Gingerbread

Lambourn, at the Watford Exhibition (South West Herts MRS) today. Some early passenger coaches A young trainspotter The goods yard An unexpected visitor David

For this particular prototype it's probably also worth consulting "A Pictorial Record of Great Western Wagons" by Jim Russell. The drawing isn't quite as useful (no details of the underframe), but the photograph (end view) is helpful. David

I find it easier to bend the dropper before soldering. Haven't tried the all-one-piece method. David

Lovely stuff as usual, Mikkel. There's another intriguing mystery just below the surface too - theater instead of theatre, centimeters instead of inches (or fractions of an inch, or even just centimetres). I blame it on that young upstart Churchward at Swindon, and his obsession with foreign practices... David

Chris I am sorry to read that your 2mm efforts have currently hit a brick wall, and that you are taking a break to try elsewhere. Good luck with your endeavours in 4mm, and I hope to see you enjoying them, and perhaps returning to 2mm suitably refreshed at some time in the future. I had expressed similar concerns that 2mm FS appears to be in danger of serving two different client groups, and falling between the two stools - modern image modellers, who are well-served (their only problem is building of turnouts), and the rest, who need to be micro-engineers. Like you, I far prefer steam, and know that I am not a micro-engineer, so I fear that 2mm may not be for me either - my first two locomotive kits are at a halt waiting for various missing components to arrive in shop 3, so I haven't had chance to test my ability to get a loco running successfully yet... Looking on the bright side, there are a couple of developments that might suit you (and me too, in one case) if and when they come to fruition in the not-too-distant future: David Eveleigh has just announced his intention to prepare etched kits for several Midland locos this year. There are various projects to produce a 2mm solid brass split chassis design - the first should be available later this year, a conversion kit for the Dapol/Ixion Manor. That prototype isn't of much interest to you, but the process appears to produce a very robust chassis which is easy to put together, and I know others are also interested in doing similar projects (mostly GWR, which suits me though not you). Finally a word of thanks for documenting your trials and tribulations here, which have helped to inspire me to try something similar. Looking at the coach lining in the photos here, comparing it to mine, and looking at some of your earlier work, I think you are doing yourself a disservice by assuming that getting the locomotives running reliably is beyond your ability. On the other hand, I recall speaking to a prominent member of the 2mm FS community a couple of months ago who had problems with most of their stable of locomotives too, with only one running completely satisfactorily, so perhaps that is a normal state of affairs. David

Yes, we need some better standards after some of the recent sloppy work elsewhere in 2mm - barbed wire without modelling the barbs, point rodding that is merely decorative and not functional... David

They (Shapeways) seem to provide an extensive variety of tutorials here. And there is a list of requirements for the various different printing materials here. David

That is looking good Ian. I think Richard Brummitt wrote that when he had his W7 special cattle wagon printed he needed to do a small batch of four to meet the minimum volume requirement. If something similar still applies then you would probably have to do several - I would guess at about six, assuming that they are hollow and relatively thin-sided. I don't think you would have much difficulty finding customers for any surplus models in that event. David

Yes, I am sure that 2mm FS can be more convincing than 4mm. It depends what criteria you use in making the judgement: Track quality of 2mm FS can be roughly equated to EM (not to P4) - gauge is correct, but flanges are rather overscale, so probably a draw (unless you are starting from OO, in which case 2mm FS is a clear win). It is obviously difficult to obtain the same level of detail in the smaller scale, so 4mm probably wins on that comparison - but as can be seen the better 2mm FS models are so good that the difference is tiny. Similarly the larger size in 4mm means there is much more weight in the loco, so running quality is probably better there, but if you watch something like Highbury Colliery running you will probably decide that 2mm FS can be more than good enough. Where 2mm FS gains is in the space occupied - you can produce a much more realistic layout in the same space, without having to squeeze the plan to fit (or without squeezing so much, depending on just what you are modelling). Alternatively you can build a more extensive layout in 2mm FS in the same space with similar level of "squeezing", or the same layout in less space, or just add more scenery around the same layout in the same space. David

Can't really add much to what has already been said - so "me too". I would certainly like one of those cranes - a nice challenge for my slowly improving soldering skills I can't find any justification for a City on my layout, but if you do proceed with the smaller-wheeled alternative a Bulldog would suit me fine (and going down one size smaller to an Aberdare would be even better, but that involves a minor change in the wheel arrangement too...). Whilst searching the floor under the 2mm Roadshow tables on Sunday for a lost solebar we encountered a tiny etched coupling of DG-like appearance, which we assumed was one of yours - I think Noel has it now. Unfortunately beyond my photographic abilities to capture such a tiny beastie... David

I am surprised there is nothing from Nottingham last weekend - had the 2mm RWwebbers forgotten their cameras? Here is my modest contribution from the London Festival of Railway Modelling this weekend, photos taken during a brief break from the 2mm Roadshow. Mini MSW at Alexandra Palace 2012 David

Can't help feeling there is a flaw in the logic there - sun bleaching, in Scotland? (More particularly, near Skye, where either it is raining, or it is about to start raining...) But I agree, the colour should vary somewhat between individuals, so don't worry that they aren't uniform. And I add my voice to the chorus of approval - that much-discussed backscene is looking good too. David

Mine (£20 from Aldi) is about 130 by 90 by 30 (though probably only fillable to about 25) - all dimensions in mm. This is fine for 2mm, but questionable for 4mm, and probably useless for 7mm David

