Izzy

Removing built trackwork from templates when stuck down with d/s tape can be easily done by washing the glue joints with turps/white spirit. I usually just apply using a brush as you would use for liquid glue, peeling the template back as each joint is broken. Usually I use old spare dirty turps which has been used to clean brushes - waste not, want not etc... This is made easier because I only use thin strips of d/s tape to hold sleepers down on a template, but the basic technique is sound whatever the amount of tape used. Be warned the joint break is only temporary in that the tape soon becomes tacky again which is why I peel the template back. Izzy

Hi Chris, Just had a look, to double-check what I have done, and the thinking behind it. I thought the non-geared had been produced for the 40/45/46's, but wasn't quite sure. The originals have 1.5mm axles throughout of course, and you are right in that the non-geared axle is 1.0mm with a centre shoulder of about 1.2mm. They are sloppy of course when pushed upwards but not when the spring pushes them down into the groove in the keeper-plate. Since there isn't any issues like derailments I took the view that the slop wasn't a problem that needed a solution above that provided by the spring, i.e. trying to fit a bearing/shim of some kind. I thought that this could lead to axle resistance and non-turning of the wheels/axle and be counter-productive. Taken all round, just turning the original wheels would seem an easier option for some, but as I say I prefer the steel rims and correct tyre profile where this is possible as it gives more sideplay of the wheel on the rail, which I need because of the small radius track I am generally required to use. When I get the time I'll machine the wheels in the blue one and see what difference it makes. Should there be a clear benefit one way or the other I'll post the details. Izzy

Okay, here's how I did it... follow at your own risk!! Here's the original bogie. You can see the quite obvious size difference between the driven and carry wheels. The 2mm SA wheels look just slightly better don't they? Provision of these is I think a real credit to the association, but then perhaps I'm slightly biased. This is the original bogie, and how you have to cut the pick-ups to clear the axle boss on the rear of the middle wheel sets. The wheels are insulated at the axle join, so if both bosses touch the pick-ups it's an instant short across the axle.The bosses are spacers to ensure limited sideplay when the wheels are dropped into a Farish bogie and work fine except in this particular case. I sprung the middle axle using 9thou guitar wire, which I normally use for handrails. It's just about the right size and strength to keep the wheels/axle down but not prevent easy rotation. They are after all only carry wheels and in this case just really go along for the ride, not taking any weight as per the real thing. It's formed as a U shape and bending it over inside holds it all in place, no glue or anything required. It needs cutting as short as possible and folding over the axle ( so bending down to the floor), otherwise it would catch/jam in the gear train. Here's a comparison between the conversion, in green, and an original. The ride height difference is negliable as far as I can tell. Using smaller wheels might make it too low. You will notice the upper lining is disintergrating, again. It did this within a week of purchase. I had already added separate handrails on the front as well as DG's so couldn't send it back. I wasn't impressed, or with the low quality of the etched roof fan detail. Although it's got some modest improvements over the older version, if you have one don't rush to replace it. The blue one is better than the green, so some of it might be production differences, (the blue body is a different/changed moulding). Only my views of course, but a let down after waiting so long for them to arrive. I have replace the lining with transfer lining - twice so far - and it seems nothing will stick to the basic body moulding. Yet the bottom line and front yellow panels are fine, go figure... Anyway, hope this helps anyone thinking about drop-in wheel conversions for these 31's. Izzy

