Izzy

Hi All There is a chapter on Leighton Buzzard mk1 in the first WS book I referred to in an earlier post. As originally built the station was on two boards of the size Tony states with the goods shed on the platform headshunt. There was no engine shed. It appeared at the 1958 MRC show where the folding nature of the design was demonstrated. Later on, when Buckingham was installed in it's railway room another board was added on the fiddle yard end to facilitate connection to the rest of the layout, and the engine shed was placed on this board at the end of the other siding off the run-round. A version of Tingewick looks very similar, but with the goods shed on the road off the run-round and not the headshunt and might be being confused with LB Mk1. The folding design is one I copied for my minimum space P4 layout All Saints back in the 1980's, and which I find a very clever design concept which I continue to use today, currently with circular layouts in 2mm. Re-reading the LBmk1 chapter now has reminded me of the neat and simple method used to transfer point control movement between boards, a pushrods with return spring at the point tie-bar - using rubber bands. Apparently this was also used quite a bit on Buckingham itself. The wonderful KISS principle at which he excelled, and which neatly solves a design issue with my current 2mm circular layout build for point control. Izzy

I was pleased to have a Buckingham 'fix' recently with the update that Tony wrote for the first issue of the Finescale Railway Modeller Review. Still inspires me in ways others don't every time I see shots of it. Perhaps because it seems like keeping in touch with an old dear friend, which it is really for me since the first time I saw it in RM in the early 60's. Izzy

I've just been looking at the first WS book (Peter Denny's Buckingham Branch Lines PT1 1945-1967), and the caption on photo 81/p102 states that the new turntable installed in 1960 came from the exhibition unit, photos of which, 74/75/76, are shown on p94/95 and depict a two road shed with the turntable and coaling stage. Could this possibly have been re-vamped into the current loco shed diorama (I have no idea what this currently looks like of course) after the turntable was fitted into Buckingham? Just a thought. Izzy

Isn't it just. I never did get to see Leighton Buzzard then despite my best efforts, but I did Wallsea, and ended up in 7mm and a member of Martin's happy North Essex GOG group for some years. Taking up the challenge of 2mm in more recent times I made the trip to the Nottingham show a while back to see the group of 2mm layouts that had been assembled for that year including Fencehouses, and had the absolute bonus, and joy, of finally seeing Leighton Buzzard. Not only that but my wife and I managed to view it early on the Sunday before it got too busy, and had almost a private viewing as a result with no one else around - as well as a nice chat with t-b-g and his helpers. What more could you ask for? Happy memories, all of it. best regards Izzy

You may be thinking of the MRJ Exhibition, it was in November 1990 at Central Hall. Izzy

Although I can clearly recall seeing David Jenkinson's Garsdale road at Central Hall (I spent several hours in total standing in front of it so enthralled was I by it), a layout that alongside Buckingham, Borchester, and The Berrow Branch were my main sources of inspiration, and of course there was much change as the London Shows moved to the Horticultural Halls for a while, and then Wembley (as IMREX I seem to remember but may be wrong), I am fairly certain that Buckingham never featured in any show in any format during those times, the 60's/70's. Indeed, I have always been under the impression that when Leighton Buzzard was brought up to town for the MRJ bash that was the first time any of it had been viewed by the general public for a very long time if I remember the publicity correctly. Perhaps my memory is also at fault here, but I don't think I would have forgotton something as significant as seeing some part of Buckingham in the flesh before this happened. Izzy

Very nice, different and interesting as well, the outside w-irons and just one brake block. An early design I take it, or were outside w-irons common on CR stock? Izzy

Hi Tony, Interesting, your tussle with the 0-8-4T. Having built the odd loco or two in a variety of scales I have over time come to the conclusion that the sectional coupling rod pivoting around the wheel crankpin is a flawed design, and I'm not at all surprised, especially with an eight-coupled chassis, that you hit problems even if the chassis has no vertical axle movement (VAM). Although it can work, all too often, aided by a small amount of play in the crankpins of the individual sections, it can allow the combined rod crankpin centres dimensions to vary continuously from that needed, so poor, erratic, and stuttering running per wheel revolution occurs. The solution I have found is either to arrange solid/fixed rods as you have used (they can still work with a VAM chassis), or ensure that the rods are pivoted as per the prototype by being pinned around the knuckle joint (sometimes you realise why certain things were done the way they were) so the rod dimensions remain constant. Although I favour some form of vertical axle movement chassis for better electrical pick-up even if it's not needed for track holding (which I found fairly necessary for P4), it has to be said that a fixed axle chassis has many advantages on it's side, not least simplicity and ease of construction, and especially when easily demountable wheels are used (Romfords/Slaters). However if wheel sets that can't easily be removed from their axles are used (Gibson/Sharman etc) then being able to drop them out of the chassis by some means for easy setting of the quartering, b-t-b, and general fiddling is a great advantage, whether VAM is involved or not. This is a must for me as I rarely manage to get a chassis to run exactly right to my satisfaction first time. Izzy

