Izzy

Standard 6mm plain disc on 15.2's will fit in the non-powered bogies, but.... there will be no current collection, so no lighting in the trailer, and only the power bogie picking up current in the driven one. Might be okay as a temporary measure until the proper drop-ins are available again. Izzy

Yes, and sorry to return to this aspect, but having just caught up with it perhaps I could add that the basic debate is one that has been on-going in photography circles for as long as I can remember i.e. is it a simply a method of image recording or an art form, which has now gained another whole layer of complication with digital imaging instead of film and the relative ease today with which anyone can indulge in image manipulation - a lot of which is pretty awful (depending on your viewpoint of course) compared with past film era days, although much was also quite dire back then. Much concerned with digital today isn't always quite what it seems, for the main basics of photography remain as they always have, in that it is difficult to improve on the basic image quality of a shot if it's done right, but quite easy to degrade one, and that the quality of the equipment and the size of the image format still have a major impact. I cannot believe that some who use the smaller sensor 'compact' digital cameras try focus/image stacking with them. Optically they can deliver huge DOF by comparison with larger formats, ( which is why small apertures aren't needed or generally provided with them), and doing so only serves to lower the overall image file quality, which shouts out in high contrast edge definition - confused with sharpness/tonal clarity by many - and is now a feature of many images seen both online and in print. Still each to their own I suppose, and it does help to illustrate how wide individual opinions are as to what each person regards as to their taste. Izzy

Just thought I would add a shot of the Jinty with replaced coupling rods. As a temporary measure I have 'adjusted' and fitted those shown in an earlier post. This meant filing off the crank bosses on the wheels and making up some crankpins from 14ba bolts with a 0.5mm shank. The rods are retained in place with small sections of 1mm OD/0.5mm ID brass tube soldered in place. I've repeated the original side view for comparison. I think it looks better. You can see the poor little thing is beginning to look a bit careworn. That is the lot of an experimental subject that receives much handling. It's been in bits as much as together, and also covered quite a distance in testing going round and round, which will continue. I don't suppose many buyers would go quite this far.... I have shown some restraint though - usually I strip the motor to see the construction standard. Somehow I surprised myself by resisting the temptation, although it was a close run thing... Izzy

I did notice that, but have wondered whether the older 3FT/4F have the same wheelbase as the newer models, seeing as how Farish weren't always terribly accurate in the past in this respect. I shall have to get some and see. It would be handy if they were also etched to allow for the larger crankpins, but maybe the older models have different ones anyway. That's interesting. I presume then, that those on the bigger boards that stay in place get bypassed somehow when a decoder is plugged in. Thanks to you both, appreciated. Izzy

Just as a matter of interest here is a comparison between the Farish coupling rods, and some etched 2mmSA ones I have to hand. This helps to illustrate the problems, and advantages looks wise, of replacing them. The crankpin holes in the Farish are bigger than the bosses on the 2mm ones. At the top are some 16mm x 18mm. As you can see, if only I could shift the centre pin by 0.5mm to give the 16.5mm x 17.5mm needed they could be used, even just as a temporary measure to test things. I might try and do this, although another little issue is the crankpin size of 0.5mm, where as the Farish are 14ba, (clearance 1.1mm). Below these are some 16mm x 17mm ones. These are the correct size for 8' x 8'6" at 2mm scale. This clearly shows the size difference that exists between N at 1:148 and 2mm at 1:152 and why you can't just swap bits between them easily. Izzy