Is this the new version or the older one? The previous one needs 7mm drop-in-wheels (if I remember correctly), but the new type has two different sizes with only the outer wheels powered, as per the prototype. As with other diesels Bachmann-Farish have also moved over to using correctly sized wheels (for 1:148) for each loco type which makes choosing the best wheel size more awkward. You can get the wheels turned but I always prefer steel rims where possible so I used 2mm SA drop-in ones. The actual wheels sizes are 7.35mm and 6.75, the prototype being 43" and 39.5". The correct sizes for 2mm would be 7.18mm and 6.6mm but since it is a N size model I though using 7.5mm and 7.0mm would be a decent compromise since there are non-geared 7.0mm drop-in wheels available, which are needed for the middle axles, 7.0mm/6.5mm look undersized in the loco (I did try the sizes). Due to the different wheel sizes I did find the need to spring the middle axles to ensure they stayed firmly on the track. It also needs the pick-ups paring back behind the middle axles otherwise there is continuous shorting. These adaptions would not be needed with just getting the original wheels turned. I may throw those on the second 31 I have at the lathe and see what results. Apart from steel rims the added advantage of the drop-in wheels is the brass gears on the axle. No gear splitting as still seems to happen on Farish stuff at times. I will try and sort out a few shots of the conversion and post them here, I'd totally forgotten about it as it's a while ago now since they came out and I first did it. Izzy

I can't see why not, in fact I think I remember someone saying that's what they were meant for when introduced, to represent modern day disc braked stock wheels. Izzy

I'm not quite sure if this is totally correct, but I believe all coachng stock past the Mk1's (but including these with B4 bogies), use smaller 3'0" dia wheels rather than the older size 3'7", so the under-sized 6mm dia wheels most N coaching stock has historically been given are the size you actually want in this case. Would think standard 15.2mm axles are also what you want, no bearings. Izzy

I now also use 12.25's and bearings to replace wheels in Farish chassis. I found that this was the only feasible way of converting some farish freightliner flats and overcomes the varying axle lengths farish stock now seems to have, no two being quite the same. To get the right bearing distance I have found it's best to locate the bearings in plasticard squares as spacers, using different thickness as needed. Izzy

Tony, From the description your Crownline WC compensated chassis would appear to be what is often termed as 4-point compensation rather than the normal 3-point compensation which uses a single central beam. The drawback with the latter design is that it can be inherently unstable if too much weight is placed outside the 3 points in a similar fashion to how a 3-leg stool would be. These points are the two axle bearings of the rear/fixed axle and the pivot point of the central beam. Best practice is to try and ensure that most weight is contained within these boundries otherwise it can be counter-productive to both balance and traction. The twin beam design is a bit more stable as the pivot runs across the width of the chassis at the cost of not being 'true' 3-point compensation, i.e theorectically there could be instances when all wheels would not be in contact with the rail with non-flat/un-even/twisty track. It can become 'true' compensation if the rear fixed axle isn't, and is allowed some downward movement. It doesn't have to be spring assisted - i.e. sprung hornblocks - simple mechanical advantage is enough for the principle to work if it is felt it is needed for better electrical current collection. This of course then requires a moving gearbox design of some kind, which are common today but rare when such chassis designs first arrived. However, as with 3-point compensation, it is still neccesary to ensure that the majority of the weight of the loco is placed within the boundries of the 4 points or it will again be counter-productive to traction/balance, and I wonder if this is the issue with your loco. That there is as much - more perhaps? - weight forward of the beam pivot than rear of it. This would lead to loss of traction on the rear drivers. Too much and they could be lifited off the rails if the front bogie is sprung and doesn't carry any of the loco's front weight. i.e. the chassis pivots forwards around the beam pivot. In this instance removing weight from the front of the loco could actually make haulage capacity/rear driving wheel traction better. It's a thought anyway. Talk of the S4 deputy chairmans cup brings back memories of the first time it was run (Scalefour 1983, Commonwealth Institute) and a 0-4-4T of mine nicked off my layout - simply to make up the numbers - won it. What a fluke! The tests were then changed/developed to make sure that didn't happen again! After all, how could you have a silly little 0-4-4T beat big 4-6-0's etc! Great fun for all concerned, which is how it all should be. Izzy

