Izzy

I have finally (!) got around to finishing my first etched 08 chassis. ( I did post some shots a while back on the VAG). A Blue Farish body from BR lines sits on top. Here it's buffered up to a green Farish one with machined wheels and 2mm SA etched cranks and rods. It sits a bit lower than the Farish, at the correct height to match most rolling stock. A replacement chassis for the green is now being started on the workbench. The 2mm SA can motor originally fitted has been replaced with one of the china/ebay sourced 7mm coreless cans, and runs beautifully. It sits/is glued onto a plasticard cradle which also forms an outer box around it on which the CT decoder is plonked. I have had to stuff the Farish body with lead where possible to get the overall weight up to that of the standard Farish model - 47gms - as the etched chassis, even with the brass/pcb footplate and etched outside frames is 6gms lighter. Quite okay at less weight, just less traction, but might suit those wishing to fit sound, as the small Zimo 649 would fit on top of the motor and a cube would I am sure fit into the front bit behind the rad. The chassis takes up much less space in the body than the original, as the comparison shows. The difference in looks between it and the Farish doesn't appear so pronounced in the shots due to having the same size cranks and rods, but is quite a bit in real life. Thank you for the all the effort involved in producing the etches Chris. Izzy p.s. if anybody would like to see the bare chassis construction shots from the VAG I can re-post them here if it would help anyone with construction.

I'm afraid I can't really remember what my wired Prodigy handset does (just checked - it works the same), but the wireless one I now use retains the stack details however many times it's switched on/off. It does have a delete button to remove locos from the stack, which get automatically added as soon as they are entered into the handset. They only 'disappear' from the stack otherwise if more locos are added than the stack can store. A point to note is that a loco can only be stored and commanded with one handset at a time. They have to be deleted from one before another can select them. It's supposed to be able to handle up to 99 handsets....... Izzy

Just to clarify the circuit breaker protection provided with the Prodigy, this kicks in as soon as a short occurs, and like other cb's retries the supply at regular intervals and re-sets if it has ceased. However, if the short continues to exist past a number of attempts (3-4 on average I think), then the cut-off becomes permanent/continuous until the fault is cleared. Once this is done the power is restored (it doesn't happen automatically) either by switching the command/base station off and on again, or by holding down the 'stop' button on a handset for a few seconds, which turns off power to the track from the command station, the same action then being used to switch the power back on. The first action of the second method can also be used before a fault is cleared, with the second half afterwards. Quite useful if you aren't near or have easy access to the command/base station. I have always been wary of the bulb type circuit breakers. Are they really that since they don't seem to cut the current? Or just current limiting devices that have the same effect and afford the same level of protection as a supply cut? Excuse my ignorance of more than very basic electrics. Izzy

As far as I am aware, all Prodigy handsets, Express, PA2, wireless PA2, can be used with either an Express or PA2 command station. The differences are the capabilities each has, the Express not being able to control accessories etc, and it's base station more limited with power output (1.6amp v 3.5amp) and connection sockets in comparison to a PA2. Only one base station can of course be used with a layout, but as many handsets as you want, or can afford......... Please be aware that they do have built-in circuit protection, which is very fast acting - well the latest firmware versions are - and can cause conflicts when using other circuit breakers to make power districts. I have detailed this in other threads, but trying to use a PSX-1 with mine wrecked the base station, and it eventually proved they were incompatible, two similar circuits 'fighting' each other because they are connected in series. Discovering the NCE Powercabs don't have any circuit protection (can't believe that) probably accounts for why users of this system don't have any issues with using multiple c/b's and power districts. Perhaps something else to consider, perhaps not, since you can split a layout into districts (sections) without c/b's just as you would for DC. Just depends what you want/need. In the long term a PA2 system @3.5amp would seem to offer a measure of 'overhead' with regard to power output, and perhaps save the cost of having to add a power booster to a Powercab at a later stage, as you might also with an Express. Izzy

