Izzy

Many thanks, that is what I suspected might be the main issue. I thought I'd ask as some 4mm wheels are now much 'thinner' than they used to be, not having an overwide tread - just more flange on the back than P4 ones - and if you just skim off the back - I don't touch the actual tyre profile - then often you can get close to 2mm overall width at the right flange width. Izzy

May I ask please, might it have been possible simply to skim the back of the wheels to reduce the flange thickness to that needed to pass through P4 flangeways - 0.4mm ? Or would the overall wheel width still be too much after doing this? Just wondering if there was an easier P4 conversion route.....as the loco looks quite tempting...... cheers, Izzy

Hi Nick, Don't know if the system I use might be of any use to you. Like Jim's the cassettes plug in, but mine is rather crudely made using my standard baseboard material of artists mount board glue/layered together, as are of course the baseboards. No doubt the design could be adapted for other materials. It's cantilever based in that the spring fingers hold the cassette down and make electrical connection. I usually allow between 3"- 6" to plug-in to the baseboard. The fingers are suitable thickness K&S strip filed/cut as needed. Hopefully the shots should explain it all. The cassettes are 45mm outside,35mm inside, 25mm deep. I don't use them for storage ( trays in really useful boxes for that). The sleepers are old cut down 4mm/OO ones that match the Easitrac rail height. The rail ends are chamfered outwards to allow for any misalignment. Smallest cassette is 12", then 18", and 28". The long ones are double ended for reversal and will take a class 24/37/47 etc and 4 mk1's. End stops prevent things rolling off when moving them about, and micro-switches on the double ended ones to prevent forgetting to fit a stop-block and everything taking a trip off the end to the floor when in use. I have used them with three layouts so far. These shots are of the little Odds End. On the latest one under construction, Essex Road, a small end-to-end, I have used them combined with a sector plate at one end to save space. However, I do find constantly having to change them to run trains a bit of a fag sometimes. I seem to spend much more time doing this than actually running the trains compared to when a more normal sector plate system is used. And you have to find somewhere to put the cassettes not used, especially when loaded with stock. I have now converted Odds End to using a plug-in sector plate which has proved much better overall. I may try and convert Essex road that way. Anyway I hope the info is of use to you and anyone else. Izzy

It isn't really possible to get complete kits in the sense you mean in that you need to add wheels/bearings and buffers besides couplings. There are some body/chassis kits but mostly it's a case of individual bodies and chassis which are combined to produced the finished wagon. If you look on the 2mmSA website shop pages you will notice that many products have blue link symbols which give photo or info sub pages. These usually suggest which parts are needed to complete the body or chassis chosen and will copy what you select to an order form. As you seem not to have constructed any metal/etched kits before - all the chassis are etched nickel silver of a fold-up and overlay construction - I would suggest that you start off as simply as possible by making chassis to suit plastic bodies. With your requirements the 2-566 two body BR standard van kit with the choice of 4-shoe or 8-shoe fitted chassis might seem a sensible option. Izzy

I think poor/ bad kits - whatever they are, loco/wagon/coach etc - have been good for the hobby. A few will have been put off but they have probably encouraged more modellers to attempt scratchbuilding bits and pieces large and small to rescue/finish them than any other single factor. Izzy

Your more than welcome, I am sure you won't regret it. Nicest bunch of people you could wish to meet in my experience. Izzy

They do say that good things are worth waiting for.....but that's just shop3. Shop1 - track etc, and shop2 - wagons etc, are still open. Izzy

I was wondering if there needed to be something to 'hold' a wagon on the turntable as it rotated to prevent them rolling off. RE magnets have already been mentioned with regard to uncoupling, and it may be possible to use the design I was introduced to by Stuart Bailey, a RE rising and falling in brass tube not only for uncoupling where required but as the pivot for the turntable, with the RE locking the wagon on it when raised - steel axles. An outer tube running on the inner magnet one would carry the turntable. Fixing the turntable position might be done using stop blocks underneath in combination with a radius plate. Izzy

Interesting to note that when Ipswich Shed became all-diesel in 1959 one J15 was retained just to work the Snape Goods until closure in 1960, being the only loco type with the axle loading allowing it to cross the river bridge. I have also read somewhere that the station dispatched more sugar beet than any other on the GE section. Izzy

Hi Justin, Just two thicknesses. Use any more and they look and are too thick and the rears clout/jam in the frames. Once the wheels are out to the 2FS b-t-b there isn't a lot of room between them and the back/front faces of the outside frames. I use the shouldered crankpins so they don't shift when soldering the cranks on the axles, and these add extra thickness as well. You need to remove most of the wheel/axle sideplay to stop the cranks going into the frames and locking the chassis up/ripping themselves and the frames to bits. I suppose you have a good chance of recovery if it doesn't work, because this way you don't have to mess with the crank mouldings and can replace them and revert the loco to N gauge standards should it not work out. The wheels still need machining first of course. Izzy

