Izzy

Hi Nick, How much end float is there in the layshaft? Could the play allow the large pulley to move up against the frame spacer and short when the chassis is powered and under load? With one set of wheels ploughing on the sleepers it might produce the kind of load that keeps it away from the spacer, and running on the rims might not give the high tractive effort the treads on track would. Izzy

Servos are quite popular for point/signal control these days and are ideal for 2mm use given the limited space often available for point motors. Having struggled over a few years to get them to work at a level I was happy with I now convert them - hacked seems to be the term used - to work on simple DC by stripping out the electronics. This has helped recover some of the outlay initially spent on servo control boards and leads etc by enabling the re-use of the servos without them. These are the latest version hacked servos I have made for point control on my new Tendring circular layout. I got the basic idea from this thread: http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=32488.0 * update * As the above link now just leads to the N gauge forum and you have to join & sign in to be able to see the details and wiring dia I have decided to add my own version below. I though it a neat and simple design and adapted it for my particular needs, above baseboard use, using 60thou plasticard glued to the SG90 servos to locate the switches and secure the units in place. The sub-miniature switches - 1x SPDT (control panel) + 1x DPDT (on servo) - are from Expo tools as they are easy to obtain and the small size means less power is needed to move them. Piano wire actuators are fitted in the arms and used to absorb excess travel/provide adjustment and means the point blades are sprung to sit firmly against the stock rail. These can be adjusted for travel distance and spring strength by varying the wire gauge and length to suit, as the actual travel arc is fixed by the switch movement. Simple to make an advantage is they work off a plain DC supply of between 4-5v and so can be powered by AA's if you want, ( 3 x alkaline AA @4.5v or 4 x rechargeable AA @ 4.8v). This gives the option of a layout powered just by batteries when using the little 9v battery controllers now available should you wish although I currently feed them 4.8v through a voltage regulator. The action is quite fast but not harsh like solenoids and often I don't realise they have worked they are so quick/quiet, but lower voltages don't move the switches reliably enough. I'm content with the fast but reliable action as even at lower voltages they are not that noticeably slower but strangely do sound harsh and noisy. Izzy

Given the threads about suitable size motors for 2mm and the increasing use of the coreless type in N RTR such as these locos I thought a few notes about the DCC decoder settings I have used with these locos might be helpful. I use CT electronic decoders as standard these days finding that alongside the smaller size the motor control is better than others, but some motor parameter settings are similar across decoder firmware where they are offered. Here is a link to details of these CT settings by Nigel Cliffe: http://www.2mm.org.uk/articles/CT-decoders.htm The default settings CT's come with these days I find seem to suit most of the Farish ordinary can motor type locos/DMU's etc, and rarely need any adjustment apart from Acc/Dec. The average I set for this is 30, but have used between 20 and 50 with some locos. After some considerable testing/fiddling/adjustment of the parameters, trying a raft of different combinations, I settled on setting the 'P' and 'I' CV's to 40 and 20 with Acc/Dec at 50. All other CV's I left at their default values. ( I use a Sprog and Decoder Pro for all main decoder setting). Just as a comparison, with the Nigel Lawton coreless motor I found the need to set the PWM to 138 and the Acc/Dec to 20 alongside the reduced P&I figures (the default is 80/40). Izzy

That's interesting. I have taken a look at the Jinty and 4F chassis but think that the J39 must have more 'meat' above the bearing slots as there doesn't seem the room to try this neat solution. Izzy

Hi Jerry, Thanks for the kind comments. Appreciated. With regard to the chip location (of course it's no issue if you use DC!), I thought perhaps a few extra shots might help explain thngs. As you can't solder to mazak easily I drilled and tapped the rear of the chassis 14ba to add a couple of solder tags for the decoder input wires which run up between the chassis halves. It was all a bit of a squeeze, but I hope they might help. It all looks a bit crude with the magnification, but is hidden behind the cab footsteps! Izzy

Going by the experience with these locos I would say that as far as I can tell the Farish bearings are a constant size, but the chassis castings appear to vary slightly in respect to bearing slot size, the Jinty being more noticeable in this than the 4F. However, the replacement 2mmSA bearings do seem to fit better, but as is common with split-axle current collection pick-up can be quite variable. There is no doubt weight adhesion helps here, and I found the 4F alone very 'iffy' until the tender was hung on the back, but then better than the Jinty. This is I believe the reason Simpson springs are so popular, they by-pass the air-gap issue with axles running in bearings that can arise, and of course if they are loose in the chassis another contact issue between the bearing and chassis. Some form of spring connection does seem a good idea. I'll have a look when time permits. Thanks for the thoughts. Izzy