As this loco comes DCC ready, fitted with a small circuit board and 6-pin socket, I did not envisage any real problems, save that of finding a suitable decoder. In order to fit a 6-pin socket board into the loco and keep it all below cab level and reasonably out of sight Bachmann have come up with a new right angled pin design decoder specifically to suit, which indicated that some fun and games might ensue in attempting to fit another make of standard 6-pin design. My normal choice these days is CT, but I was interested to discover if the new coreless motor might run reasonably well on the spare Bachmann (36-558) or Digitrax (DZ125) chips I had that I'd originally started out with in DCC. However, I did harbour the feeling that perhaps, removal off the circuit board and the hard wiring of a decoder may be required to achieve what I desired, a decoder of choice fitted out of sight below open cab level. The first task was of course to remove the body, which is separate from the footplate and held onto it with four screws. As I have indicated in a previous photo, there are also some clips at the base of the smokebox that need releasing to allow the bodies removal. Here are some shots of the set-up. And the blanking board. I have no idea what the wire wound things are, being a bit of a electronics dunce, although they feature on most Bachmann/Farish circuit boards, but in this particular case they get removed along with the blanking plug. Sadly, plugging in a chip, any chip, only gave the loco the 'jitters'. It ran appallingly, like it was competing in the hop, skip, and jump. The reaction from a Bachmann decoder was violent, even on step 1 at 128 steps. It was less so on a CT, and with either, or a Digitrax, the reaction reduced as the speed steps were increased. Still there even at 3/4 speed, but more subdued. I have never had issues with previous DCC ready locos from either Farish or Dapol, but have had to remove the small circuit boards from the 03/04/08 diesel shunters, which aren't DCC ready, as the capacitors on these boards interfere with the DCC BEMF. This seemed remarkably similar, but much more extreme. Surely this wasn't going to be an issue with a DCC ready loco was it? How could it? Well, it seems it was, or with mine at least, as to date no one else seems to have had this problem as far as I can discover. Removing the board and hard wiring in decoders gave trouble free running, (I fitted a 6-pin harness as a temporary measure so I could swap decoders quickly and easily - all this with the body off of course), although once again the discovery was made that only a CT decoder could offer the kind of slow and smooth performance that is available by default under DC. I often wonder just why this should be so. Since I had envisaged that I would probably have to remove the board it didn't particularly bother me. It sat too high anyway, and bending the pins on a standard 6-pin decoder wouldn't really produce one that could sit in place with the body on as far as I can see. Given the problems with the board, I'm afraid I didn't even bother to try it just to see. It might just work with a CT DCX 76, but frankly hard wiring in is far easier. Anyway, removing the board frees up a lot of space in which to place a decoder, and sit it well below the open cab level, and nearly on the floor. It has to be clear of the floor to avoid shorts. A small clear piece of insulation is fitted to prevent breaching of the chassis halves, along with a raised spigot that lifts the board up a bit as clearance is also needed above the rear wheel flanges. The main circuit board is 14mm x 14mm, so this gives you some idea of the kind of room available when this is removed. Even if you don't use DCC removing the board is something to consider as it frees up so much space in the cab and enables the fitting of crew etc should you wish. I know this means the capacitors etc then get removed, but if you build a loco yourself you don't fit them, well I never have, and I could not detect any difference in performance under DC with it removed. The board is screwed in place and these provide the electrical connections to it from the chassis halves. I made up some right angled brackets from some scrap N/S etch and fitted them as connections to which either the motor or decoder leads could be soldered. They were made so a Bachmann decoder could just sit between them. But this does mean you can't remove the footplate without undoing them as they are then too wide. I made up a small stepped board using 20thou black plasticard and stuck in place with d/s tape to ensure any decoder fitted wouldn't end up shorting itself out somehow, (you have to remember all the lower body sides and bunker as well as the footplate are metal). I then spent some considerable time and effort trying to coax a decent usable performance out of a standard Bachmann 36-558 chip. Many might be happy with the results, but eventually I ended up fitting a CT DCX 76 wired decoder. Using anything else just really seems a waste of time, and not worth the effort. Here's how I fitted firstly the Bachmann, and then the CT. Since the Bachmann was a 6-pin and too long I bent the pins through 180 degrees before soldering the wires to them. The DCC feed goes to the two centre ones - doesn't matter which way around, with the motor feed to the outer ones, the 1&2 pins. Red to the extreme outside to give correct direction without having to reverse it via CV setting. It's wrong in some of the photos - how I know! The wires both from the motor and decoder have been left long until I am certain that further changes are not needed. edit:- Just thought it might be useful to add these shots for a comparison between the fitted board and the replacement arrangement. The original would sit in place higher than shown, the top of the board being level with that of new one. Forgot to add a packing piece to show this clearly. I should I feel mention here that I set up and make most decoder adjustments via my Sprog 2 and JMRI, and only make a few other CV changes 'on the main' using my Prodigy Advance2. I can't imagine now using anything else other than my Sprog/JMRI, it makes it all so easy and simple, and every time I use it I feel a debt of gratitude to those who make it all possible. The loco is now under extensive testing, having fitted couplings, for long term running quality and haulage capabilities. Here it is on a mineral train of 16T's. Seems like the rail engineers/builders are re-building the bridges to hopefully a much better standard at the moment......... Izzy

