Izzy

This marketing introduction has caused a lot of interest and accompanying hype and froth, perhaps more than Oxfordrail anticipated. The only concern must be surely, that the anticipation and expectations that have now been raised might lead to a certain amount of disappointment when things don't turn out to be as expected, which is always possible. I do hope for Oxford's sake that this doesn't end up being the case. Izzy

Just wonder if, perhaps, the image isn't about any particular loco they might be going to produce, but a trademark image to be used on all the packaging........ Izzy

Yes, I agree, although these are between 30-40 miles away in opposite directions, but 'local' in my terms having been the only dealers around in my area for as long as I can remember (quite a few decades). Izzy

At one time if I ordered in the morning, and sometimes in the early afternoon, whatever the size of the order in terms of number of items, it always seemed to be picked, packed, and sent off that day. This now no longer happens, and hasn't for me for a considerable time, a year or two. It is at least the next day before they even think of picking the items however early the order is placed, and often another before it is packed and sent. Still reasonable service, just not as quick as in the distant past. However, to my mind the biggest benefit is their real time stock level guide, so you know when you order whether any item is in stock and you'll actually get it, which generally offsets for me, the now longer delivery times, although I do now tend to use my local dealers much more so I can see and test what I'm buying. Izzy

Really like those batteries controllers. Having seen and handled one recently all those present have considered getting one in view of the high quality DC loco control it provides. I have also wondered about the DCC version. Izzy

This is a problem I had for many years, also finding that all types of 'miniature' drill chucks/pin vices couldn't hold drills properly or firmly. All those you mention also have the simple split collets, and the Eclipse ones meant for use in a lathe are no better than any others. Eventually I solved it by using a larger sized mini-drill chuck with a home made shaft and end pad culled from another pin vice tryout. These chucks are smaller versions of 'proper' chucks and I have found quite capable of holding drills down to 0.3mm - the smallest size I use. Expo tools sell a couple of different types on their own, one with a hexagon end and a plain chuck for fitting to your own threaded shaft. Look under the mini drill section/miniature chucks. The only issue is that the chucks are a bit bigger and heavier than a pin vice, and you need to make up your own handle. Anyway here's a few shots, it might give you some ideas. It's all I have ever used since I made it back in the 1980's, and like then the same designs and types of pin vice are still around....... As you can see a 0.3mm drill can look a bit small in the chuck. Izzy

Although I've bookmarked your new/old blog I do hope it will appear on the 2mm site to remind me to look. Always inspirational I'm sure a lot of RMwebbers will miss it, whatever scale they model in. Izzy

Interesting to note that it is 2 years since this thread started, and it's still going strong with a wealth of ideas and views. Shows really, as if it were needed, just how good CJF's original plan idea was with regard to the core principle of an urban/town/city station. Izzy

Glad the grain version using the 14.8 axles is coming. The Dapol body is virtually spot on lengthways, but far too wide, however I don't think I could hack it well enough to reduce the width. As per DonW please say if you need those who asked for certain amounts before when first announced to ask again. Izzy

I don't know if there is a standard width as such, just probably the minimum as per the standard construction gauge. So for double track at the minimum 6' way standard (11'2" between centre lines) this would be 26'6". Izzy

In the new Farish Jinty chassis the motor sits in the boiler facing the rear, with the lower half of the boiler being cast with the chassis. (see post #20 in my Jinty thread). As long as the 64xx chassis design is the same it should work - so long as the boiler pitch and diameter are similar. Izzy

I've just been reading the RM review of the new Bachmann 4mm 1F, and the wheelbase is stated as being 7'4" x 7'8" except for the last batch (1845-1899) which were 7'4" x 8'2", (can't find my drawings at present to double check but doubt they would be wrong). So the 57xx chassis (7'3" x 8'3") would be good for the last batch, and no worse for the earlier ones than the 64xx chassis, each being about 1mm out opposite ways. Of course if you make your own 2mm chassis for it this won't matter and you can set the correct wheelbase. Izzy

Oh dear. Although I am now doing diesels this may be more than I can resist. I fear a slippery slope is starting...... Izzy

I have found that a jig made crossing is easier if you are using easitrac bases/chairs without substituting pcb sleepers under the crossing, but one off jigs for any angle (one for the nose and another to add the wing rails) can fairly easily be made using card/ply of suitable thickness. Izzy

Really enjoying reading of how your tackling the challenge you've set yourself with Arnoldale - and the puns, and just a bit puzzled by the lack of a run around loop. I presume it was originally based on a GWR branch that used rope/horse/gravity shunting. With regard to the point switch toe clearance I tend to favour around 1.0mm to allow a bit of wriggle room - and a bit more if the track point entry isn't dead on square - since 0.62mm is the absolute figure. I also prefer pivoting tie-bar joints as it assists here with both clearance and reducing load on the blade/tie-bar joint - useful if you intend using servos. Izzy

I wouldn't call that being a zealot, but rather, practical and sensible. After all why spend money, time, and effort, on something that isn't going to be reliable for 100% of the time, or at least as close as you can get. Otherwise, if all you want is pretty, then static models are better to make, but nowhere near the fun/pleasure to operate nor to watch moving. Izzy

I think this arises because of something that someone said to me recently that I had not really appreciated fully before, that many layouts are models of models rather than of the prototype, and take inspiration and details from them warts and all, often accounting for the manner in which certain aspects can become 'fact' when they aren't. This has always existed to a small extent but has become perhaps more prevalent in recent times with the rise of the web and the increased volume of model shots depicted that look 'real' in combination with the same depiction of layout shots in magazines. I should add that I don't believe this to be part of whether a layout is based on fact or fiction but whether what exits would/could/might have done so in reality. While of course any encouragement of modelling is always a good thing, and showing others what can be achieved is part of this, it does tend to give rise to this aspect of copying models rather than the real thing, past or present. Izzy

