Izzy

In 2024 the Windows mail client is being replaced by Outlook. I keep getting notification about it but am not sure what it actually means, the implications. I already run Libre Office and Firefox and think that I will probably have to use Thunderbird again, which I didn’t bother to install when I found the W10/11 mail program existed.

Thanks Jerry, I’m always glad my posts are of use to others. Yes, I will likewise be interested to see what difference, if any, is noticeable between just the one 470uf and a larger figure. Seeing as it’s just motor/decoder drain, no sound or lights, it might be quite enough. A bigger issue sometimes is in finding the room for the other parts I have discovered. I was lucky here in that I just rode on the coat tails of Nick Mitchell when he first posted about things in the coal tank thread and very kindly provided eBay links to the needed bits for home brews. I’m not really sure many of my installs would have been possible any other way. I had enough of these bits to have seen me through until recently when finding more has proved more difficult. But like you I do find all the effort really worth while. I didn’t need much convincing after seeing Nigel Cliffe’s tiny 02 crawling around one of my layouts without a care in the world but lacked the nerve until Nick’s posting. It is challenging, but then so is 2mm/2FS to many so we’re mostly there! The only locos I haven’t fitted are my bogie diesels. Not the home brew 15/16 nor the Farish 20/24/31. Their weight seems to offset the need which is handy as there isn’t really the room without major re-working with any of them. Bob

Okay, since posting the shots I was increasingly unhappy with the smokebox door handles. So I have just re-done them using 0.3mm rod. Squeezed the ends the same and managed to drill 0.3mm. Although the lighting levels have changed I think they are a marked improvement. It's often surprising what small size changes can make appearance wise in this scale. Bob

Now that all the turning has been done and the lathe put away I've made up the first smokebox door, for the J69/1. Thin strips of shim brass plus 0.3mm rod for the hinge strapping. It looked a bit better once cleaned up The handles were 0.5 rod squashed on the ends to drill 0.3mm to hang on the 0.5mm rod pushed into the middle thinned to 0.3mm to take them. The handles were thinned down after drilling but I'm not sure I took them down far enough, they still look a bit fat even before a layer of paint is added. It's appears to look okay tested on the loco. I also turned some cab windows. These are 3.2mm stock bored 2.5mm and 0.5mm thick. The fronts are just push fitted at present. I'm kind of hoping I can file some 'glass' of some description to fit inside. Mostly I use acrylic sheet salvaged from packaging. Some thin - 2mm - 470uf tantalums have also arrived. These are about the same footprint as the MX615 so I'm hoping to fit one on the floor with the decoder. A base plate of single sided pcb has been added to the chassis for them to sit on. This is the same basic arrangement as I made with the N7. It's going to be a tight squeeze. In connection with this I have made and fitted the cab doors along with the beading and handrails to get an idea how it could go without being obvious. I don't think using two will work as it will bring it all too high so 470uf will have to do. Obviously it will look different once all the surplus wires are off completely and the rest trimmed to fit. Enough room though for the 16v Zenner diode and other diode and resistor although working out how to fit and run all the wiring circuits, the best and easiest routes, has yet to be finalised - as with so much else! Bob

Yes. But you must program each one individually, set its new address, otherwise they’ll all be the same ……. I.e. just one loco on the track/program track at a time if they have the same address you want to change to different ones. As said the only stock that is normally given the same address is multiple units so they act together, so 2-car DMU’s upwards. Yes. The system will automatically recognise whether it’s a short or long address and set the rest to suit, all you have to do is put in the number you want. Just for clarity and because this concerns computer bits and bytes, a ‘short’ one byte address is 1-128, while ‘long’ is 128-9,999 Bob

I use foamboard for my layouts. But either in multiple layers, or coated both sides with mountboard. On its own a single layer of 5mm foamboard is liable to depress/crease under the slightest pressure and won’t recover. Two layers are much better. A single layer used to produce a lightweight layout cover is fine though. I also cover the entire top layer in cork. I currently have 4 such layouts in use, all around 60” x 10-12” + fiddles (one or both ends). Bob