Hi Ben, That's interesting to know. I do understand that the new N locos coming from DJ models will have traction tyres fitted as standard, the diesels anyway, but that non traction tyre spares will be available as standard from the off. Personally, the provision of replacements in the box with the loco as Farish seem to have done with Tornado seems the best solution to me, but perhaps this is only viable with simple drop in tender/diesel bogie type driven axles, and spare steam loco driving wheels/axles, with the attendant need to undo crankpins/coupling rods, isn't seen as necessary or feasible for the vast majority of buyers. Hi Jerry, Having ruined a couple of sets of wheels for both 03/04 and 08 shunters in the past when playing with seeing just how far I could push the machining of them - too far obviously - I did managed to obtain replacement sets of both from Bachmann/Barwell quite easily, at a reasonable £10 per set. This was complete with rods etc, and just ready to drop into the chassis. With both types I was offered a choice as to coupling rod colour. Perhaps I was just very lucky. In any case, complete sets, even if they are available might not be the answer since they would come with traction tyres again! Izzy

It's a long story, ( the BTH class 15 ). It started out as a cast whitemetal body kit to fit a Farish N gauge class 20 chassis, but when I saw what the standard was.........it ended up being scratchbuild to 2mm..... I did sort of mention on the VAG a long time ago that if I actually got it made I'd give some details, but I have never got around to it. If there is any interest I could do a thread. There a photo here - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81727-n-gaugewhere-now/page-4 - # 80. I'm grateful for the comments on the station building. However, as I'd rather try and keep this thread to the Jinty I'll post a few more shots of Tendring and the station building in it's own thread, so long as that's okay. Izzy

Hi John, Thanks, kind of you to say. There is a shot here in this thread - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81001-signal-position-advice/ It was the reason I returned to 2mm/N, to be able to have a circular layout in the space available to me. The standard isn't terribly high, and it's experimental in respect of the general track radius, that the baseboard is card - layered artists mount board actually, I'm using servos for point and magnet control, and it's DCC switchable to DC. It's very much a work in progress. Izzy