Although it is now quite some time since they were originally undertaken, (I'd forgotten all about them until a few days ago), I thought that perhaps an update to the Jinty 2FS conversion combined with details of another applied to the new 4F might be of interest to anyone who might be considering 2FS or converting these particular locos. I believe quite a few of these have been adapted to 2FS but I haven't seen any details of the conversions to date. As with the Jinty the 4F uses the new coreless motor along with the split frame design of construction and current collection. The tender also features split axle collection using the pin-point axle collection system seen in the newer design Farish DMU/EMU's. The motor and drive is in the loco, the rear axle being the driven one, with the circuit board for a DCC 6-pin decoder located in the tender. A loco/tender drawbar with PB wires is used to transfer the loco current collection to the tender chassis and PCB with separate wires to connect it back to the motor. This pivots on a screw in the tender and plugs onto the loco chassis which is useful as there is a loco/tender fall-plate fitted, something not found until recently on 4mm locos let alone N gauge. (I missed the fact it had fallen down in the heading shot - typical) It all works quite well, although it would be nice to be able to add weight to the tender and hang it on the back of the loco to increase haulage capacity as is done with many 2mm tender locos because it is fairly limited, the consequence of a small loco with a plastic body. It's just about enough for me but struggles even to match the Jinty, which is heavier thanks to most of the body being cast (footplate/side tanks/bunker) and weighing 41gms against the 29gms of the 4F. I cannot see anywhere that useful/any amount of extra weight could be added to the loco and am quite surprised that a plastic/metal body combination wasn't used as with the Jintyl. The loco body is just a pop/clip fit onto it's chassis while the top half of the tender body is also a clip fit on the footplate/frames allowing easy access to the circuit board for decoder fitting. I won't detail the first 4F loco chassis conversion undertaken as it was exactly the same as previously undertaken for the Jinty. This time however I used proper 2mmSA etched coupling rods of the correct size to start with, which I also retro-fitted to the Jinty to replace the cut-and-shut ones first fitted. As you can see they are smaller and more to scale than the Farish ones. The tender conversion proved more difficult than expected because the tender wheels are nickel plated mazak castings the same as the loco wheels, but with the stub axles being a plain force fit into them, the outer ones being pint-point with the centre pair parallel for side-play. This meant that as soon as the wheels were shifted on their axles they became a loose fit, the mazak being fairly soft and the bore enlarging with the slightest pressure. As three out of the six wheels weren't square on their axles and quite 'wobbly' to start with, quite possibly as a consequence of the construction, I had to bore them out and make/fit some adapter axle sleeves for want of a better term. A bit like a tube with a flange on it with which to seat the wheel, the original axles being 'locked' into the sleeves at the correct distance when the wheels were set at the 2FS b-t-b. The wheels were of course first skimmed front and back in the lathe to remove 0.2mm from the rear to reduce flange thickness to 0.3mm, and from the front to reduce the overall width down to about 1.5mm as I had done with both the Jinty and 4F loco wheels. This was all a bit of a faff and the end result wasn't brilliant either, the electrical pick-up being quite erratic at times, something which I have also experienced with my Farish DMU's, having to permanently couple them for collection reliability. Coupled to the loco it all ran reasonably well enough together but the plain truth was I just didn't feel totally happy with it. It was at this stage that the new 2mmSA 2FS conversion kits for the Jinty arrived along with the individual component parts. My thoughts had already turned to replacing the tender wheels with proper 2FS ones running in an inside chassis, and it then progressed from there in that if I was going to do that, then why not get the new parts needed to convert the loco properly as well, wheels, muffs, bearings etc, and logically if I was doing that why not the Jinty too? So I did. The conversion parts allow easy conversion of these newer locos to 2FS, not quite ready-to-drop-in like many Farish diesels since you have to put them together yourself, but probably as good as it will ever get thanks to all the hard work of those involved in designing and producing the parts. Here is a completed conversion set ready to drop into the Jinty chassis. I much prefer drop-in wheel sets for any loco on the grounds that they are easier to set up correctly in respect of quartering and b-t-b, and for fairly easy removal for maintenance if needed at any time. The wheels are 9.5mm. I mention this because this is the size of the original Farish ones, which is correct for N/1-148 but perhaps a bit large for a 2mm scale version where 9mm drivers would be better. The 4F uses 10.5mm drivers and 8.5mm tender wheels. The inside frame tender chassis I made from a couple of bits of K&S brass strip drilled and filed to shape - just so the frames don't show - with chassis spacers from the PCB strip the 2mmSA provides for the job located where needed, the axle holes being slotted downwards to allow the 'Simpson springs' to produce some light springing to aid current collection. A slab of sheet lead was glued to the underneath of the tender top to ensure the tender sits down on the axles. It weighs 16gms all told. No doubt were the loco destined for high mileage and heavy use on such as CF or Fence Houses then axle bearings running in the slots would be best, but for the light duty use that is all mine will probably get a simple slotted chassis seems sufficient. A screw through the centre of the footplate into the centre chassis spacer holds it in place. I have made one other change to the 4F, putting a wired DCX CT76 decoder into the top of the loco firebox. This has allowed removal of the separate wires connecting loco and tender, and means the tender can be easily parted from the loco, the drawbar just plugging onto the loco chassis. The drawbar wire connectors now carry the current from the tender to the loco and decoder. This modification I did to eliminate the need to unsolder the wires each time I wanted to part the loco and tender to work on either. I actually carried out the modification before adding a DCC decoder and while the 2FS conversions were being undertaken, when the need to keep joining and parting the two for testing and alteration arose. After it was all finished it seemed sensible to keep it that way as the decoder would fit into the top of the firebox. It did require taking a slither off the top of the chassis to accommodate it, but I didn't think it would impact too greatly on the lack of haulage capacity. The improvement in running quality and reliability was marked and to a level I finally found acceptable. The improvement in looks was also quite significant although it probably doesn't show too much in my very average shots. The camera can be quite cruel to small things which always seem to look better in real life at normal viewing distance. Well, so I tell myself...... You will notice that there are still several aspects to be attended to. Some proper coal in the Jinty bunker and 4F tender, along with brakes for the latter. That representation of brakes is now fitted to N gauge models along with many other details is a welcome step forward compared to the past, but for such a good looking model it's a shame that Farish moulded the 4F tender brakes/hangers into the outside frames and they weren't in-line with the wheels. I lopped them off before conversion, but haven't got around to fitting replacements on the inside chassis yet. Both locos look rather careworn already thanks to my rough and ready handling, so weathering is hardly needed........ Izzy

