

Two Peco brake vans (one NE and one LMS) cut and shut to scale length (1:148 scale) and narrowed to something approaching scale width. The roof is the Peco mouldings similarly cut and shut. To keep with the theme of this model, the chassis will also be a shortened Peco product but using the 15ft wheelbase brake van chassis which is on order.

 

Not up to the finesse of the 2mm etched kit (of which I've built two so far) but a fun and quick 'layout' model.

[martin580120]

This weeks work has been a BR Diagram 1/506 Brake van, picked up last weekend at the NEAG 40th birthday bash.

 

 

It's the second of these I've built, and a definite improvement on the first. The roof is a bit wonky, needing a fair bit of filling and filing with liquid talent (liquid greenstuff from GW) and I'm considering if/when building my next one, making all the handrails etc. from 0.3mm brass rod rather than using the etched ones that come with the kit, but I'm fairly happy in the result. 

 

 

With the first attempt, now wheel-less to save a bit of money (...yes, I know the sides are on upside down... no, I don't know how I managed to do it, or spot it was an issue until I had the two sitting next to each other...)

 

I suspect like many things with this hobby, the more practice, the better I'll get. That must be my 20th mineral wagon in the top photo, and it looks (and runs) considerably better than my first and second, so I think I may order another Brake van or two and see if those improve as well.

 

But next on the bench is the return of the part built J94 now that I have the right gears for it (helps if you read the instructions...)

[U36B]

20 hours ago, martin580120 said:

That must be my 20th mineral wagon in the top photo, and it looks (and runs) considerably better than my first and second

Martin580120,

 

I thought I was the only one  who was  overwhelmed by the kit.

Your post inspires courage -Thanks !!!

 

Well..... - where is my soldering iron .... 🎯

 

Stephan

 

[martin580120]

On 17/09/2022 at 12:43, U36B said:

Martin580120,

 

I thought I was the only one  who was  overwhelmed by the kit.

Your post inspires courage -Thanks !!!

 

Well..... - where is my soldering iron .... 🎯

 

Stephan

 

 

Stephan, 

 

I think that's the first time I've been described as inspirational!  I've found this hobby is very "learn by doing" and learning what works and what doesn't. I can only recommend perseverance.

 

To borrow a phrase from an old Chemsit of my aquaintence, "all experiments give good data, especially the failures, because we can learn from it." - I've got a pile of a dozen mineral wagons that won't run very well, but taught me a lot of not what to do - they might end up on a theoretical siding with "cond" painted on the sides!

 

Martin

[martin580120]

That's not a J94!

 

 

My plan to keep plugging away at my first loco build went somewhat awry over the weekend. I was trying to figure out how to get the imperial skew gear and the metric spur gear on the same muff when I it dawned I may have bought the wrong ones... (for reference 3-102a, not 3-102b which are necessary, but wrong for this application. Self kicking administered. Lesson learnt). A Shop 3 order duely placed and the thumb twiddling began.

 

This scuppered my plans for the weekend  and resulted in a bit of a hobby rut. I couldn't settle to any of my other half finished projects, so I instead spent a bit of time tidying up my workbench (showing how serious my rut was...) and found, in a drawer, a Worsley Works Etch for a Caledonian 439 Class I'd bought back at Christmas and prompty forgot about. I didn't have all the necessaries for the undergubbins but thought I'd have a go at the body, just as a wee experiment.

 

I like how it's gone together, and if squint it looks the part. I need to figure out how to make the boiler and manufacture/procure the various fittings not provided on the Worsley etch, but as a first shot at an etched loco body it's not awful. The front of the smoke box falling foul to the cif/toothbrush method of keeping everything clean and needing a dod of solder to reattach.