I think that perhaps I should explain at this juncture that I decided to obtain a Jinty as it was a loco with no traction tyres. Originally I had intended to get an Ivatt 2-6-0, or perhaps a WD 2-8-0, but when I discovered the fitment of traction tyres, (which I have disliked intensely since I first encountered them in the early 1970's), and meant that the only course for me would be to re-wheel with 2mmSA wheels - then a totally unknown option, their purchase was abandoned. This is how I have undertaken the conversion The Farish wheels were machined by removing 0.2mm from the rear tyre faces. This was carried out using a little Sieg 0 'baby' lathe with the wheels held in a ER 16 collet chuck using a 10mm collet. Many won't have access to a lathe of any description, but getting this little one has proved quite useful as it is quite light (15kgs), small, and quiet, and has enabled me to use it on my indoor portable workbench - an old metal framed computer stand - in the warm, and also see what I am doing through a magnifying light now that my eyesight isn't what it once was. It's just the right size for 2mm work, and much better than standing in a coldish shed at my main lathe and milling machine during the winter months. I have read of as much as 0.3mm being removed from some Farish wheels, but I believe some care is needed here as the actual dimensions of the castings seems to vary from wheel to wheel, and so the amount needs varying accordingly. Certainly, at this stage, I discovered that as well as two wheel castings being used due to the different balance weight locations - those on the centre drivers being by the crank, the others opposite - the castings were also dimensionally different. The centre ones being the standard 2.2mm width while the outers were 1.9mm wide and with a tyre profile much closer to that of 2FS than usual. As the centre castings had wider tyres but with deeper set spokes, I also managed to remove 0.2mm from their outer tyre faces so they ended up as 1.8mm wide, the others being 1.7mm. Ideally I would have liked to reduce them all to at least 1.5mm maximum, as I managed with my 03/04/08 diesel shunters, but this did not prove possible. Every 0.1mm reduction in width makes a considerable difference in looks. 2FS wheels are of course 1.3mm in width and look so very much the better for it. Here they are just being tried on the axles without the bearings to check all's correct. Having machined the wheels the next point to consider was increasing the width of the bearings. The general opinion is that 0.5mm needs adding to the outside faces to prevent the wheel stubs falling out of them when set to the 8.5mm b-t-b. Not having any suitable phosphor bronze material, or being confident that I could add anything on the outside and also match the internal bore size well enough, (the bore chamfer making it impossible to get a smooth bore), I decided instead to reverse the bearings, so the original flange was on the outside, and add some more flanges from brass on the inside. These I made to 5mm OD, and 3.5mm ID to clear the chamfer, and soldered them in place on the front faces, which then became the backs. These are the machined brass washers and the finished adapted bearings. And tested in the chassis And here is it nearly re-assembled, just the keeper plate to re-fit Here is a side by side comparison, the before and after. I'm sorry the shot angles aren't exactly the same. The brakes shoes needed thinning, cutting away on the inside, paring back to half the original width, to clear the flanges and allow the maximum side play. At this the outside faces of the wheels just touch the brake rods and the crankpins just about clear the footsteps and a little casting on the footplate in front of them. I carved small amounts away here with a sharp scalpel to ensure clearance. This needs painting before re-assembly. You can see here that the keeper plate has circular recesses into which the bearing flanges fit. A quick word about the quartering. Generally with most steam locos the right hand side crank leads, (whether you are looking front or rear - it works out the same). I have always 'quartered' by eye, by lining up the spokes. Depending on the number of spokes this may be in-line with each other, allowing for the 90 degree difference, or opposite at one point. Those for the Jinty do work out to be in-line, and twisting the wheels on the axles to align them I found quite easy. A point to note is that with this model there is a lot of leeway. The coupling rods are a very easy fit over the crankpin boss. The boss is about 1.5mm, the holes in the rods 1.6-1.7mm. I think that perhaps I should say that this conversion wasn't primarily about the Jinty in terms of finescaling it as such, but simply to allow it to run on 2FS track. As someone modelling the green diesel era I bought it purely as an experimental vehicle. To see what was possible with the latest Farish steam locos, what kind of minimum radius a small and simple standard tank loco could be persuaded around in 2FS, and what kind of performance the new coreless motor designs could deliver. Saying I am quite pleased with the results of the 2FS conversion and the locos performance rather understates it. As bought it could cope with 9" radius track without issue. It can't now, but it can cope with the 12" radius on the hidden section of my circular layout, (soldered track with gauge widening via a 3-point gauge,) and anything above that seems a breeze......... This won't be of concern to most 2mm modellers, whose aims and standards are rather better and higher than mine, and for whom space and track radius are not an issue. Here are a few shots of it under test on my circular layout under construction. You will see that some work could sensibly be undertaken to improve the looks beneath the footplate. The coupling rods and crankpins stand out as being far too big. I will replace them if I can find any suitable. I'm not sure if the 2mm SA etched Farish ones (3-205) are of the same wheelbase size. This will also need new/different crankpins. I am currently working on this aspect, and if I manage to sort anything out, I'll post the results. The front/rear coupling pockets on the keeper plate need sorting as well, as with the NEM sockets removed there is a big empty hole and the guard irons just look to be hanging in mid-air. DG's will of course, also be fitted. Next post I will deal with the DCC issues. Hmm........ Izzy