I have found that most decent/better quality motors aren't always happy being fed the harsh feedback some controllers put out. Certainly most Mashimas I have used from 1833's down seem to prefer a simpler dc current or react just like coreless types, if perhaps to a lesser degree depending on the motor involved. Having seen one of the Medvend controllers in action recently I have to say they appear to give very good control of most N gauge stuff. Shop 3 sells the dual powered battery(9vPP3)/mains version and it seems worth a punt. I keep meaning to get one as the cheap Bachmann controller some say is quite good - I aquired one via the Farish 4F passenger set a while back, doesn't seem to have much in the way of decent low speed control compared to the simple and ancient homemade emitter/follower handheld controllers I made back in the 80's which I still use when dc is needed. In my view it's a mistake to belive that going DCC is the easy answer. It can be, but only if you use the best chips, CT/Zimo, because you still find the need, well I have anyway, to configure the decoders to best suit each individual motor type/size in many cases, certainly the coreless, and only these makes seem to have the firmware and motor parameters to make this feasible. Otherwise, from and including Lenz downwards, dc control via my old controllers is better. And something I did not expect when I first went DCC. Sometimes this modelling lark can be a right old game.......... Izzy

Here are some shots of one of Nigel Lawtons 8x16 coreless motors. You will see that the construction involves a long central bearing surrounded by the magnet core and the commutator is 5-slotted and sits on the end of the shaft. The rear end cap containing the finger brushes has a reccess for the commutator but no end thrust capability. It's a common design with coreless motors, which are often combined/produced with integral spur gear heads and not intended for end thrust use. So long as excessive end thrust beyond what the interface between the end cap and commutator can cope with doesn't occur then there isn't usually a problem. And if a travel restriction/thrust washer is fitted on the outer end of the shaft - as is often fitted on some coreless designs (a simple circlip), but can easily be arranged by the user if needed, then it isn't an issue. Problems mostly happen when these type of motors are used without an appreciation of their construction i.e forcing tight worms on the shafts with some force which then damages the end cap and commutator. Otherwise they are quite robust. The Nigel Lawton 8x16 was re-assembled and has run since in my Class 15. Izzy

If it's the latest design blue riband mk1's then it's 7mm on 15.2's you need. Code 2-025 from shop 3. Izzy

Details on how the two Ramsey stations came about are here - http://www.elymrc.org.uk/ramsey%20historical%20notes.html Izzy

It was a Flood warning siren, one of many around the area, the retained fireman having bleepers.Tested regularly both it and the concrete tower seen have now gone, the tower replaced with a metal structure, while the flood warning system is now via text/mobile phone to those at risk. The general area of North East Essex was one badly affected by the devastating floods of 1953. The scene is now much changed in other respects as you might expect. The gates are long gone along with the gate box and semaphores, with barriers and LED C/L's now in place along with a revised road layout. One refurbished gate now stands in the station approach as a reminder of the past. Izzy

