Izzy

Annealing is a metal softening process that takes the 'spring' out of material. Rather than help curve stuff I have found it does quite the opposite, makes it harder to maintain a smooth consistent curve, and especially when rolling such as boilers. It's very easy to put a crease/kink in annealed stuff, and very hard to get it out. Some thin etched stuff can be like this if over-etched with too strong an acid bath, tends to anneal/soften the material involved. On what can often be the vexed subject of P4 I have always used it simply for the track and wheel standards, nothing else. Everything is made to the same very average standards I use/am capable of achieving if another set of standards, or indeed another scale, are involved. We all have differing needs and desires and place certain requirements in the order of importance to us as individuals. This is what makes this thread so interesting for me. The exchange of views on how those affect what others model and the manner in which they do so, the relative importance placed on one aspect against another. Izzy

So sorry Tony. I removed the remark about the 25T from the post because I realised that I'd had (another!) one of my brain out moments and somehow deducted the flange dia from the wheel dia. 0.5mm clearance is fine, the same as exists on the 08 I just finished and more than enough. The 53-1 ratio you have arranged would be good to have in my experience. This almost crossed with the post Chris made, and it's interesting in that I was just thinking that the overall total wheelbase is quite a bit and might prove a challenge in getting sufficient sideplay while keeping the end throws minimal. Might I offer the suggestion that you treat it like a 0-8-0 in this respect, giving only as much sideplay to the leading and trailing wheels as needed and as much as possible to the middle sets. If you have gentle radius trackwork it might not be an issue as it normally is for me, but perhaps worth mentioning anyway. cheers, Izzy

Hi Tony, Is this any good as an alternative suggestion? Drive off the rear axle with one of the 7x16/8x16 motors in the front. Plenty of room in the bunker for the chip and the backhead should cover the worm/gears. No need for a gearbox/support shaft with the worm just straight onto the motor shaft, which could shift a bit towards the motor to clear the backhead better. Izzy sorry - edited to remove comment about 25T gear clearance. Unneccesary. Doh!

I tried staining ply sleepers in the distant past and found that chair to sleeper bonding wasn't always as good as it could be. Now I just paint them with Rowney black poster paint after construction, with burnt sienna along the rail sides, the latter helping to bond the rail to the chairs when dry. After ballasting I spray the track with more of the same colours to taste. The overall effect seems fairly reasonable. There are a few shots here -post #15 might be the best - which may show whether you think it worth trying this method: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/116233-theatre-indicator-on-platform-starter/ Izzy

My view is probably contrary to most in that I believe the main success of the Pecket is down to the nice ornate liveries that they have been produced in. Not that it isn't a nice loco anyway, looks good and runs well, but that the level of demand has been fuelled by this aspect beyond what might have been expected had it arrived in simpler/plain ones sans lining. Not from those with a real interest in industrial locos obviously, but the more general buyer if I may put it like that. The demand from retailers for the plain black one is no doubt riding on the back of this and it will be interesting to see if it and simpler livery ones sell in quite the numbers expected, given that those expectations have now risen beyond what might have been deemed feasible previously. As always, time will tell. Izzy

Thanks Ben, that means it's slightly longer than the 03/04's then and not quite as small as I thought, it's hard judging size from photos when you are not familier with the prototype. Given the good design of the 03/04 - in which I presume Colin Allbright would have been involved - I would hazard a guess it will turn out quite desirable in both the looks and running departments. Izzy

So, all they need doing then is pinning up in typical GE CL 15 fashion....... Izzy

Hi Colin, As Hayfield so rightly remarked, although inter-related this is slightly more to do with engineering than modelling, and for those with reliance on commercial parts EM does seem the best all-round compromise. Even Tony Wright admits in his latest postings that EM might have been the better choice had he taken it at the start. Interestingly the 2FS standards have several times been described to me as like a mix between P4 and EM - P4/18.83 with EM flangeways, and that does indeed seem to be the general relationship. Pendon (I believe) goes the other way with EM gauge and near P4 flangeways, Ultrascale providing their own profile wheels to suit ('Pendon standard' I think it's generally known as). The truth is sometimes I think there are as many differing standards as there are hot dinners........and I pity newcommers trying to find their way through the maze to find a result that suits their personal needs. All part of the fun/learning experience I guess! Izzy