 

I had planned on an LMS 3F Jinty next, I have a spare Graham Farish body that I've had for years, and thought doing a couple of chassis and matching them with commercial bodies was a gentle learning curve into loco building whilst I build my knowledge and experience, but I'm tempted to keep going with this and see if I can make it presentable. It will probably end up as 55204 (ex Caley 160) at some point in the future, although I have no need for a passenger only loco on my planned layout at the moment! What is it they say about best laid plans...?

 

[Caley Jim]

17 hours ago, martin580120 said:

That's not a J94!

No!  It's much better than that!

 

17 hours ago, martin580120 said:

 

I need to figure out how to make the boiler and manufacture/procure the various fittings not provided on the Worsley etch, but as a first shot at an etched loco body it's not awful. 

Make the boiler from a length of 9mm dia. tube.  I did mine with the tank tops going right across and then cut away the tube to sit over them, but I see the etch has the boiler/firebox as part of the tank tops.  There is a boiler band immediately in front of the tanks, so that could hide any slight mis-match with the etch.

 

I believe this etch was commissioned by the late Ian Noble and he approached me to make a set of masters for the boiler fittings and tank fillers, which I did.  I have a set of castings which I will bring to the next F&CAG meeting (if I'm able to get there) as I am very unlikely to ever use them.  Tony Heywood is in touch with Ian's son and I've asked him to see if he can track down the masters.

 

Jim

[martin580120]

Hi Jim,

 

Thanks for the advice with the boiler, Brass tube ordered from ebay.

 

I'll gladly take the castings, what would you like for them? I won't be at the FCAG meeting in October, Scouts managed to plan a camp that weekend. I will be there without fail in November.

[Caley Jim]

PM sent.

 

Jim

[Bryn]

 

A rewheeled Farish 40 using the Association drop in axles. Weathering was hand painted using oil paints over a matt varnish base. 

[Richard Hall]

A bit of experimentation on a quiet Saturday:

 

 

I have twice tried building a compensated chassis in 4mm and both times it ended badly. So why not try one in 2mm instead? This all started because I want a little "03" diesel shunter for Billingborough.  I have got as far as buying the chassis kit, then started contemplating the problems of a very short wheelbase and minimal room for adhesive weight. The Mike Sharman "Flexichas" approach distributes weight evenly over all six driving wheels, but can I make it work?

 

I needed a guinea pig. This Fencehouses Jinty chassis has been sitting half finished in a box of bits since my previous foray into 2mm some twenty years ago and I don't really have a use for it, so here goes.  I had to move the first stage drive gear so that I could drive the rear axle rather than the centre one.   To provide vertical movement on the front two axles I bent some 0.45mm nickel silver wire into a U shape, exactly 1.5mm between inside faces, and soldered it to the outside of the frame bush holes (bushes omitted).  On a compensated chassis the outer ends of the axles don't bear any weight, but it remains to be seen whether my minimal bearing surfaces will cope with the longitudinal thrust loads.

 

So far it seems to work, daintily stepping over a diagonal piece of wire across the workbench without lifting any wheels other than the one crossing the wire. But I haven't fitted any rods yet so it is probably all about to go wrong.  Soldered two piece rods are easy enough to split for jointing purposes, but at that point I'll find out how accurately I have positioned my axle guides.  The digital caliper says they are near enough but we'll see. I have a strong suspicion that this will turn out to be one of my heroic failures, but if so I can just remove the wire guides, refit the frame bushes and go back to rigid frames. 

 

Richard

[Izzy]

5 hours ago, Richard Hall said:

  Soldered two piece rods are easy enough to split for jointing purposes, but at that point I'll find out how accurately I have positioned my axle guides.

 

 Hi Richard,

 

In recent years I've given up spliting rods for compensated/sprung/ whatever chassis and just leave them solid. It saves a lot of issues I've encountered. If there's a modicum of play on the rods over the crankpins I find that's all you need. Won't climb sleepers etc, but that of course isn't really needed.