As regards layout wiring, whatever the system used, DC or DCC, I do firmly believe that it is best if the layout owner(s) wire it themselves or at least understand how it is wired. This goes back many years to a time when as a teenager I joined a local model railway club. They were engaged at the time in constructing a fairly large layout depicting a local line, and on low wages I and a friend were unhappy that all the 'subs' we paid were being spent on the complicated and expensive electrical controls which were being undertaken by one individual because he was 'clever' and seemed to be the expert in such matters. Of course you can probably guess what happened. He lost interest and left the club to do other things. Despite several attempts no one else at the club had the slightest clue about how to complete the wiring, nothing could be run on what had been made to that juncture, and eventually it transpired that the whole lot got scrapped. Both of us were appalled at this outcome, seeing some of our meagre hard earned wages wasted in such a manner, that we left the club, and vowed never to belong to another. Although my friend later ran/owned a model shop for a good few years and I have fiddled about making the odd loco for others I don't believe that either of us ever have I recenty read an account of a similar present day situation. Circumstances that I feel need preventing whether the layout belongs to a club, or an individual. Building any layout takes considerable amounts of time, energy, and money and none of it needs wasting because of such an occurrence. Izzy

Only some DCC systems will 'allow' a DC loco to run on '0' and while it works it isn't particularly friendly to any DC motor subjected to this treatment for one simple reason, they aren't AC nor do they have the decoder interface between the AC current and DC motor that DCC fitted locos do. Thankfully this feature is not being widely replicated which is a good thing. As has been said, some more robust motors with heavier windings can just about cope with being fed AC for limited periods, others can't. As far as traction is concerned, while say a 0-4-0 may have the same weight as an 0-8-0 whether it could pull the same load as the latter will depend on a number of factors. The contact area of the wheels will feature - the 0-8-0 having generally twice as much - although of course each wheel will have a lower axle loading as well as the actual friction between wheels and rail. Generally speaking I have found over time that the very best combination for traction and electrical pick-up is cast iron wheels running on nickel-silver rail with hard brass wiper collectors, the next steel wheels instead of cast iron, with n/s wheels being the least effective. It is of course always best if disimilar materials are used because this obviates what is known as material pick-up. This is the effect where if the same material rubs/slides together then particles are torn off one surface and adhere to the other causing wear and increased friction. hope this is of interest Izzy

The experiences both I and my wife have had with Yodel is in sharp contrast to others, being both quick and efficient. When I ordered goods from Hattons late on a friday a few weeks back I did not expect to get it until the middle of the next week. However it was picked and packed on the Saturday, Yodel collected it late on Sunday, and I had it on the Essex coast before mid-day on the Monday, as well as being able to track the parcel at all stages of it's journey - far better info than most rivals. Try doing that with Royal Mail these days, who now virtually don't work weekends as far as collections/mail movement goes. Izzy

Thanks once again for taking the time and trouble to have a look. Much appreciated. Following this info I took a look on Howes site, should have probably done this in the first place if I had half a brain, and discovered quite a range of spare parts for these at present, many of the separate moulding sprues as for other Heljan models, and there are two for the bogies. These help to show how they assemble and could be useful as spares if I decide to take the plunge and get a 16 since I would guess they are glued together rather than just plug assembly, which would actually be ideal for my needs. Seems quite feasible if I can source some suitable 8-spoke 3'7" P4 wheels somewhere as the Heljan wheel profile is on the coarse side (well those in the W&M railbus anyway)and not really suitable for conversion/re-profiling for either EM or P4. The Gibson PDF EM conversion uses 10 spoke and I'm not sure how different this would look, or if it would actually be noticable. Very tempting though....... Izzy

Ah, thanks, that's very useful. After posting the message I did find a thread by Captain Kernow - blog I think - detailing altering a Heljan DPU128 to P4 and using spacer washers was mentioned as an easier option, but not having handled any Heljan diesels I wasn't sure of the basic construction and how this applied. It's only for a 5' long shunting plank with A5 points being the smallest used (about 36" I think), and I thought one might be 'different' to a 15 and feasible perhaps on an Essex area minor branch with a bit of a stretch. Izzy

Having just had some fun (!) converting a Heljan W&M railbus - acquired secondhand recently - to both DCC and P4 for a little shunting plank I have built I wondered if anyone had been able to convert a class 16 to P4. Although there is a PDF on the alan gibson workshop website for re-wheeling one to EM from the photos it seems that there isn't really the clearance/width between the bogie frames for P4 wheelsets. Has anyone tried it or know the internal bogie measurements please? Thanks, Izzy