That's an interesting idea. I can't find any evidence of anybody using it that way, from my brief web search, and I'm a bit sceptical that it would work, so I will be interested to hear if you have any success with it. Conventional ultrasonic cleaning relies on cavitation in the liquid, which wouldn't apply with sand. Perhaps your ultrasonic cleaner would induce a "vibration" throughout the sand, so that it worked like sandpaper... Whilst browsing I came across an article here which gives some useful experimental results, albeit on shotgun shells rather than brass etches. General consensus from what I have read seems to be: use it warm (typically 30-50 degrees C) add a cleaning agent leave it running for about an hour rinse afterwards with distilled water I typically run mine for about 5 minutes, with no cleaning agent, just cold water, and I am happy with the results that I get from it. The liquid isn't as dirty afterwards as the example illustrated by OzzyO, but is dirty enough to indicate that it has dragged a lot of grime off the etches. David

I would vote in favour of the ultrasonic cleaner. Mine is at the cheap end - £20 as I recall, from Aldi - so I wouldn't regard it as a luxury. Not essential, but well worth the price. I use it with plain cold water, haven't tried any of the usual cleaning agents, or the suggestion of using warm water in it. I have used it at after each session of soldering since I acquired it a few months ago, and it seems to make a much better job of cleaning than my previous efforts (conventional small brush and Cif etc). It is likely that my preference for ultrasonic over conventional cleaning arises at least partly from working in 2mm - I find it difficult to access all the corners of small models with conventional cleaning, but this is not a problem with ultrasonic. David

I don't know how relevant my comments wil be, as they are based on 2mm models, which have an etched underframe below a plastic body. O5 probably isn't really a sensible choice. Approximately 98% of the GWR's four plank wagons were of the earlier version, which initially didn't have a diagram number, and had conventional single-sided brakes. Those which survived to the 1930s (probably most of them) were converted to either sided brakes, and acquired the diagram number O21. The O5 diagram had DC I either side brakes from the start. The 2mm plastic bodies share the same floor for four and five plank versions - which creates minor problems as the five plank body was 6 inches wider on the prototype. The solution is to provide a small "ridge" of plastic along the bottom inside edge of the body to fill the gap, but it is tempting to treat that as a support for the floor (which then creates two problems - the floor is both too high and too narrow...). I don't think I can help on the W-irons issue. David

In an attempt to drag the discussion back on topic, I would like to address this question, which apparently slipped through unnoticed: I haven't yet finished any of my bogie stock, but am proposing to attach the DG couplings to the bogies. I don't think it would make a lot of difference with large radius curves, but with smaller radius presumably the couplings would work better attached to bogies than to buffer beams. What do others advise? David

In principle, the name "D G Couplings" should be too short to be copyrighted, and should only be trademarkable (if such a word exists) instead. However, there are probably exceptions to that rule too... Trademarks/patents/designs need to be registered, and have relatively short lives (with an option to renew in the case of trademarks). Copyrights don't need to be registered, and have ridiculously long lives (typically until 70 years after the death of the creator). Whatever the legal situation, I would tend to agree with Tim's comment - it looks like a bad idea to copy somebody else's material without clearing it with them first. David

Will do. I came across it in two separate (and apparently independent) places, but both appeared to be relatively old, which is why I raised the questions about the validity. As you have confirmed that it is no longer valid I will replace it by a "Wizard" reference. David

True in theory, but perhaps not so true in practice. See the recent case discussed here. As far as I can see, this effectively allows a copyright on what I would have regarded as a design concept (in this case, the concept of taking a photograph of a red London bus with the Houses of Parliament in the background, then "fading" the rest of the picture to grey). David

I believe they are available from Wizard Models, among others - details of the designer/manufacturer are probably available from them. I can't answer for the designers/manufacturers/suppliers, but the following may be among their reasons: There is probably no demand for changes from their existing client base - and they may not be adventurous enough to look outside that client base. They already produce the etch in seven different sizes, which appear to be exactly the same etch scaled up/down appropriately. Adding one or more alternative fittings for each size, like the NEM socket which you suggest, would substantially increase the complexity of stockholding. They may be unwilling to take make the experiment of reworking the design into plastic - I understand that this would involve a substantial investment, with uncertain returns. The "fear of soldering" argument is overdone - it involves one soldered joint for each loop, and if you are uncomfortable with that much soldering you can instead bend up a more complex combined loop/dropper from iron/steel, instead of separate brass loop and iron dropper to be soldered together. David [Edited to remove home address of designer/manufacturer]

Not a typo - mine has 72 pages. Mine was 4th edition, dated 2006. I believe work is progressing on a new edition, but don't think it is finished yet. David

Page 67 of the "Beginner's Guide" has a picture of a simple jig for setting DGs, together with the suggestion that 4.5mm from top of rail to bottom of DG buffing plate is a suitable "standard" to aim for. David

The August-September 2010 issue of the 2mm magazine includes an article by Jim Watt, under the name of "Variations on an 1887 Theme", which covers a number of alternative builds of the 1887 RCH kit - including dumb buffers. Though written from a Scottish perspective, some of these may be helpful for your GWR-ish models. David

Alternatively follow the example of the digital pioneers in this scale (sort of) - Lone Star Treble O (with their pushalong technique...). David