Personally, given the increased interest in using better/more realistic looking bullhead track i would have thought that perhaps incorporating catch/traps where appropriate might feature more widely in layouts, and since they are often found in the simplest track formations might be considered as an early candidate for release. Especially if they could be designed so the web could be cut to allow them to be inserted into either straight or curved formations. Does of course raise more questions, i.e. single-bladed or double bladed, but then nothing is ever that easy........ Izzy

This effect is something that has been quite common in N gauge for many years with some steam locos using all-geared drive, a feature quite often used with continental models. It isn't so bad if the primary drive is to a central axle in a 6/8/10 coupled one as the gearing backlash/play tends to equal itself out with the outer axles, they are both behind the driven axle so keep some equalibrium within the coupling rods, but shows badly if the drive is at one end of the gear train. Generally, along with the usually oversized coupling rods, it's been accepted as part and parcel of modelling in the scale by most. Not quite sure why the design has been used in 4mm. Traction for a 4-coupled loco (2-4-0/0-4-2/0-4-4/4-4-0) is produced by weight in the right place over the drivers and gearing both axles won't change or improve that aspect. Izzy

If you go here: http://www.emgauge70s.co.uk/index.html, choose site map and then December 2015 you will see that they have had some issues with motor failures in Heljan CL15's & 16's and are currently trying Mitsumi motors as replacements. I am not quite sure if the round can motors used in these and the railbuses are exactly the same as those in the BG (I am not going to strip any of mine down again just to find out but it would be logical), then this would seem to suggest that it isn't trying to run two motors together in the same loco that is the problem but as Stephen has discovered the motors themselves. Izzy

With those working in the wagons plus the apparently roped off platform I wonder if there is actually work going on with the platform. Izzy

That's sad considering the models quite a new one. I had no idea that split gears were a problem in 4mm until I read of the issue with a W&M railbus. It's long been a relatively common experience with Farish N gauge but spare gears are reasonably easy to obtain as a consequence. Perhaps Howes can help. One would think that given the age of the model and it's cost a replacement could be expected if the model has failed and spare gears are not available. Izzy

Thanks Clive, didn't realise that the N brass was suitable for Clacton-Colchester, the area upon which all my layouts are based. Izzy

Hi Martin, OHLE is available from several sources for 2mm/N, Dapol, N Brass, etc. The big problem is it doesn't match the GE area type, so it might be another little challenge! A 2-car set in 7mm wouldn't be toooo bad to make from scratch would it? And it would look good gliding around the NEEGOG test track. regards, Izzy (Bob)

Thank you to everybody who has posted with regard to my original comments re the 309's and bogies, the information is most useful. As a few might know I am trying - struggling - to build a 4-car unit in N/2mm. This is using the worsley works etches mated to Farish pullmans to get the commonwealth bogies (Bachmann won't sell individual bogies in N), but as I want to finish the unit in the original condition, maroon with the curved windows - as I originally rode on them - it's proving rather more difficult than I anticipated as the etches have the later flat window ends and need adapting. Just adding driving ends to standard mk1's doesn't really work, as none of the designs match, they were just based around mk1 design. I have often wondered if the Swindon built 123 DMU's were of similar design, as they also had curved driving end windows, but have never got around to checking the diagram books to see. I attach a photo of the first end which shows how crude the results are to date, I can't seem to get the roof/corridor connection profiles right, and how far I still have to go. I'll get there eventually, as I did with my Class 15, but sometimes you do wonder......... Now to don sackcloth and ashes for taking this thread of it's ECML/steam roots....... apologies Tony, Izzy

As far as the latest Farish 31 goes please refer to page 35 of this thread starting at post 870 with regard to the wheel sizes to use. Personally, for a first loco I would keep it simple and stick to one of the (latest model) Bo-Bo diesels 20/24/25 as Stuart suggests. These will help set the standards you can expect as you won't find better running locos in my experience Izzy

While the GE area surburban EMU's (AM2-AM8/302-308) were very rough riding at times and do seem to have had some type of Gresley looking bogies - I haven't a clue what they might have been, I have always understood that the actual 'Clacton' electrics, the AM9/309's ran on commonwealth bogies although I am not sure about the power bogies. Izzy

Just been making up some point rodding from the old Colin Waite bits that I still have. Dont' know whether it would be of any interest but the instructions state that the stools should be 6' apart for round rodding, and 9' for square channel stuff. I have read that these etches were based on GWR equipment but wouldn't know whether general practice was similar elsewhere. I hope so as I've used these for exMR and exGE layouts. Izzy

I would have thought it could be the centrepiece of a small, simple, Minories type double track approach/island platform layout similar in nature to the latest ones from Ian Futers. Izzy

On the keeping it simple theme I'd tend to think of just using a worm gear set with the shaft running to the baseboard edge and a small handwheel type rotary lever. I used the setup to work a private siding gate on a previous layout and it worked fine. Izzy