I have had a PA2 system for some years now. It's not the cheapest, and the wireless upgrade I bought more recently is quite expensive. But it works simply and easily, and when the odd problem has cropped up (my fault on two out of three occasions), then Gaugemaster have been quick and helpful in reparing and returning it in just a few days. When I first bought it I was advised several times that other makes would have been better. Over time I have come to find that in retrospect I made the right choice when I hear of the issues that arise with other makes at times. And all the handsets can be used with whatever base station you may have, a kind of mix and match situation. I particularly like the dual choice of rotary encoder or push button speed control, that you can just switch continuously between the two, and that if controlling more than one loco on a handset, then switching between them automatically brings up the correct speed and other aspects. Some makes/controllers/handsets don't do this, a fact I was unaware of for quite some time. I would endorse the view that if possible you should handle a system before choosing it though. Why? Well I visited a dealer originally to purchase a Lenz system, that was what all the specs and information I had gathered told me was best. However, as soon as I handled a Lenz handset - both the 90 &100 - and then the Prodigy it became clear which I preferred. I think it's very much a case of each to his/her own. Hope this might help a bit! Izzy

Thanks. That's an aspect I had not considered before and suppose it could really be applied to anything similar with air vents in the casing. I'll be careful where I situate the SMS in future. Thankfully the lead to the lathe is fairly long. It's not too bad, and the lathe sits on hard rubber feet which help absorb some of the effect. If it becomes annoying to any great extent I'll certainly follow your advice re trying another smoothing capacitor. There are already two on the PWM PCB, but perhaps they perform other main functions or it's just the nature of the motor design. It's very 'coggy' when turned by hand compared to the original with which I am making comparison, and might be unfair given the differing specs, i.e. 230v DC v 24v DC and the main duties they are both designed for. Interesting about the precision lathes. No doubt the result of the on/off loading nature of spur gears. Metal ones in particular can tend to produce an audible 'tapping' when at anything above minimal tolerances and slow rotation because of this. Izzy

Sieg CO 'baby' lathe re-motor In early December my little Sieg CO lathe bought in Feb 2012 failed. Thanks to this thread: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/93330-re-motoring-unimat-sl/ I have been able to re-motor it for about £45 and a little bit of modification, considerably less than the £90-190 it would have cost to obtain the replacement parts which seem to be the cause of the failure, the control board PCB (£89) and /or motor (£98) - nearly as much as the cost of the lathe originally. I thought that perhaps a few shots and some notes might be useful to others as Richard Jones info has been to myself and many others, and for which I will always be grateful. The first job was stripping out all the existing control parts, and re-using those bits needed. Not much really. The 24v 6812 scooter motor I obtained (a 150watt version) has 3 120 degree 3/16" BSF holes in the end plate which I used to bolt it to a fitment end plate made from 4 layers of 2mm acrylic sheet. This was glued together using Plastic Weld glue and tapped for the M6 bolts which hold it in place and allow belt adjustment. As the pulley on the Sieg's motor was 8mm bore (keyed on the shaft), all I had to do was take it off and fit it on the replacement....... getting the belt pulley off the 6812 needed a hammer and cold chisel .............The Sieg pulley was a good fit on the 6812 motor shaft and I have yet to find the need to make/fit a key to lock it onto the shaft - which has a flat on it. The circlip fitting isn't used as the motor shaft is shorter and the pulley needs to be on the end of the shaft. Reading the instructions that advised not to switch the LED/CCTV SMS power supply on and off too often for reliability I have fitted this into a box made of more of the acrylic sheet (for electrical insulation and also shows the power/on LED easily) and this sits well away from the lathe on the floor. It's a 230v/4Amp - 24v/15amp/360watt unit with automatic fan so has plenty of holes drilled in the case to match those in the metal case for air flow. It connects to the lathe via a 2-pin plug - with a adapter to ensure it only connects the correct way (since the feeds are +/- DC not AC and I didn't want to blow the speed control PCB with a wrong polarity supply). With hindsight a 3-pin plug connection type would have been better, (automatic correct polarity because of offset pins normally) I just didn't think when I originally got the 2-pin one. The original DPST on/off power switch is fitted between the power supply and speed control board, as the motor turns slowly on the minimum setting but often stalls or when starting at this setting. A green 3mm LED indicator has been added to show when the power switch is on (using two 1k5 resistors wired in series for the 24v supply) as I find I sometimes need to rotate the lathe/motor to get it to start - but never to be done under power!. Modifications were needed to the ABS control box to fit the speed control PCB unit, cutting a hole in the bottom and raising it slightly to clear the motor casing. Once past the minimal rpm below which the stall/start problems arise - 1 on the dial - the motor is very powerful if a little more noisy and vibratory than the original 230V/150watt DC one. This may be down to the 12v-40v PWM speed control since these motors are usually powered by 24vDC batteries. It's something I can easily live with, a big bonus being, to my mind anyway, that mains power is now nowhere near the lathe. Izzy