You whistled? This morning I did the whistles. Generally whistles vary in size from about 2 1/2" in diameter up to around 4". The latter are the standard LMS designs. Many are very similar in looks. As 4" is just under 0.7mm in 2mm I use hard brass rod of that size which then allows a bit of wriggle room. A few too many strokes of a needle file will soon reduce the size below that required and taking metal off is easier than trying to put it on........ I use a long length of rod so I can revolve it in my hand while filing and start off just forming the top. Then use a sharp scalpel to make a 'cut' where the bell finishes and also make one for drilling a 0.3mm cross hole. This is perhaps the hardest part to do. Where the hole is to be I file a flat to allow a scriber to indent a starting point. This size of drill snaps all too easily so slow and careful work is needed. It can take 5-8mins or more. When you consider it's the equivalent to hand drilling 1/2" thick brass with a 1/4" drill it's not really surprising. Next some 9thou steel guitar wire is soldered in and then the rest of the shaping can be accomplished. I used a flat pointed and knife edge for this. Just a few strokes can round off the square edges and reduce the lower portion as it's rotated. I compare with a drawing but mostly rely on what looks right to my eye. The finish isn't marvelous at high magnification but looks okay with ordinary viewing. As you can see there is some variation between those I made this morning. In the normal course of events I'd only make one at a time so doing three one after the other while my 'eye' was in was interesting. One is deliberately slightly smaller than the others because this is for the L1 and which seems to be shorter. However when one considers the sizes involved I feel that they are decent enough to pass muster whatever differences might exist. Hope this is of use and interest. Bob

Thanks Jerry. Very slowly by hand is the answer I have settled on. That way I can just about stop them disappearing! Mind you no two quite end up the same……. I’ll take a shot or two. Bob

The chimneys and domes have now been made. The blanks were drilled 1.5mm for mounting on a short length of steel, soldered on, 1.5mm axle steel actually, brass rod not being resistant enough to side forces of the kind generated by the tooling pressure. Even so very light cuts are needed. The tool used is on the other end of the tiny parting off one, just shaped slightly differently to rough out curved corners. The tool is 1/4" HSS originally ground for larger profiles and used because it was spare and already ground down quite a bit. 1/8" round HSS would be easier to grind to size if starting with blank tooling, I've got plenty of both sizes, many ground as needed for particular jobs and re-used as required. In addition to the tool needle files were used to shape them. I have gravers but find general needle files easy to use. I'm a crude machine worker most of the time. A mix of being mostly self taught along with advice by my late Father-in-law, an engineer and toolmaker of high regard, who encouraged all his staff to engage in hand work whenever possible to retain and hone basic skills. (He finished his working life as the works director of one of Britains few remaining Lloyds No1 registered boilermakers). The bases were hand finished using round files. For the domes flat files shaped the basic outside curvature. They seem to be acceptable to me, I think I've got the basic shapes right. On the left are the N7 rejects. Then Chimney and dome for the L1 and those for the J15 and J69. Now it's on to little bits like brake standard, water filler etc. Whistles will be hand done as they are just too small, 0.5mm at best. I've tried in the lathe, but given up. Bob

2FS v Peco. Is that really a choice? As this is being discussed in the 2mm section I think perhaps obtaining the new edition of the 2mm association book Track might be suggested. Although primarily aimed at those working in 2FS it's got admirers across the scales for the information it contains which is applicable whatever scale/gauge you may choose to use. You don't need to be a member to buy it. Available at: 2mm.org.uk Bob

I’ve enjoyed my couple of visits to Tintern over the years, a nice place to visit. The station would make a nice model, but I’m just wondering why there was felt the need to have three platform faces as you might for a small junction station. Perhaps for the tourist specials they apparently ran which stayed in it, hence the trapping at both ends re the SRS plan. Bob