If no one minds me saying, having followed all the threads on OO-SF/4-FS and been rather bemused at all the fuss over what is really a very simple concept now I better understand it, that of reducing the gauge to tighten up flangway clearance, and which also applies I believe to O-MF & O-SF, then having a joint description to signify exactly what they are might be of benefit so there is no mis-understanding. i.e. OO-SF/16.2mm, O-MF/31.5mm, O-SF/31.2mm ( I think I have them right, forgive if I haven't). I would also like to thank Gordon S for detailing how he ended up using OO-SF. If anyone can't understand the logic behind it even if they might choose to use another standard, well...........knocking your head against a brick wall does come to mind. Izzy

Although I haven't used OO gauge since the early 1970's I have followed the threads on OO sf with interest, not realising or appreciating until recently when playing about with some 4mm plastic kits for a little project just what a minefield OO wheels and their standards still are today. The kits all came from the same maker, yet of the 5 only two included wheelsets of a similar standard. Taking this into consideration, if I may make a few comments on the issue currently faced, correct b-t-b setting for the OO sf standard - and could equally apply to other track standards where variable wheel profiles are used together - using a standard/conventional b-t-b setting gauge is of little help or benefit. Such a gauge, whatever the form, roller type, L shaped, is only of real benefit for setting wheels with an identical and consistent b-t-b when the wheels are of a common standard/profile. Where you are trying to set wheels of varying profiles/widths to run on track to a particular set standard, and when wheel run-out and tapered rear faces need to be allowed for, then a go/no-go gauge of the type already illustrated is really the only way of setting a usable running b-t-b measurement as far as I can see and will vary for each different profile. This type eliminates the flange depth as an issue because the wheel runs on the tread so the rear face will contact the checkrail at a consistent height, that of the tread. And run-out can be seen/felt and judged as to whether it is an issue. Low levels of run-out are often present in wheels, but below certain figures don't appear 'wobbly' while above suddenly do. Even where this exists and can be easily seen it doesn't always present a problem, if an equal level of run-out is matched on the opposing wheel i.e. diametrically opposite on the circumference. The whole wheelset might be quite wobbly but the b-t-b may remain constant so they run through check areas without issue. However, twist the wheels so they don't match, and not only will the b-t-b vary over the wheel circumference but there will be tight spots when running through checks. This is where twisting the wheels on their axles - where possible - can turn wheelsets from no good to acceptable as far as negotiating track is concerned. Hope this is of use, and I'm not stating the obvious. Izzy

Hi Tony, I believe these were called the Lincs coupling and are still in use today on 4/7mm layouts I have seen in recent times, although I'm not sure if they are still made commercially by anyone. A similar design - it may originally have been the same - is used in 2mm and called the electra, Mick Simpson uses them on his renowned Wansbeck Road layout and they are also seen on Fencehouses. One question that springs to mind regarding any 'one ended' type coupling design, where obviously all the stock has to face one direction, is what happens in the rare situation that a loco gets turned around, say a tender type on a turntable, or the layout features a reverse loop and stock can face both ways. How is that overcome? Are there ways around this, or can't it be allowed to happen? I've just always wondered what the practical restrictions might be as there are several types like this - Dinghams etc - now around and quite popular. Izzy

I have always favoured keeping anything as simple and reliable as possible, and while the hand-of-god type of uncoupling (whatever type of coupling is used, tension lock/ 3-link etc) does break the impression of a scale model railway for some it is the cheapest, easiest, and most practical overall solution in my opinion, as well as being the most versatile. Having used 3-link almost exclusively for a good many years and struggling as time went by I decided to try magnetic type couplings with recent forays into 2mm. Apart from the extra work needed to set them up, and that in some instances they aren't 100% reliable all the time, as it can be with many things, the biggest discovery was how restrictive they could be. Uncoupling only possible at a certain place, i.e. where a magnet was placed, which means it must be done using a certain movement over that position. Yes, some give the ability to leave the wagon anywhere, but much back-and-forth shilly-shallying can sometimes also be required which breaks the illusion just as much as the hand-of-god system. Izzy