Given the nice Scalefour lever frame I would personally stick with mechanical control, which is what I am going back to after going round the houses with electrical point motors - solenoids, cobalts, servos in that order - and finding differing issues with each, hacked servos being perhaps the best/cheapest/easiest option. Have you considered using the torsion rod design originated with one of the early S4 layouts? ( might have been 'Heck', can't remember now). 1/8" rods running in 'choc' blocks under the boards with cranks soldered where needed to transfer the movement from rotary to push-pull. Another cheap/easy design. Izzy

I believe the use of continuous check rails varies quite a bit with regard to the kind of locations that are involved, straight track sections in pointwork formations, but if you are copying an actual location with photos to show the design I would go with that. However, as regards the buffer stop, the rails are not really check rails as such, just part of the design which help give strength and because they are inside the gauge are spaced out to clear the wheel flanges just the same as check rails. So these shouldn't be touched as such. Izzy

I now normally print onto A4 label sheets, (used to get them from Staples, now they are disappearing I shall have to find another source), the advantage being the sheets are thin when peeled from the backing, and can more easily be wrapped around formers when needed, say for raised brick overlays etc. Generally I use a mountboard shell onto which the papers are stuck. Being self-adhesive is an advantage with avoiding wrinkles. The main glue I use (not for the label sheets of course) is Anita's Tacky PVA. Dries very quickly and any excess can be rubbed/cut off. Tends to go rubbery when dry to the air which aids removal where needed. It's also quite easy to glue plasticard to paper using liquid glue and I find this material better anywhere there are hard/exposed edges etc, barge boards, valencing, as paper can tend to splay. With regard to actual print patterns, brick etc, no one seems to do a good soft red variety. But there is nothing to stop you scanning any printed brick papers you may come across if printed, and adjusting them in, say, photoshop, to get the colour balance that suits what you need better. Just be careful with repeat patterning - moire - if using small samples to produce a large area. It's more easily seen in 2mm and can be problematic with readily available paper patterns at times I have discovered. Izzy

24mm is normally the distance over reasonable thickness coupling rods with recessed crankpins, with 25.5mm the normal mimimal distance between slidebars when P4 wheelsets are involved, so I would think that moving the cylinders/slidebars outwards is a basic necessity for both EM and P4 conversions if a replacement chassis is not used. Given the overall look of the below footplate parts it seems rather a shame to throw it all away, yet I wonder what the overall effect would be with widened out cylinders and revised wheels since the general proportions look right as they are to my mind. As to the Caley Pugs, well they could be made to look reasonable if not brilliant as a freelance model. Here's of poor shot of one from back in the '80's. Izzy

Thinking about getting one of these instead of throwing money at my recently failed sieg CO baby lathe I have found that in looking around on ebay that you must be very careful as you suggest. While appearing to be the same it seems that there are in fact several versions/clones of this similar looking design, with differing qualities of construction and overall specification, yet little to help you sort one from another. The differing handwheels are a clue, some very toy-like with no graduations. I presume these machines may be of all plastic construction but not really sure. The more expensive multi-purpose ones seem to fall into this category as do those from EU based suppliers as far as I can tell, the Red/Black coloured versions, while the metal based ones are, well, metal colour. Is this correct? Izzy

I have a 3'x2' sheet of hardboard on which an oval of easitrac has been laid as a running-in/test track. As the track is right at the edge (!) the curves are about 11" on the inner rail. All my diesels/dmu's/bogie stock run around this without issue as do most wagons. This is with the DG's fixed to the bogies where they are used. With fixed DG's it just wouldn't work at all. Some longer wheelbase 4-wheel BR CCT's (both 2mmSA and Farish models) with fixed DG's are also okay. I have also managed to 'persude' my 2mmSA converted Farish Jinty and 4F to get around this track. But there must be no kinks in the curved rails at any point. However, as a general rule I would not really wish to use a radius below 12", and also use soldered track with gauge widening, to ensure completely reliable running. I'm not sure whether stock would cope with 9" as I have never tried that, either easitrac or copperclad. I have built a number of points with an inside radius of between 15"-18" (both straight and curved ) and a couple of 12" radius ones as an experiment. Be aware that any that come off a curve really need the blades offset so the inner radius is smooth and doesn't contain a kink/deflection in the manner that any blades produce relative to a stock rail ( I reverse the point handing in Templot). All the dieses/dmu's were quite okay with the 12" points, but it was really too much for the steamers who often choked on them. Not at the blades, but through the crossing/wing rail/check rail area (it's connected to the diameter of the wheels). merry christmas all, Izzy