Recently I bought a Farish Jinty. As others are also looking at and undertaking conversion of these newer models with split-chassis construction and coreless motors to 2FS, and there are some uncertainties as to the actual construction and parts dimensions, alongside the best methods of conversion, I thought I would start a thread dealing with this particular model. I have included as many dimensions as possible for those that might find them useful. It's a nice loco, and weighs about the same as the Farish 08 at around 40gms thanks to the footplate and side tanks/bunker being metal castings. The wheels are 9.5mm and the wheelbase 16.5mm x 17.5mm. The coreless motor is 7mm x 16mm and the gear reduction is 47-1. It runs very nicely under DC, but issues have been encountered when attempting to fit a decoder to run under DCC, which I will detail at a later stage for anyone interested. Removal of the wheels is quick and easy. Undo three screws, remove the keeper plate, (on which are the brakes, outside brake rods, NEM coupling sockets, and guard irons), and the wheels can be lifted out. Here is a shot of the wheels before removal. There are circular flanges on the rear of the square bearings which locate in slots to retain them in place. And another shot of the chassis showing the slots where the bearings fit. You may also just spot the drive gear peeking out in the middle rear of the central axle slots. This engages with the 15 tooth gear on the middle axle. This is of the standard Farish gear size, is 5mm OD, and a significant factor in the 2FS conversion possibilities. The chassis, assembled, has an overall width of 6.3mm. Also arrowed here are the two clips on the smokebox moulding retaining the front of it in place on the footplate which need releasing when removing the body for decoder fitting. The coupling rods are retained on the wheels by what appear to be 14ba hexagon headed bolts. Despite their small size they look large on the model, as do the rods. I find using small flat faced tweezers best for undoing these. These are the wheels, axles, and bearings after removing one wheel from an axle. The new wheel design is an adaptation of the previous one and achieved by adding a boss of 2.9mm diameter and 2mm length to the rear of the casting. This is set in about 0.3mm from the rear tyre face. The axles are plain shafted 1.15mm diameter. The plastic insulating bushes are thus about twice the length of before, and help to ensure truer running wheels as well as making it easier to remove/replace them on the axles. This I found, is best achieved by gently twisting them on the axles. The bearings are phosphor bronze, 1.5mm thick, with a 3mm bore. The figure over flats 3.95mm. The circular rear flange portion is 5mm diameter, and 0.5mm wide. The square portion is thus 1.0mm wide. Inner bore faces and the outside of the flange are chamfered. The wheels are an easy running fit in the bearings, and the bearings a loose fit in the chassis. It's all very sloppy. Despite, or perhaps because of this, running qualities are very good, and current collection doesn't seem an issue even without the benefit of 'Simpson' springs. On the face of it there would appear to be two main methods of conversion to 2FS. Machine the current wheels to reduce the flange width so they pass through 2FS flangeways with ease and re-set to the 2FS 8.5mm b-t-b. Or replace with 2FS wheels. Neither can be achieved without modification to the bearings, whilst the latter option brings additional issues with it of what diameter muffs can be used and either finding a suitable replacement 15 tooth final drive gear or adapting the current one, either of which also directly affects what size muffs can be used because of the 5mm OD. Taking all this into consideration, and as new couplings rods of the correct size would have to be obtained as well if 2FS wheels were used, and I don't know if they exist, I elected to try the first method since it would cost nothing, (as I have the means to undertake it), and being non-destructive it should be possible to re-set the loco to N standards if it didn't work out.......and if it did, then I could go on from there should I wish. I'll detail the conversion in the next post. Izzy

I acquired a Jinty today. It's currently being run in on my circular test track as per Bachmann's instructions. I'll post shots of the chassis design and construction along with all the relevant measurements as I strip it down, so anybody interested will have a good idea as to what may be possible. Already there are aspects which raise concerns for me. Izzy

I have, for over 30 years, using ply sleepers like David Long, and from my experience it works just as well in 2mm as in the larger scales. Mostly I've used Mek-Pak and never really had an issue as far as I can recall. It would be easily fixed anyway - just use the glue again! The only slight difference is that I have never stained the sleepers. Just blown over the whole track work with poster paints before ballasting, through an airbrush mostly. Probably another case of using whatever bits and technique you feel most comfortable with and find works for you. Izzy

Whether we like it or not time marches on and everything that exits degrades as it does. What was once new and pristine becomes old, tired, and aged, and I think that the best that can be achieved with any layout of whatever age and condition is to try and keep it in a reasonable working condition, replacing, repairing, and upgrading items as and when needed. If it's your own layout in the sense that you originated it then the decisions as to how to do this are purely yours. With 'classic' ones such as BM and Buckingham that have been inherited from their original owners then I would think that attempting to follow the general spirit of their construction and use is all that anyone could be reasonably expected to do. If Frank Dyer or Peter Denny were still here today I am sure they would be not only repairing but replacing items as necessary, using new upgraded ones and new construction techniques as and when appropriate. After all they were great innovators of their time, and a reason why they and their layouts are held in such high esteem and affection. I am sure they would, like myself, feel nothing but the greatest admiration towards those who have willingly taken on the task of keeping their layouts 'alive and working' for the benefit of the rest of us who remember them so well and gave us the inspiration for our own modelling. Izzy