I have carried out experiments with 2mm wagon and coach wheels in N gauge stock - so 6mm&7mm dia - on Peco N gauge code 80/55 track and points, and with a b-t-b setting of between 7.8mm-7.9mm they will run okay, but give the same less than wonderful bump/lurch through the point crossings as standard N gauge wheels. Part of the problem being that whilst the dead frog points are gauge consistent at 9.0mm at the crossing nose, with the live frog variety the samples I have had varied between 8.9mm and 9.2mm (rail nose not sitting centrally in the crossing). Using Finetrax with it's slightly narrower flangeways (I believe it might be 0.8mm but not sure) and perhaps more consistent gauge at the crossing nose since it's a casting the b-t-b might need to be a bit wider. Paper calculations indicate that the same 7.9mm figure used for the Peco points is needed so experimentation as to what figure actually works best would be required. The thinner 2mm profile wheel would cetainly look better, but running qualities might not be better as a key ingredient of 2FS is the narrower 0.5mm flangeways. Another aspect to consider is that the 2mm conversion parts might asume the use of the standard 2FS 8.5mm b-t-b and not be workable with a narrower one. Izzy

I do think it's a wise choice to stick with mechanical point & signal control. A few years back I got seduced by the servo control idea (using MERG boards for cost saving) but found it unreliable/glitchy and have managed to rescue the situation on my latest layout by converting the servos to stall type units. I shall return to easy/simple/cheap mechanical means on any future layout. Izzy

I think using soldered construction of rail straight onto pcb sleepers is an ideal way to learn and practice turnout construction since it's easy and simple to make adjustments when you discover where problems can occur. It looks a clean neat job to me and I'm sure you must be both pleased and satisfied that you have now made your first one. I'm afraid I have only ever used a jig for plain track assembly, just using either proper or home produced templates (however crude and simple) as a guide for pointwork so I can't offer any advice on using one, but I would say that having also encountered the problem of the gauge not being wide enough at the switches/blades in the past now use a set order in which to lay the rails to avoid this issue. Basically, as Don, I lay the crossing first, followed by the 'main' stock rail gauged off it - the one that doesn't have a 'set' in it to match the blade angle, A/B/C etc - then the wing and closure rail and switch blade associated with it, followed by the second stock rail, which can be accurately gauged off the blade/closure/crossing rails (I find I can basically curve/bend the rail to match as well as putting the set in before laying it). After this the second closure/wing/and blade can be laid. Doing it in this way ensures that the gauge isn't under at the toe of the blades/switches, and allows for variation in how well you have managed to file the blades. If you lay both stock rails first, as I have seen suggested many times, then this will be 'blind' - even if it's on a template - and trying to accurately place the crossing correctly gauged from both in the right place can be a challenge, followed by another of trying to file the blades to suit the already laid stock rails. Hope this might help with the next one you make. Izzy

Having tried with limited success to rescue a friends Hymek, as a Western region modeller he now says he views model releases from Dapol with dismay, as it means a decent loco will not appear. The bodies are good, but the running quality not. He'd love a 22, but dare not take the chance. I am trying to devise a new/re-built chassis design for the Hymek. With regard to the 22 and it's apparent wobbly wheels, would it be possible to re-rim them with 2mmSA rims? Machining off the current tyre to enable the fitment of the new rims should overcome/iron out excentricity unless of course - and this is only a thought - that the issue is with the axle coning and not the actual wheel, ( this is all assuming the current coned stub axle/interference fit wheel is used). Izzy

I have always used methfix in the past but applied them in a similar fashion to pressfix. Individual bits floated into place with water to the correct position, and then a wash of meths applied to fix them in place. For some reason they just seemed easier to work with for me. I have read recently that pressfix and methfix are pretty much the same, and that pressfix 'glue' can be re-activated by giving them a wash of meths, in fact applying them as I always have the methfix ones. Haven't tried it myself, but it might be worth a shot if you have pressfix that have lost their sticky. Izzy

I don't believe that there is any rule as such. Whether you are concerned with a prototype or model it basically revolves around the actual design, and if the footplate was high enough to be over the top of the buffer beam. With most steam locos it was, and so is fairly common, but there are many exceptions for a wide variety of reasons. Izzy

I built a K's kit too, back in the 80's, and I think you'll find that no 2F body kit would fit onto a chassis made for a 3F because the boiler is rather low and there just isn't the room for a motor. If I remember correctly I put the motor in the tender driving the loco via a carden shaft, as Dapol do with their N gauge steam locos. Izzy

No, they are quite different, the only common factor really being the flange depth of 0.5mm (for the particular RP25/80 profile often used in N). Using converted N/RP25 wheels set to the 2FS 8.5mm btb (normally achieved by taking 0.2mm of the rear of the flange to reduce it to the 0.3mm 2FS figure) is really a fudge that just manages to work okay under most circumstances. It's not ideal, but often the only workable solution with much RTR N stuff. Izzy