Hi David, Yes, same basic design. Here's a view. Rods are now off as I'm fitting the wheel weights. This shot has reminded me. Using smaller sized muffs, 3mm or 2.3mm is a distinct advantage over the 3.2mm size as there is very little clearance between the gears and muffs. I used a 14T imperial spur gear and 3.2mm on the original wheelsets and metric/3mm on the new ones. Apart from the geared axle I can't see why the smaller 2.3's wouldn't work - I used one on the flycranks - which would give even more clearance. regards, Bob

Hi Tony, Enjoying following this thread. May I ask what tape you use over the foamboard joins? I have tried sellotape and brown paper parcel tape but I'm always on the lookout for something that is perhaps better/stronger. regards, Izzy

Thanks Colin. I doubt I would have tried it had I some suitable P4 wagon wheels to hand along with the mindset to fit etched w-irons etc. Been there, done that ad infinitum etc. As I didn't it seemed worth a punt. I have of course just plonked P4 wheels into RTR wagons in the past with no particular running issues, but it was a case of why waste the wheels provided in the kits for a little effort. The turning was just skimming the backs and fronts using small cuts while holding the wheels on a arbour in a collect chuck. I did not touch the main wheel profile, tread/root radius/flange (basically the same except for the allowance for differing flange depth/width). This allows a little leeway if the wheels are not mounted 100% true because of course you need a tool that can hold them by the outer flange/tread to ensure that. The rear/top edge of the flange was broken - with care - using a file while the wheel was running in the lathe after skimming the back. The front centres were just filed flush to match afterwards. Dapol wheels are alloy and don't machine quite as nicely as Romfords do being brass. I'll have to keep an eye on the oxidisation front. Most plated wheels in 2mm are mazak based so don't have this issue. I had assumed the 4mm ones were none-steel alloy/aluminum. Izzy

Agree doesn't seem enough. Three words do appear to cover it though. Nail. Head. Hit. Izzy

Shall I take it over the edge? A year ago I made a P4 test track which morphed itself into a little layout. Along the way I acquired a small amount of stock to use on it, three items of RTR motive power, Heljan class 15, Bachmann Class 08, and Heljan W&M railbus, along with wagons made from Dapol & Parkside kits. All but the 08 run on the wheels that came with them (I had some old AG O/C P4 wheels suitable for the 08), machined in a lathe to reduce the flange width to 0.4mm to pass through P4 flangeways, and reduced in width to around normal P4 levels, but with the tyre profile otherwise untouched, so whatever flange depth the wheels had, anywhere between 0.5-0.7mm. The b-t-b of course was re-set to the P4 norm. This saved any need to mess about with springing/compensation with the wagons ( which can become a chore), nor the RTR locos. This is a technique quite common in 2mm scale for converting N gauge RTR to 2FS, (in which I mainly work these days), and which I thought I would try. Everything works just as well as anything I have built to P4 in the past using proper P4 wheelsets. Here is a comparison shot of before and after wheels - these are out of Dapol/Airfix 16T mineral wagons. I hope this doesn't cause too much anguish. Izzy

Having got the blue 08 finished I thought I would give an 04 another try. A second 2mmSA chassis built worked no better than the first until I made up and fitted a second set of wheels. It now seems the original set of wheels have a few issues I hadn't spotted...... The etched balance weights to make them look a bit more 04 like have yet to be added to the newer wheels. The wheel bosses stand too proud to be able to fit the alternative etched 04 wheel overlays. I have again used another of the ebay coreless can's. Great value for those that managed to get some. With an internal body width of 8.5mm there is space to again sit a CT DCX76 on top of the motor, but perhaps not sufficient for those that would want to install a Zimo MX649 sound chip. Although I know blue 04's weren't common the loco was acquired cheap a few years back because the main footplate casting was a bit poor around the steps area, so it was stripped and replacements from scrap N/S etch have been made. The buffer beams are the versions on the chassis etch without DG coupling slots because I use a lower height setting than most and will have to make the slots myself to suit. Izzy