A few shots of my simple point tie-bar and magnet control. These are easily made from bits of K&S wire and tube and slider switches. I used 0.9mm brass wire, with 1/16" tube which it fits as adjusters, for the points. Just solder in place either side of the switch body to control how much actual movement there is if the switch movement is more than is needed. In this particular case my tie-bars use a steel wire dropper (K&S piano wire) that fits in a hole in them, so I just drilled a small hole through the 0.9mm and soldered the wire dropper rigidly in place to provide a sprung action, the wire holding the tie-bar either way under tension. Because the wire dropper is L shaped and can't drop out of the tie-bar the 0.9mm wire is just arranged to slide along up against the underside of the baseboard by the actual position of the solder joint position, which also adjusts the position/tension of the wire dropper. I hope this is clear. It is much simpler to make and set up than it is to describe! If you were using the fiNetrax tie-bar, (which I think is a very good design and overcomes several issues that can be problematic), then extending the 0.9mm wire and running it in some tube fixed to the baseboard to support the end would be needed, as the wire dropper moving the tie-bar wouldn't stay in place in it and the whole lot would just fall out. I hope I've explained that well enough. The magnet uncoupler system uses 1/4" round rare earth magnets - power magnets they are often called - rising/falling in suitable diameter K&S tube. A slot in the tube to allow the control rod, 1/16" tube with 0.9mm wire at the end, to 'push' the magnet up under the track, gravity lets it fall. A Peco steel track pin is used as a retaining pin to stop the magnet and rod falling out of the tube, which the magnet is also attracted and sticks to. The control rod works on the pivot system with some heatshrink on the end for better grip. Hardly any force is needed to push the rod down/the magnet up. It needs to be held there of course while the vehicles being uncoupled pass over it. The tube/magnet design is not mine, but comes from a good 2mmSA friend, who uses servos to raise/lower the magnets. In use it would seem that I need to drop the magnets further away from the track by using longer tube, as some couplings are still affected by the magnets in the current lowered position. As a matter of interest I include a shot of my tie-bar, which may be of use as some clarification of that which I have written above, which is a PCB sleeper turned edge on, a hole drilled in the centre for the wire dropper, and ones at the blade locations for fine soft iron wire wrapped around the top half, to which the blades are soldered. Like the fiNetrax tie-bar the latter bit allows the blades to pivot on the tie-bar as the soft iron wire allows some movement. This is a feature, the blades pivoting, that I deem essential in tie-bars, as it not only reduces stress on the blades and tie-bar, but allows the former to take up a natural position against the stock rail. Finally a shot of the alternative servo design I use on another layout. This is the test bed one. Full servo movement used via, again, the sprung steel piano wire and a fulcrum point, again very crude, just a hole in a piece of pcb sleeper strip. I now use the servos shown. Although more costly than the common Towerpro ones, a much superior action coupled with sounding better. The former have a rough action, and match it by sounding like cement mixers. Izzy

Okay, I'll get some taken and posted as soon as there's some decent light, flipping rain....... No problem at all. I cut mine from the 1/32" ply sheets normally used by aircraft modellers and glued the chairs using Slaters Mek-Pak. It was only experimental for me in respect of the (2mm) size. I did not really expect any issues with the chairs sticking to the ply since I have been building track this way since the early 1980's when Len Newman (C&L) first produced his plastic chairs and gave me some of the initial test mould chairs to play with. In other scales it is now an accepted method of construction and if you look on the hand-built track forum and the track/signalling one you'll find quite a bit of info. It's all applicable, only the scale differs, and that the 2mm chairs are less detailed, no bolt detail or 'special' chairs. Hardly an issue in 2mm and makes life easier. No issues with the number of bolts (2/3/4) or the 'handing' of the chair keys for example. I don't see any advantage in using pegged chairs, quite the reverse, it would make setting the correct chair site and adjusting it where necessary almost impossible. I would not use or recommend this method. Too much effort and open to hole location errors for hand built points. Track needs building using gauges for best results. Chairs simply glued to wood sleepers mean that a scalpel blade can be slid between them to break the joint and re-position when needed. However, I have not had a chair come adrift from a sleeper unless this method is used as the glue means the chair base 'keys' into the grain of the sleeper. I know fiNetrax points use the peg & hole method, and the reasons why, to provide easier construction without the need for gauges, but they also use much looser standards than the 2FS that I use, and so there is a greater measure of leeway. Izzy