Hi, Chris, Justin, all. Your idea could work out very well Chris going by the experiences I have had with these. I think though you may be right in that the FUD whatever might not be up to the strength needed for the cranks, probably another suck and see trial. If a decent width wheel hub could be incorporated it would help in seating the wheel on the axle and prevent wobble, but if the crank was also integral with it that would ensure ths aspect. But how would you fit crankpins in FUD cranks/wheels. Can it take any real heat? Here's the axle sizes. Quickly done in photoshop, I'm not up to CAD. This is just the plain axle. The gear one has a flange on it in the middle for gear location, it being offset to one side Soldering the cranks on the axles? Oh... real fun! Seriously it wasn't too bad. I just fixed the first crank on one end, and then lined up the other by eye. seeing through the wheels/gears is the problem so I seem to remember lining the cranks up with the wheels. Getting them true/wobble free is the challenge, but so long as you don't use too much heat, why I use a small Antex 15watt iron, then it's quite easy to adjust the angle/position with repeated applications of the iron. I can't remember how good a fit the cranks were on the axle ends, how I sized the hole, but a good fit helps a lot. I soldered the crankpins in first of course, I was stupid enough to try it the other way around once....... Izzy

To go back a bit to converting the Farish 08 if no one minds, maybe a couple of odd photos will help explain the issues that can cause problems. Here's one of some of the relevent bits. As you can see the axles are one piece double shouldered affairs, the wheels pushing onto the larger shoulder, with moulded outside crank units that push onto an outer narrower shoulder and into the wheels, so making quartering possible by shifting the wheels. The quite large coupling rods are also quite easy to see. Standard Farish sizes here for robustness/strength and ease of assembly, but a bit big for us finescale bods. Skimming the wheels to get them through 2FS pointwork at the correct b-t-b isn't the issue, but the outside crank design is. The measurement over the crankpins is already really at the limits - mostly over though - with what those working to N gauge platform standards would use for railhead-to-platform edge distance. These locos are good for re-defining the platform standards you need to use as others will confirm. So at the very least you need to cut off the rear portion of the outside cranks, the bit that plugs into the wheel, in order to make the overall width no worse when the wheels are set wider out to suit the 2FS b-t-b by shortening this moulding. This of course looses the easy twist-the-wheels quartering. But then I found I needed to also skim the wheel fronts to reduce the overall wheel width so they fitted between the outside frames anyway. These are far too wide for 2mm and the reason why Chris included new outside frames with the 08 chassis conversion, you just couldn't use them with the 2mmSA O/C wheels. There is another knock-on effect here. Without the rear portion of the moulding, the front outside crank parts are too easy a fit on the shouldered axle, rotate easily, and even gluing onto the axles with cryno doesn't always keep them firmly fixed in the correct place. They are moulded in that harder nylon plastic mix that is often used for some parts that doesn't glue well with anything. After struggling with this aspect - it was annoying when they kept on shifting - I discovered the answer lay in the 2mmSA 3-205 coupling rod etch produced for converting GF locos some time ago. This has several sets of rods on it, and outside cranks as well. This brings it neatly around to the discussion on quartering outside cranks. Here it's another little challenge as they have to be soldered, and quartered, onto the same axle. But they are an improvement over the originals as you can see. One day they might even get a coat of red paint. Oh what fun we have....... Izzy

Regarding the advice from Wayne, that this trackage needs a decent base to fix it to, I just wonder if the basic track construction method used by the late Peter Denny and some others might provide the solution here. Building all the track onto sub-bases, IIRC he used thin ply, the track being painted and ballasted before laying down as you would set track, after which all the joins were filled in/hidden with glue/ballast once wiring and testing had taken place. Izzy

Hi Nile, Great modelling as usual, you make it appear so simple too....... Like others I am also puzzled with the drive arrangement. Given that a single U/J joint like this can't offset shaft mis-alignment as the double joint arrangement usually found in diesels can, (probably why you got vibration when you adapted it with the new motor if the tube/sleeve was even very slightly out of true), the idea that it's for easy production/allows for manufacturing tolerances/gives good performance doesn't really seem to add up. Weird. As it happens you seem to have found a much better arrangement and it will be interesting to see what the Hornby version finally arrives with and it's boiler design and performance. Perhaps some production experience in these areas does matter at times. Wouldn't like to say that the good reception that the SLW 24 has received means prices overall can rise even further than they have already. From what I have heard the current ones are already causing many to re-evaluate what they can afford, irrespective of the quality of the models, and good design isn't always dependent on production costs anyway. cheers, Izzy

I'm just a bit bemused that despite this being a Rail Exclusive product there is no mention at all on the current Rail Exclusive website about these locos, (which seems not to have been updated in a while), not even a link to the SLW site. Perhaps the level of demand has caught them unawares in that it is more than was anticipated would occur in the begining. I wish the venture well whatever as anything that pushes the boundries is welcome because you never know what is possible until it's tried, what works and what dosen't. Izzy