IIRC the Airfix roof is wrong, a mirror image of what it should be with placement of the stove pipe and vents. This will of course affect where the interior bits are fitted....... Another improvement is to score/plank the inside veranda ends, helps get rid of the mould impressions which are none to brilliant. Don't know if this is an issue with the original Airfix mouldings but it certainly is with Dapol ones. Does make a decent model with a bit of effort, wire handrails etc. Izzy

Sorry you're having so much trouble. How much initial movement is there at the lever frame? I have always found I needed at least 2-3 times what I wanted at the tie-bar to allow for loss along the way, whatever actual mechanical system I used, with usually, more needed the further the distance. Any excess movement is much easier to absorb at the tie-bar by way of tensioning the blades which has the added bonus of keeping them hard up against the stock rail. I would agree with Jerry that moving sleeper type tie-bars are better/easier to install/repair besides giving strong/positive movement and now use the alternative design quite a few have adpoted of a point sleeper turned on edge and fitted with loops of wire (fine soft iron) through drilled holes to which the blades are soldered. Althought they perhaps don't look quite as neat as under-baseboard ones they aren't too bad as these couple of shots might show. But cheap and easy to make, these ones being driven by the servo type stall motors seen in another thread on here. These are on my latest roundy-roundy and you will have to forgive the lack of ballasting, yet to do, the track still being tested/bedded in. I hope you mange to find something that works for you. Izzy

Completely. But if I may, perhaps budget for adding a collett chuck just in case the supplied 'standard' 3-jaw proves less than satisfactory. I have heard it can be a bit of a lottery, it certainly was with my Sieg CO. A power drill chuck would have more accuracy and better work holding grip. Izzy

Having used cassettes for a couple of layouts I would personally advise against them except for a simple single track branch line. My experience was that you spent far more time swopping cassettes around to do the simplest moves rather than running the trains. If there isn't enough room/length for ladder trackwork then a traverser/sector plate is far better, but of course if you don't have the width it is a problem. Izzy

I thought I would add the links to the Cowells just so you could get an idea of relative costs compared to the what may be being considered for your friends Simat 101. They are certainly precision machines in all respects in that they are sold for watch/clock making, but as with much in life it's all relative to what you need/want to achieve. Given the right approach and knowledge - always a valuable commodity - any machine tool however crude can often be used to produce precision work. Mainly it's the scale/size of the work in relation to the equipment that determines how easy/difficult it is to accomplish. All horses for courses etc. I got a little Sieg CO baby lathe a while ago to use on my portable workbench indoors for around £250, and adding a collet chuck and making a few 'improvements' - a Unimat quck change toolpost along with indexable handwheels (doable with a bigger lathe and mill outdoors in the shed) it's quite a nice and useful little thing. But as my earlier posts will reveal probelms have arisen with motor/control board failure. All retreivable with some effort, but I doubt such issues would arise with a Cowells - no control board for a start I would think because of the speed control via stepped pulleys. Reading more about what you want to try and do, produce the odd boiler fitting as a start, while I would endorse the suggestion to aquire the Simat from your friend if it's in fairly good order with enough basic bits to be able to use it as it stands ( i.e. motor/lathe chuck/drill chuck) at a reasonable price, (even if you store it for future use when circumstances/experience/knowledge allow), a better route might be to obtain one of the small/light/cheap (£80) lathes from Germany that are available on ebay as Bertiedog has done. I am sure he has mentioned them somewhere in this particular thread earlier on and might be able to advise further. The cost may repay you in terms of the experience and learning curve in showing you how easy/difficult making such parts is as part of the overall fun of it all, as well as being able to be used on such as the dining table. Izzy