I think the aspect of track distance might have relevance for 2mm association members who use the British Finescale 2FS turnouts now in shop 1 as might other constructional areas concerning them. The simple answer is that RTL individual turnouts are made to a certain length past the crossing because they could be used for many situations. The same is true of any RTL pointwork in any scale. Okay the BF pointwork isn’t exactly RTL but the basic principle is the same. So for crossings using the minimum line spacing distance of 11’2” then adjusting/trimming them to suit is required as would using diamonds, slips etc. Exactly as you would if hand building track using individual templates where you would trim them to fit what was needed. Templot allows the setting of distance at any chosen spacing because it can vary greatly depending on needs and circumstance, 15’2” between sidings or pairs of running lines and so forth. Such as Anyrail is based upon snap together templates of RTL so distance cannot be adjusted. Bob

With the lathe finally out I've been getting on with all the work that has built up. Bits for three steam locos. I started off with the smokebox doors in two sizes. The hole in the middle is 0.5mm for the handles. Strapping, hinges etc. all to be added after of course. Then the Ross Pop valves. The tool is like a miniature parting off and also 0.5mm wide. Needing 6 I made a dozen to allow for them pinging off into the ether at some stage. Today has been spent fly cutting the bases for the chimneys and domes. Recently I obtained this vertical slide to help with this. Previously I bodged up a way of clamping the work onto the cross slide but it wasn't easily adjustable. I know some just file the bases but I found that really hard work and I couldn't get them satisfactory no matter how I tried. Just lacking the skill I guess. Next job will be to shape them. With the N7 I made three chimneys and two domes before getting ones I was happy with. I haven't cut any spare blanks so I'm going to have to get them right first time. That should be fun........ Bob

Thanks Tom, pleased you found the class 16 interesting. With regard to altering track N standards might I say that altering the checkrail won’t achieve anything useful. It’s just there to stop the wheel flange from riding up the crossing/frog nose. It’s closing that gap where the benefit occurs. I have read some working in N use 0.85mm flangeways with the standard 7.4mm btb and the NMRA RP profile wheels (what most wheels conform to these days - except 2FS of course). I’ve no idea how well this pans out in reducing the wheel bumping. But altering the wing rails of Peco points seems an awful lot of work to do this if indeed it’s possible without wrecking the point in the process. Different matter if your hand building the track. ISTR some asked for the British Finescale N gauge to use this flangeway measurement when they were originally being developed but the majority called for standard N dimensions which is what arrived. Bob

It is possible to get 2FS wheelsets to run on N by using a btb of 7.9mm. But the passage through pointwork crossings isn’t pretty and I personally wouldn’t want to do it. Bob

Welcome to the present day world of N where while the general standard of rolling stock is leaps and bounds above the past the wheel and track standards are just the same. Yes, the wheels look better, finer, but the actual core standards are the same due to the desire to make it railable fairly easily and negotiate tight radius curves. You are in the place many have stood with a desire to have better quality running without too much hassle, the no-man’s land between standard N and 2FS. Until recent times there wasn’t British Finescale, but this in itself only really deals with looks rather than track or wheel standards. What you need is 2FS. Here is a short video of my Hunslet 05 going through a crossover comprising of an A6 and single slip. It’s about the same size as a 03/04. Is it harder work than N? It can be, but not necessarily. And nothing is harder than buying stuff that proves disappointing. There’s drop-in wheels for most Farish diesels, something similar coming for Dapol I understand, while British Finescale points for 2FS (including single/double slips and diamonds) are available. Bob

I'm lucky in that my workbench is in a spare room, an old metal portable computer station on casters. What I find particularly useful is with my little lathe. As I indulge in small work for 2mm it's very helpful for seeing quite small items without needing to get close. Here's a couple of shots showing the difference. The second is from a few feet away from the chuck. The closer you get to the magnifying lens the larger of course. The adjustable distance is huge, both where the lens is placed and how close you get to it. But I hope it gives and idea of what's possible. Wearing ordinary glasses with some level of magnification adds to the possibilities available. Bob

I've had one of these for a good few years now. Very versatile to use on my workbench. Plenty of room to work underneath it and saves having to wear something over my varifocals. The 1.75X is just about right I find while the two lighting levels is handy. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Daylight-Company-Lamp-Metal-White/dp/B01LX3PEMI Bob