It is a Sieg CO lathe, but uses the same board as the larger C1, which is now discontinued. XMT 2315 is the board code. The motor is a plain brushed DC 230v type according to the ratings label but I will double check. Thanks for the confirmation that trying to use a car battery charger will work but draw high amps. Why one was suggested perhaps since they can supply such ratings I believe. It wasn't to run it for a long time, just to confirm it still worked/hadn't failed. I think going to my local garage might be my best option. I have looked at the possibility of replacing the motor/power/control system with such as a 24v scooter motor as per the re-motor Unimat thread, but I am trying to consider all the options of keeping it contained and portable in a small size. Having another lathe and mill/drill both with induction motors for nearly 30 years I am concerned that the CO's board has failed so quickly, not something I really expected. But it is a nice little thing to use indoors on the portable workbench. Izzy

Can anyone offer any advice please? I have a small Sieg CO baby lathe which is now 4 years old and in the last week seems to have suffered PC board failure of some kind. Replacement boards are available, but cost around £90 and do not come with any warranty. It has been suggested that I might want to make sure the motor is okay and is not the primary failure by testing it out of the lathe prior to ordering a board, and that this should be possible by hooking it up to a 12v car battery charger. The motor is 230v DC and rated at 150watt and 0.9amp. Sadly I do not own a car battery charger these days and wondered if there was any other way of easily checking the motor apart from taking it to my local garage and seeing if they would be able to test it. Although electrics is not a strong point I assume that just trying to hook it up to a spare 12v railway controller is not an option due to the low 1.5 amperage limit ( I am guessing at 12v the motor might draw quite a few amps?). Or am I just showing my total lack of knowledge of electrics here? Any help gratefully received. many thanks, Izzy

Although I believe Mitsumi are a Japanese Co and produce a range of different size/type motors those currently being considered and easily available cheaply from several sources ( CCT transfers, ebay etc) are just one size/type, which I am given to understand were made for electrical goods - VCR's or copiers I think - and are now surplus to requirements. Here is one alongside a old version Mashima 1428, which was replaced in a P4 chassis I am building by one. It is about 22 (over bearings)x15x12mm with the shafts extending roughly 12mm each end - a bit more the brush tag end. As you can see from the second shot the armature is a simple 3 pole and smaller than the longer 5 pole Mashima. Not surprising given the shorter body size. However, it is very well made, the brush holder/sprung brushes/end cap being nice, simple, and robust, and It runs very well on the simplest DC controller. It seems to run just as well/better than the Mashima, appears to use less current, and seems quite powerful enough for most needs. Here are two shots of one in the chassis, a very old Whitbourne models etched one for the Mainline/Bachmann 43xx I found in the loft and thought I'd make up for something different for a change (I have never modelled the GWR but seemed to have all the neccesary bits including a complete original Mainline BR version 43xx!). As the Mashima 1428 didn't really run as well as expected when mated to some old Romford 60-1 gears in the original etched foldup gearbox provided a High Level Roadrunner + 60-1 was obtained to which a Mitsumi has now been mated. This wasn't terribly easy because the screw positions are the reverse of Mashimas - 30 degrees before 12 noon and 6pm, so new holes need making in the High level etch. Running on plain DC the performance is all that could be expected, smooth, controllable, and very quiet just using a cheap and cheerful Bachmann trainset DC controller. I have tried a Digitrax DZ125z chip with it, which was okay, but I intend to test a range of decoders ( using a 6-pin wiring harness) from a cheap Bachmann/Soundtraxx up to Lenz/Zimo/CT to see what kind of performance results. Izzy

I think it's the same hack from 2013 being reported on, the numbers involved etc. I haven't been able to get meaningful access to the 2mm VAG (or any other fo the Yahoo groups I belonged to - whatever the platform or browser used, Win/Mac/Android, I.E/Chrome/Firefox) since Yahoo introduced the Neo interface, and eventually I gave up. A bit annoying, but that's life. Izzy

With all the attention to getting the quartering right where it appears it isn't and hiding the brass crank spacers, and having now seen a few shots in the magazine reviews, perhaps it might be an idea to get the cranks correct in relation to the wheel weights where this is possible, because from what I can see they aren't. They should roughly be somewhere around the 160/170 degree position but appear almost side on at 90 degrees unless I am mistaken. Izzy