Could I suggest that an anglepoise lamp is a pretty essential piece of equipment to do work like this. With my eyesight not being as good as it used to be, and having worn glasses for a few years, I find I need one to do most detail/construction work in 2mm. The lamp I would recommend is that sold by Argos. They have a better/lower magnification level than many others, that allows you to see what you are doing at a range of different distances, and also wield tools under the lamp to do the work, such as a soldering iron etc. High magnification lamps seem good, but have to be so close to the work that you can see it in magnificent detail, but can't actually find the space/room under them to do anything. Threading the chairs in 2mm is okay, and like in larger scales benefits from some slight chamfering of the foot of the rail. I have found it best to separate them from the sprue, lay them on the cutting mat, hold the points of some tweezers behind the rear face, and then push the rail in. Easier than trying to hold the chair in your fingers and push it on. I also of course push the chairs along with the tweezers. I believe Wayne's points using a moving sleeper/tie-bar that has a centre hole ready to accept the wire actuators from the likes of Tortoise/Cobalt motors. The design looks strong enough to absorb the 'wallop' from using Peco/Seep solenoids but as you need something that will hold the point blades in the correct position, (preferably under a little bit of tension), those that do are preferable to these. The problem with the Tortoise/Cobalt's is their size. Not really a huge problem in the larger scales, but can be in 2mm, and especially with points in close proximity to one another. Servo's are a good alternative if you are comfortable with playing about with the electrics needed, and some commercial offerings seem rather expensive. I use them with a simple setup of a sprung wire actuator in a similar fashion to the Tortoise/Cobalt, with MERG servo boards for control. I can post a few shots if it would help anyone. My latest little layout made from some leftovers/odds/track experiments (easitrac chairs on ply sleepers), uses simple mechanical actuation of both points and uncoupling magnets just using some wire/tube and DPDT slider switches, which many have used. This is a cheap/easy/flexible method. Again I can post some shots if it would be of assistance. Izzy

Running out of things to say. Please take pity and keep feeding my addiction........... Izzy

For what you require, although it's not perhaps ideal, radii down to 11" can be used. I have a crude test (torture) track using easitrac slapped down on some 4x2 hardboard with radius down to this, and most stock except steam runs just fine. Just recently at my local group meeting a fellow members newly converted Farish Warship, Dapol Hymek and Farish CL14 were quite happily buzzing around on it. I have had no issues with any stock to date, diesels or DMU's, coaches/wagons. Even a 2mmSA long wheelbase CCT is okay (which surprised me). My main layout also has radius down to 12" in the hidden/non-scenic areas, and as long as you use suitably set couplings such as DG's, which will prevent buffer locking, it all seems possible. I would however suggest that since there is the danger of gauge narrowing occuring with easitrac set to too tight a radius, that soldered track is used for these radii with gauge widening (achieved with the 3-point gauge). Having to use radii like this isn't ideal, but when push comes to shove it's better than nothing....... which is why my two layouts built so far also have some curved points with 15"/20" radius........ Izzy

I wasn't just thinking of this as a method for hand making them, but rather that it makes machining the parts easy on a lathe with simple/limited tooling, the size of which then ceases to be a factor. Izzy

For me, a large amount of the pleasure I get from modelling is seeing things grow and develop as I go along, and the knowledge that it's my own work. Viewing the last shots you have posted I would guess you must be very pleased with what you have done. I know I would! The problem is, it encourages you to go on, do more, yet at the same time the knowledge is that what you have to do is finite, so you don't want to rush it, but savour the pleasure. The benefit here however, is your willingness to share your layout with others extends this pleasure to all those who view the shots of it, and I would thank you for doing so. Izzy

Do I take it that the mention of bearing slop infers that the bearings are a loose fit in the chassis slots rather than that the Farish wheels are a loose fit in the bearings? Izzy

I would endorse all that has been said. For a product that should be just a simple push fit into a socket, the general and normal lack of easy identification and verification of the correct orientation is quite common with all makes of 6-pin chip. To answer your specific query here are a couple of shots of the Bachmann 6-pin with the no.1 pin having a white dot. They should all have this as identification, but usually don't. You will see that the 'top' of the socket is higher up this way around. Hope this helps. Izzy

Although it might be optical illusion I also think the axle centres errors are proportional to the splasher spacings. Personally I wouldn't want to try cutting/shutting the footplate to suit. Cuts/joints like this always seem to show, no matter what you do to try and hide them. If you use double thickness coupling rod etches then you can fairly easily cut/shut these to match the axle centres, especially if you start off with longer than needed dimensions. Izzy