 

Bob

[Richard Hall]

41 minutes ago, Izzy said:

 

 Hi Richard,

 

In recent years I've given up spliting rods for compensated/sprung/ whatever chassis and just leave them solid. It saves a lot of issues I've encountered. If there's a modicum of play on the rods over the crankpins I find that's all you need. Won't climb sleepers etc, but that of course isn't really needed.

 

Bob

 

I think I saw your comments somewhere about most compensated chassis having far too much articulation and I tend to agree: if you really need the ability to run over a match laid on one rail, your tracklaying probably isn't up to much.  Once you move one axle too far above or below the centre line the geometry starts fighting you as the rods try to move in an arc. The axle travel I have on this chassis is the difference between the inside and outside diameters of an Association frame bush and that is probably too much.

 

I should probably have bought lottery tickets for tonight as my chassis appears to roll freely with the rods fitted.  One advantage of split rods is that I was able to quarter the chassis as a pair of 0-4-0s: normally I'm not too bad at quartering, but this chassis has wheels of considerable antiquity and on a couple of them the crankpin holes have been drilled fractionally out of line, just far enough I couldn't quarter them by lining up the spokes.  I could have used the Association quartering press that I bought, but I was so excited by the prospect of a rolling chassis that I forgot all about the press. A couple of wheels ended up loose in the muffs due to excessive fiddling, hopefully drilling and Loctiting the muffs should hold them in place.

 

Motor next, and I've found an old Farish Pannier body to provide a bit of weight.  Wheelbase is all wrong, but it's only a Great Western engine so I don't care. Pondering on electrical conductivity: Simpson springs will only work on the fixed drive axle so I might have to arrange some vertical scrapers behind the front two wheelsets.  On the other hand, if Flexichas is as good as its proponents claim I should only really need one set of wheels picking up...

 

Richard

[Caley Jim]

5 minutes ago, Richard Hall said:

 

On the other hand, if Flexichas is as good as its proponents claim I should only really need one set of wheels picking up...

But what if one of these wheels has a spot of dirt on it or is on a dirty bit of rail? I made several locos with compensation, but I used beam compensation and mounted the bearings in the beams, so that they were carrying weight and therefore picking up current. The objective was not trackholdling, but getting more reliable pick-up, which it seemed to achieve. Getting the balance right was an issue. The pivot points had to be as far apart as possible. For my two recent locos I abandoned compensation in favour of stay-alives, which do the same job without the complication. 

 

Jim 

[Richard Hall]

12 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

But what if one of these wheels has a spot of dirt on it or is on a dirty bit of rail? I made several locos with compensation, but I used beam compensation and mounted the bearings in the beams, so that they were carrying weight and therefore picking up current. The objective was not trackholdling, but getting more reliable pick-up, which it seemed to achieve. Getting the balance right was an issue. The pivot points had to be as far apart as possible. For my two recent locos I abandoned compensation in favour of stay-alives, which do the same job without the complication. 

 

Jim 

I wasn't entirely serious about only needing one set of wheels for pickup.  Personally I think Mike Sharman's theory is sound but there are some major challenges making it work in practice on very small models. I'm not just chasing reliable pickup but better haulage power as well.  On my J39 I was able to use the tender to apply a bit more weight to the rear axle, but that isn't an option for a small diesel shunter.

 

I have been using Kato four-wheeled tram chassis in N gauge for a while now.  They have a very simple compensation system with a pivoting beam on one side of the chassis, and as a result they run far better than a four-wheeled mechanism has any right to. Coreless motor and flywheel too, and all for £30. I have used them as tender drives (28mm wheelbase equals 7' + 7' with a dummy centre wheelset) and put a couple under van bodies.  I have one which I want to try converting to 2mm when I get round to it, but the wheelsets are a similar design to Dapol diesels (split frame, gear muffs and pinpoint outer ends) so I'll need to do something with the lathe that I bought. The wheels supplied are 6mm which is a bit dinky for anything other than a powered van.

 

Richard