The J94 does have a high footplate with deep bufferbeams, and there is a side elevation drawing on the web with which to double check measurements, but I'm sure Chris will be along to offer advice. Izzy

I think this is one reason why Peco went with visible code 55 height rail, it allows more leeway with flange depth. Plus of course their clever design strength wise, double foot code 80 with the lower foot buried in the sleeper base, means the rail clips can be minimum size to aid clearance since they are only cosmetic. This all falls down looks wise when it comes to the point work, where the full depth of the code 80 is revealed with the blades. Means cheaper production costs of course, same blades with both code 80 and code 55 track. Code 40 may be the correct size for 2mm/N but with the much deeper flanges compared to other scales - the average 0.5mm depth on most new stock these days is the same as 4mm Romfords - problems with clearance are bound to occur, another area of concern being tie-bars, where there is only 0.5mm clearance (since code 40 is roughly 1mm deep) with which to attach them. Izzy

Evergreen do 5 thou sheet. But be warned, do more than just wave liquid glue near it and it's dissolves into a puddle before your eyes. Don't want to impose more than needed on Ian's thread, but just to say all printed tonal matter is achieved using dots of various sizes, and at larger than normal viewing distance will be seen. Normal/average eyesight is judged as being able to see 20 lppm - 20 line pairs per millimetre - at that distance, and most printing standards are arranged around this. With inkjets a high res file as well as printing at high res on the right paper is needed to reduce seeing them at close distance/under magnification. You cannot lay too much ink down on plain paper - it can't absorb the levels of ink - so looks low res and/or with muted colours. Izzy

I'm just wondering if one of the plastic gears either side of the brass one has split, as is quite common with some N gauge locos. This can lead to a clicking sound, and would cause the next gear in line to 'jump' since the mesh would not be maintained. If this is the case getting a replacement might be difficult, but I do believe they can run quite well with just one powered axle, as others have had to do. They are certainly heavy enough to provide enough traction this way. Izzy

Once you try DCC you soon realise that there is no going back. Perhaps not needing sections and being able to run one loco right up against another is the biggest single advantage. I'm sure you'll have great fun with it. Izzy

A factor to take into account besides the actual axle length is that the coning angle differs between axle sizes, and this may account for the lack of free running with some wheelsets. Basically the 12.25mm & 14.8mm axles have a less sharp angle than the other sizes. 14.8's were originally meant for Peco wagons and match their standard length and coning angle - the same as used by the standard 2FS 12.25 axles and pin-point brass bearings, while the other sizes have a 'sharper' angle, the 15.2mm being the normal/original GF length and matching coning angle - the 14.2's and 13.7's also have this coning angle. When Farish got clever by using different axle lengths this of course produced the situation we now have, wanting different lengths with coning that might not match. What is worse perhaps is that the coning angle seems to vary with every new Farish wagon you handle. Some lengths seem to work quite okay, others don't. There is nothing consistent about this i.e. it's related to the axle length. Jim's suggestion is perhaps the best/only way of overcoming this issue for direct replacement wheelsets i.e. without using standard 12.25's and brass bearings and fitting them into the chassis by some method. Izzy

If you loco is a non-runner due to a defective motor, which it seems is an issue with some Heljan 15's and 16's, then visiting here :- http://www.emgauge70s.co.uk/index.html might prove of interest - it's a great site with plently of inspiration anyway. Look at the November and December updates. They are currently experimenting with fitting Mitsumi motors supplied by Cambridge Custom Transfers (John Isherwood) as replacements from Howes aren't available at present. Izzy

As this would appear to be a competely new model from the ground (well rail head) up, and not just (!) a super-dooper Bachmann based one, I think it would be helpful if there was a basic spec that could be perused. It would seem the chassis is a metal block rather than plastic, but apart from that all the attention to date has been on the plastic body - although I for one would like to see what the roof/fan detail is like - and sound features. For instance, do you assume that it has the now standard skew wound motor/twin flywheel/twin bogie drive ? Are the wheels steel, or the more common nickel-plated brass, pick-up split-axle or rear wipers? For a loco looking this good performance is going to be just as important for me, and while I doubt it is anything other than top drawer given the standard Zimo fitting (are they standard across the range ?) it would be good to know. Perhaps this will all be available on the Rail Exclusive website once the locos are available for general sale. Izzy

Saw one in my local Craft/Hobby shop yesterday - it has a selection of Hornby/Peco/Dapol/Woodland senics accessory stuff with a few items of mostly Hornby rolling stock - at £137-50. I admit to being surprised to see it in there, and wonder how many will be sold at that price. Izzy

I converted an Farish 08 by machining the wheels. Although the loco runs very nicely It was not an experience I would want to repeat, thanks to the way the outside cranks plug into the wheels for quartering, and can't be used without modification since they are rather over-width anyway (good for ripping up platform edges though.......). One day I will complete the replacement etched chassis for it. As Chris suggests a Farish 24/25 Bo-Bo diesel with drop-in's is really the only sensible way to go. I doubt you'll ever better the performance. Izzy