A class 16 pt 7 With the kind assistance of my ever helpful wife the Sieg baby lathe is now on the workbench so the buffers have been made and fitted. Producing oval heads is a question of turning large round heads and then filing them to final shape for me. But this means much larger stock needs using than for the rest of the body. That square bases were also needed just added to the fun. Originally when it came to the buffers I thought that perhaps I could get away with using the association LMS buffers with square bases and 18” heads to save me work but the heads proved too small. I know it probably seems daft to some but the 3”/0.5mm head size difference does show as the width of the oval ones was around 21”. Then I found some oval retractable coach buffers I had from BHE with the right size heads. With quite thin shanks that could be filed down to just 0.8mm I got the idea to machine off the LMS buffer heads, drill the bodies 0.8mm, and fit the oval heads. Result. Once fitted I did think that perhaps I’d got the measurements wrong as they look rather long but compared with the drawing and photos it turns out they weren’t. Combined with the short bogie wheelbase this probably explains why oval heads were needed. So just painting in the spring now. In common with the class 15 it will be in the original condition plain green without any yellow panels or ends. Bob

It was because of the split axle current collection that I suggested stay-alive as the best long term solution. Been there, had the problems irrespective of motor size or decoder make…… Bob

The basic Zimo cv settings for coreless are cv9 - 51 & cv56 to 133 rather than 155. Not sure if the latter will make much difference though. I totally agree with your comment of pathetically small re the motors size. I use this size of coreless motor in 2mm 2FS (7x16) but it’s just plain silly IMHO to expect them to be able to cope with a 4mm one. Wickham trolley perhaps but not anything else. Given the use of a Zimo with its superior motor control - you won’t find anything better - I’d suggest adding stay-alive will be the answer. Any capacitors may be on the pcb so unless you ditch it and hardwire in a decoder you’re stuck with them. Doing this would probably give the room to install a decoder plus small stay-alive pack in the space in the smokebox though. Nip & tuck but doable. Bob

Thanks Nick, that looks a good find. I have looked at the single 470uF tantalums around from such as Youchoos as a one off job. The amount of storage capacity you need for that far exceeds the space available, many thousands of uF. I generally use between 660-880uF and this is just enough to get a loco over a spec of dirt, a fraction of a second, a wheel spoke movement on average at slow speed. Just enough to avoid stutter or loss of movement. I wouldn't actually want the kind of run-on some wish to have as dead crossings/frogs don't feature on 2FS trackwork thankfully and the thought of large amounts of electrical capacitance that need discharge would worry me. Bob

The J69/1 chassis has been finished and the basic bodywork made. At this stage I would guess most DC users thoughts would turn to where as much weight could be added to aid traction and current collection, in the bunker, smokebox, and side tanks. As a DCC user this aspect is made much more difficult with the need to find space for a decoder and stay-alive pack. To try and get an idea of how much was needed I weighed the loco as it stood, the chassis and the brass body bits, and it came out at 14gms. By comparision my Hunslet 05 and Farish 03/4's were about 32gms each, so around 20gms extra was required to get decent haulage, well match them at least. Not wishing to loose space for weight anywhere else it seems trying to squeeze them into the bottom of the cab below door height is what I'm going for. So they aren't too visible. That small enough decoders are available to attempt this is handy. Without the Zimo MX615's I'm not sure what I would do. A three pack of 16v 220uF tantalums is the maximum I can fit anywhere. Better than nothing. I'm being a bit picky here, in wanting my cake and eating it, as I'm trying to workout how they can be added to the chassis without the body being fitted. That it will just fit over with perhaps a false cab interior sitting on top with crew. The cab roof will as usual be a push fit so this can be fitted/removed as necessary (with a slab of lead underneath it). We'll see. Bob

Oh yes John, it can be a bit of a minefield even if you do your homework…. Actually it’s a toss up between the penultimate Buck, the S56 (J69/1) or the final C72 (J68) version. For various reasons it will probably be the former. Bob