Having thought the update featured in the first FRMR would possibly become a regular item, which very sadly can't be looked forward to, a diary type update would I feel be welcomed by many if it is found possible to do. Izzy

Interestling the 2mmSA have just introduced a few point kits using the pegged chair technique along with a milled crossing in an attempt to encourage more people to have a go at constructing 2FS points. Personally however I think that using a solid crossing as per RTR track, whilst it might help make construction easier rather defeats one of the objects of making your own, that it looks better, and nothing looks better than proper rail. Izzy

I think this relates to the experience that for some traveling to and from a destination can be as enjoyable as actually arriving, whilst for others it's just a chore to be endured. Mostly it depends I suppose on what is expected to occur at the destination and how long the stay will be. Personally I like all aspects of modelling, planning a layout, building it and the stock, and then running it in fairly equal measure. However the truth is that planning and building, and subsequent stock construction, probably occupies more time than that spent running. Perhaps this is why building and exhibiting layouts is found enjoyable. It provides the anticipation of a destination with intense layout operation which satisfies the operational aspect whilst giving purpose to the planning and construction of it. Izzy

I believe that it is best to lay the crossing first, then the main (straight) stock rail, the matching wing, closure and blade for it, and then gauge the second - diverging - stock rail with the set in it off these, followed by it's relevant wing, closure and blade. The reason for this is that it is all too easy to under/over gauge the stock rails at the blade ends and have problems getting the blades set right, and especially if you file your own blades as I have always done. The blades and set should of course match each other but if you file them up as you build the point then you can 'hone' the second one to match the set of the second stock rail,(which will follow the set of the first blade if done in this order. As far as strength and longevity with plastic chairs on ply sleepers go, I can say that I have yet to encounter any issues with track made in the past, (I tried the idea in about 1983 when Len Newman pressed some of the first moulded chairs into my hands), although most of it now exists on layouts owned by others. However I have always used rivets under the crossing nose/wing rails and past the first slide chair, both for strength and electrical connection. Half chairs being added after laying and soldering up the connections required. By a complete coincidence I am currently playing with the construction of a small P4 test track - I've not worked in the scale/gauge for a couple of decades - using old original parts and include some shots of where I place the rivets should it be of any interest as an alternative to using copperclad, which wasn't available in a suitable thickness in the past. Izzy

I find lining paper ideal for drawing/setting out layout plans. Most decorator places sell it in a variety of thickness, I tend to use 1200 micron, at a few pounds a roll. 22" standard width so useful for many baseboard sizes. Full size mock-ups are so much more useful than scaled down ones, you get a better idea of the actul space needed, and what can be fitted into the space available, especially if you have a few bits of rolling stock or buildings to place on them. Izzy

Since the term first emerged I have always taken 'Modern Image' to represent the new/cut down post-Beeching railway era of diesel/electric/dmu/emu after the demise of steam, and specifically the start of the ' British Rail' blue times, which then where 'now'. Personally I feel like others that a simple description of place and date is best and most flexible, and as good as anything else. Izzy

Could I just double-check that I have the baseboard size correct. It is 120cm x 20cm (i.e. about 48" x 8") isn't it?. In which case, unless there are big storage problems to consider, could I suggest that you make it of just one single board, whatever material you use. Joints across boards in N are always more of a challenge than in the larger scales, and the fewer the better. Another point I would draw attention to is the joint between the board(s) and the fiddle yard. Having a joint right at the toe of a point might be another area that could prove a challenge, a few inches past the blades is advisable here as well as not having them under a bridge for ease of access. Our fingers are the same size whatever the scale used, and in N there is less room to poke them about! As you say baseboards in N need to be right, more accurate than in a larger scale, and time taken on their design and construction is never wasted. Izzy