Some lathes can have all geared heads with a range of speeds, it's the same with milling machines and other similar tools, but changing speed whilst machining isn't normal simply because of the effect it can have on the quality of finish. All this type of cutting/machining needs smooth and constant power delivery to ensure good surface finish and prevent damage to cutting tools through 'snatching' at the cutting edge which can ruin both cutting tool and workpiece in a worst case scenario. A lot of lathes today e.g. the current Cowells - the modern Simat 101 - still use multi-step pulleys for speed choice. see here: http://www.cowells.com/90e.htm and here is the price list: http://www.cowells.com/pricelist.htm enjoy!....... Izzy

That's good to know. Must say the Queen Vic building is nice to visit and look around - especially some of the cake/coffee establishments(!) - and we always try and do so at least once when staying in Sydney, but Hobbyco does rather remind me of the now defunct Modelzone, if perhaps slightly better, but as has been said - the prices - ouch! No wonder so much is ordered direct from the UK. As our son now lives in Castle Hill the Pendle shop will get a visit next time we are in Aus. Izzy

Just in case you were serious regarding pulleys, they are used as the most common and effective means of power transfer between whatever provides the power (electric motor, steam engine, treadle, etc), and the lathe. As variable speed motor control via electronics is a fairly recent development for general use the usual way of providing a range of mandrel speeds has been to use stepped pulleys in various combinations. Often this may involve an intermediate layshaft between the headstock and drive shaft/motor, usually arranged to lock at the correct belt tension, and of course releasing to allow the belt to be moved to another pair of pulleys. The lovely lathe in post #829 has this arrangement. Izzy

I believe the Simat was the forerunner to the current Cowells so some spares might be available that way. However I doubt they would be cheap given the basic cost of a Cowells these days, and of course specifications may well have been upgraded/changed in numerous ways so parts appear similar but don't fit. Doing basic web searches should bring up quite a bit of useful information on which you can muse. There is a lot of useful knowledge and help online on which you can draw. My earlier posting on re-motoring my little Sieg shows that this was key in helping achieve that. Just keep asking, I am sure help will always be forthcoming, whatever the nature of the question. Izzy

Early MRJ's have featured several articles and drawings of various Manning Wardles by Don Townsley, e.g. Bamburgh of the NSLR, Morus, Ringing Rock etc. Also photos in the no 1 compendium. If you look up the MRJ index it will indicate the relative numbers and what is featured. They might be of use because most of the designs were similar with relative increases in wheelbase and wheel/boiler size. Here is a shot of a 7mm MW I built sometime in the 90's. This has the early square riveted boiler and unequal wheelbase. There were lots of variations between classes and individual locos. Slaters used to do MW wheels at one time I think (1/8" axles) but those on the loco are Wednesbury wheel castings, also on 1/8" axles. Most MW wheels are quite distinct with their double boss or cast weight opposite the crank. The coupling rods were made from the Alan Gibson 4mm etched universal type because they are quite small both in size and length. It is powered by a Mashima 1630 sitting vertically in the firebox, and driving a 80-1 gearbox driving the middle axle. I think even with the larger L class this would be the basic way to go, perhaps using a High Level gearbox these days. Izzy

Hi David, I haven't built a 'rigid' chassis in many decades, all have some form of springing/compensation/movement however crude and simple it might be, not so much to aid track holding, but as much for decent pick-up. I believe Jim Watt and others do so for basically the same reasons. I have of course seen the wonderful cubes of magic electronics Nigel makes first hand. The difference one has made to his tiny 02 had to be seen to be believed. However, like you, it's all rather beyond me. I just look on in awe. As regards jointed rods, while I used to use them as default years ago (I designed the universal etched jointed rods for Alan Gibson) I have come to realise that in the main they aren't needed, and there can be situations where they are. how shall I say, unhelpful, if the pivot joints are not precise. Exact rod crankpin centres which don't alter are more important than the degree to which the rods fit on the crankpins - they can be quite a sloppy fit as many RTR models will attest, so fixed rods with a modicum of loose fitting on the crankpins are usually more than sufficient to allow enough axle movement to achieve what is needed. It's each to his own of course, this is just what has seemed to work best for me over time. regards, Bob