With regard to the slop in the coupling rods may I suggest that if the knuckle joint is a loose and sloppy fit, then re-jointing somehow - so the distance between the rod crankpin centres becomes a constant measurement - should be all that is needed. It has to be accepted that a measure of rod angle might exist when the driven axle is an outer one (the result of additive crankpin play which will exist whether the rods are fixed or jointed), and I believe this may be the case with the Dapol 08 from the recent shots I have seen You will appreciate that rod knuckle joints are usually positioned in relation to the driven axle on the prototype - usually the centre axle/s on most 6/8 coupled chassis (which helps equalise any play in the crankpins), but many models are driven off the rear axle. This can become problematic when jointed rods are used (the knuckle joint mostly being to the rear of the centre axle) and too much play is present in the knuckle joint, leading to rods with continually variable rod centres. The amount of play of the rods on the crankpins is not generally problematic so long as the rod centres are constant, but 'slotting' the holes isn't to be recommended because this once again produces rods with continually variable crankpin centres. Izzy (edited to add some info)

Yes, weight directly over the drivers can make a surprising difference. Once you are fully DCC I don't doubt you have little trouble banking. Although it does seem easier with some handsets/controllers than others, those that can 'pick up' the current speed of a loco - mainly the encoder type I think. Izzy

G was 1968 wasn't it? Interesting the wide wheels. Anyone else remember the fad for fitting wider 5 1/2 J wheels to many popular cars in the later 60's? Mainly minis and anglias. IIRC you could get 'cheap' sets where they sliced them and welded strips in to increase the width. Those were the days......... Izzy

Colin, as I began to suspect, it would seem that Marcway gap their pointwork so it works in a similar manner to Peco. This relies on the point blades pressing against the stock rail to carry power to both closure rails and crossing, so in effect both blades/closure rails/and the crossing are electrically one unit which all changes polarity depending on which way the blades are set. Okay, this isn't ideal, but as supplied can be adapted to be better by gapping the closure rails where it has been suggested, several sleepers before the crossing nose, and then using a switch to power the crossing/wing rails section for correct polarity. Bonding the blades/closure rails to the relevent stock rails and gapping down the centre to make them isolated from each other (obviously) then provides reliablle electrical connection for the blades. However, it would appear that you have not gapped the closure rails or bonded them to the stock rails, but have additionally gapped between the wing rails and crossing nose which wasn't really needed (sorry) and might mean more work to get reliable electrical connection to the wing rails if you then just put the gaps in the closure rails where it has been suggested. As you are still having issues I think perhaps you need to firstly produce a drawing of all the pointwork, and where all the rail gaps and sleeper gaps are located. With regard to the latter not only those you have added but the original ones as well because I wonder how the diamond crossing has been gapped and just what bits of rail are bonded together over the pointwork as whole. The problem being, as you are discovering, that each individual section might work okay electrically, but falls down when all connected up. Izzy

With copperclad built track you have to allow for the fact that all rail on any sleeper will be electrically connected unless the sleeper is 'gapped' by making cuts in the copper surface. This means that all copperclad trackwork needs gapping and the convention is either to cut down the centre of all the sleepers, where it can show sometimes, or at the side of the rail. Sleepers for plain track often come ready gapped, but pointwork gapping can vary. Again the convention is to gap down the middle to near the crossing where the closure rails are cut, and then both sides of the crossing, so it is isolated from both sides and electically powered by a changeover switch of some description to produce the correct polarity. If there is no gapping of the blade/closure rails, and they are in one piece to the crossing this would seem to suggest that different gapping is used. Can you illustrate how the points are gapped? Do Marcway gap sleepers so the blades carry the power to the frog as per Peco? This might explain where problems are arising and what needs to be done. Izzy

I am intrigued as well for all the un-numbered versions, black/green/blue, since obtaining suitable HMRS sheets - steam era I suppose for the black and BR blue for the others - will be £20 a pop. Current 7mm users will probably have sheets to hand but it does make the ready numbered ones seem better for anyone not particularly bothered by the actual number. Izzy

I think for ease of access I would want the high level fiddle yard behind the low level one, while at roughly 12" radius the platforms would in my mind be far too tight, even 18" -24" looks and is tight in N when full length coaches (i.e. not short 4 wheelers) are used. If it were somehow possible to site the platforms on the straighter section with the yard on the curve this would be better but might prove impossible with standard Peco code 55 geometry. Izzy