That's interesting. I tried using PSX 1's with my Gaugemaster/MRC PA2 system and all it did was duff up the command station which then needing repairing. DCC Specialities felt they should work. Not all CB's are thus the same, or compatible with all DCC systems. Very awkward unless you know. Izzy

I have to say that I am not impressed with the short life span/unreliability of these encoders compared to pots, and don't much fancy having to replace them every few years. Does anyone know, is this down to component quality or just the basic nature of the part ? Izzy

Had mine replaced just a few weeks ago by Gaugemaster. Cost £15 inc post. Back in a few days, so first class service as per usual. Izzy

I guess the inspection saloon has arrived because Bachmann produced this in N for the NGS a while back, so all the main work has been done(Cad etc) and only the dies needed producing. As to the 1F, well, what can you say at first glance, except no wonder there are queries over the continued level of kit building. I say this as one who built the Craftsman kit to P4 in about 1980, a nice basic kit (I made an enclosed cab version) that went together well but, you know, still had to be built. Izzy

It might be helpful if I explain that the slop of the bearings in the chassis is what could be termed as excessive, and far more than just a nice easy running fit. Anywhere between 0.15mm - 0.2mm in fact. This was a combination of the fit of the wheels in the bearings, and the bearings in the chassis. Obviously where his level of movement existed in opposing bearings on an axle the degree to which a wheel could turn from straight ahead was significant, leading to the waddling, and not helped by one bearing being a good fit, nor the basic RP25 tyre profile, which rides differently on the rail head. Using 'proper' 2mm profile wheels would help here of course, and since I am aware that others are working on 2FS conversions that use replacement bearings and 2FS wheels I thought it best to highlight the excessive bearing slop issue that could be encountered even when doing this. Izzy

I thought that perhaps an update was needed with regard to an adjustment that has been made to improve/restore performance, in that most of the axleboxes have now been 'shimed' to reduce the horizontal bearing slop evident since new. You will see that I mentioned the loose fit/slop of the axle bearings in the chassis in the first post but at the time this didn't seem to be a particular issue. Indeed it didn't prove troublesome until I changed the coupling rods for the smaller more to scale ones which featured in my last post. The problem being that as the rods were a tighter fit on the crankpins, and thus less 'sloppy' than the originals, the end result was that at each wheel revolution the wheels got pulled/pushed back and forth in the chassis due to the excessive bearing movement, and so the loco tended to 'waddle' along the track as well as being not as smooth running as before. As this was not down to bearing size difference, but rather the size of the slots in the chassis, and one rear bearing was a good fit, I decided that shimming the individual bearings to reduce the play was the only sensible option. The shims were cut from sheet shim brass (K&S do packs of shim brass sheet in 001"/002"/003"/005") and bent into a L shape with a short bottom leg so they could be pushed into place between the chassis and bearing and the keeper plate would press against the leg and keep them in place. They slide into the slot between the two outer bearing flanges. Wanting the bearings to still rise and fall in the chassis slots it was a case of finding a suitable thickness that took up the excess slop but didn't lock the bearing tightly in place. The shims were all located at the front of the bearings to ensure dimensions remained correct, the one rear bearing not having any shim. This shimming of the bearings to improve performance might be something that is needed with any of these chassis where the coupling rods are replaced and the excessive slop reduced. Izzy

The reason the roller gauge bumps over the chairs is of course simply because it's too deep. With chaired track you need one that is just as deep as the rail head. More depth is useful for, say, soldered construction where it can assist in keeping the rail vertical. I don't know if this applies to Peco track, but chaired track along with some flatbottom is canted inwards at 1-20. I believe C&L holds it at the correct angle. This is another reason why you need gauges that are only head depth, otherwise they will try and pull the rail vertical as you press them down. This may be what is happening with the gauge on the Peco track, and appears that it is spreading the rails apart, which would be the end result. Having used a non-standard b-t-b of 29.8mm in O in the past to gain finer flangeways, today, to me at least, the 31.5mm/O-MF standard seems the perfect answer, and esspecially if you are just starting out with new trackwork. Mixing standards dosen't seem a sensible idea, more a recipe for disaster. Be careful though. Once you start making your own track you won't want to go back to using ready made stuff easily. Izzy

With parts like this where shafts are inserted into bores it is always helpful if the edges of the bores and ends of the shafts are 'broken' i.e. de-burred or very slightly chamfered, to allow the shaft to enter the bore without tearing either itself or the bore. Often with machined or moulded/extruded parts some edges can be rough/uneven. For the gears I use a scalpel blade to do this - poke the blade into the bore and slide the sharp edge around the bore edge - and for the muffs just a flat needle file to chamfer them. I always mount the gears on the muffs before any attempt to fit a shaft into the muffs. This is normal when fitting gears on idler muffs, but I can't imagine doing it any other way. I usually use a small smooth face vice to press a gear onto a muff. But placing the gear on a flat surface and tapping the muff in (gently) with a small plain face hammer also works well. Placed between two raised blocks this is the way I adjust the position of a gear on a muff. I never put a drill or anything else into a muffs bore before inserting a shaft. There should be no need to enlarge the bore. Generally I find the 2mm association axle steel and wheel stub axles make a firm but not overtight fit into the muffs. I have often found the need to drill a cross hole through the centre of a muff and use a drop of loctite cryno or 601 to stop the axles turning in the muff. Izzy