I have tried both routes with mixed results depending on the models involved, as it seems the coning on the Farish axles and mouldings varies a bit now, and some 2mm axles/wheels don't seem to run too freely in them even at the correct axle length. If you do decide to turn down the Farish wheels then you might find that there is also a need to reduce the overall width to about 1.5mm as well, so the fronts don't rub on the inside of the frames, as they are also narrower than usual (looks better anyway). Overall, using 12.25 wheels/axles and fitting the brass bearings (you can mount them in thin plasticard glued to the inside of the frames to space them correctly as needed) appears to be an easier and better way and the method I now use. It might be useful to know that there are two 2mmSA axle coning angles used. The standard 60° on 12.25 and 14.8 (the latter to match Peco), and a sharper angle on 15.2/14.2/13.7 primarily to match Farish (never measured the angle). Izzy

One point (!) to be aware of with the plastic chairs is that the pegged ones are made in acetal rather than glueable plastic, so aren't fixable to the sleepers with such as butanone, Mek-Pak, Plastic Magic etc and you need then to use cryno etc. I can well see the perceived advantages of the pegged chairs for easy location, but the downside is the holes must be very accurate, and there is no flexibility/wiggle room with regards to adjustment i.e. gauge widening, or general bodging (normally what I do) in respect of finessing such as check rails and suchlike. An advantage of the simple glued down chairs on ply sleepers is that you can easily slide a scalpel blade between them and, lift/adjust/replace and re-glue them. I did this with this little plaything built using some odd spare points I'd made where I managed to add/splice a couple of single blade catches into the loop point. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81001-signal-position-advice/ Not the highest quality I know, but might give you a few more ideas. Izzy

With regard to haulage capacity and using the tender weight to bear onto the rear of the loco to help improve it, I noticed a very good design for this in the latest MRJ (235) concerning the 2mm 4F, where the tender body pivots on the rear of the tender chassis thus allowing the chassis to keep all wheels on the track whilst the bodies weight bears on the back of the loco. Whether such a design concept could be retro-fitted to the loco is open to question since it requires a gap between the tender chassis and tender floor but might be worth considering. Izzy

Maybe this will help...? Press Menu. Select 2nd page over . Picture style is bottom option. (Go in/set/out using set and 4-way buttons). Highlight tone Priority is on last page (star) and is enable/disable. (I always use this despite the minimum iso200 this means because I loathe lost detail via blown highlights, and noise levels aren't really a big issue these days until iso800/1600 are reached and maximum repro size is wanted). Izzy

As someone who has also struggled to get decent/accurate colour repro out of the current Canon default settings (which are now slanted towards well saturated colours and bright tones), may I suggest you try the combination of the Neutral Picture Style and Highlight Tone Priority? I use this combo as default now with both a 600D DSLR and SX120IS digicam and find it much preferable under a wide range of exposure settings. Izzy

In my experience using ply sleepers with easitrac chairs would be the way to go. There is no bolt detail on the chairs, which isn't noticeable, and saves the angst/worry over how many there should be (2/3/4 bolt etc) for the particular company/time period. I wouldn't bother trying plasticard sleepers, they just warp/curl after a while. I believe 95lb bullhead was pretty standard fare for most companies from quite early days, and well represented by the code 40 available. I wouldn't personally try inside keyed track, there just isn't the clearance over the flanges - it's nip & tuck as it is. The end results are quite good, but I'm still experimenting with the best construction for pointwork. David Long has cleverly used the easitrac cast brass chairs in combination with paxolin sleepers in certain places, but being awkward I'm trying to stick with ply throughout. Izzy

Just a thought. As a loco won't run down either 2 or 3 I would check the first set of point blades. If these aren't making good contact when it's set for 2/3 then there will be no power at the second blade set. Personally, the system of bonding the blades to the stock rail and isolating further along is far better and more reliable. The Peco method is just to simplify things and remove the need for a frog changeover switch but is prone to unreliability. Izzy

Picked up a copy in my nearest WHS today and think it well worth having despite the aparently continuing issue over actual price, being charged £7.99 before I realised and getting the £1 back at the till. Izzy

I recently had a Hymek on the workbench to try and fix it and encountered exactly the same issues. Removing the circuit board caused the chassis to fall apart. and after looking at it I concluded it was down to poor design and casting. The dummy loco route was tried, but proved an expensive dead end as the chassis in these is plastic and doesn't have all the gears either. Eventually I managed to glue the original chassis back together aided by plasticard, but also hit the gear meshing problem. Turns out there is just too much gearing play everywhere in the gear train, but especially here, the worm shafts almost going their own way within the worm housing. The answer was to sleeve the bores with brass tubing to remove the play since there wasn't the room withing the chassis to use top-hat type bushes in the housing. Non of this was ideal but got the loco up and running to a fairly reasonable level, and you may be able to do the same. However to be honest the body deserves a decent chassis/better motor combo if it should prove possible, but this would take some time and effort to produce even based around the current bogies as finding anything with the same 10' wheelbase might prove difficult.. Good Luck! Izzy