Dave at Honley Tank

Thanks for your input David. Yes I found Giant Cod and others recommended them too. However mates at MMRS had used the Steve Web outfit and that influenced my choice. As I said they came next day.

Oh heck! Since posting my last comment I searched on "Servo motors", and the subject has been under discussion since January at "Servos use as point motors",in "Electrics non dcc". It's all a bit techie though and it seems to have developed into a clash of personallities wanting to air there technical bumff rather than supply a non-techie answer for us who just want to get on with some modelling. Dave

Thanks for the interest 'Penlan' and 'Donw'. I'm quite sure that we three are far from pioneering the use of servos as applied to smaller gauge layouts and we should perhaps transfer this discussion to one of the forums and thus raise a greater audience than on any personal blog. Trouble is my understanding of how things work on RMweb is some what lacking. How do we link a forum to a blog or do we need to start from scratch and write all the above in a new forum? I am certain that there are bods (or bodesses) out there who can give us tips to help us over the servo snags that arise. Dave

Some notes about the servos. Lack of experience in whatever area of expertise seems always to introduce problems of gigantic proportions until new experience proves such problems to be non-existent really. This was certainly true of my introduction to these servo thingies! The electronic kits and instructions produced by MERG are so well designed that the part that I had originally been concerned about tackling, - soldering the tiny electronic components, - offered absolutely no problems. Not exactly ‘shake the box assembly’ but not far short. Well done MERG. Unluckily for me, at the time of buying the bits, MERG had no stocks of servomotors. That raises no problem to those who have some knowledge of servomotors and their availability. But for me? Phew! A web search showed up such a myriad of servomotors, with prices and technical specifications of such a diversity as to be mind-boggling. Eventually I worked out that while the things I wanted were indeed servo motors, the type I wanted are more usually called “RC servosâ€, the RC meaning radio controlled. Even then there appears to be two standardised sizes when considering physical size, yet it seems possible to have a physically small one that will provide more torque than one of its larger brethren. All very confusing for a newby! Friends from E4um and Manchester MRS helped me limp through this period of confusion and I eventually purchased five RC servos of two differing makes but of approximately the same physical size and torque. One was from a company called Protech, being their ref.no. B-305, and quoting a torque of “3.5kg/cmâ€, and being 41 x 20 x 36mm, in size. This one had been purchased from MERG and my thoughts were that it must therefore be suitable as a point motor. The other four were by a company called “Zebraâ€; ref.no. ZS-S2113; torque 2.6kg/cm and 40 x 20 x 36.5mm. These had the same fixing centres as the Protech. I paid about £4.50 each for these but if you are prepared to buy on the web from sources in the far-east and on delivery times of about a month, similar servos are readily available at less than a quarter of that. My Protech was purchased from a friend at MMRS, who had it surplus to need and he got it via MERG. The Zebra were purchased from www.steveweb.co.uk who managed next day delivery. For those of you who have even less knowledge than I had about servos I will try a little explanation. Firstly, don't concern yourself about the term "torque", just think of the number quoted as being a comparison figure of how strongly that particular motor will pull the point's tie bar. Secondly, we are all familiar with little electric motors which continuously spin through 360 degrees. Servomotors don’t spin, they simply turn a lever through a small angle. You chose the size of that angle, and the speed of movement by the setting process, which is then held in electronic memory.(whether that memory is in the servo or in the MERG ‘Servo4’ unit I’m not really sure but it is not important here). After that you switch the servo on and it moves the lever, and then when you switch it off, it moves the lever back to its original position. Now is that not what we want from the perfect point motor? YES! It’s just all that electronic gubbins!?!, but no excuse,- MERG have sorted that for you. I did meet up with some problems but they were of little real significance and easily solved: remember a previous post when I referred to that little red button in the top right-hand of the mimic panel? OK I’ll talk about that next time, but mean while if you are interested in this subject then indicate so by 'comments' and ask your questions or correct my errors!

Hello 'Pannier', This one was drawn by computer. I think that I used the "DRAW" feature in MS word, because at the time I drew it I had no drawing program loaded in that computer. Then printed at best quality on mat photo paper or thin card with a cheepo inkjet printer (hppsc1215).. Where holes were needed I drew very small cross-hairs with the finest possible line setting. My computer skills would not allow me to type the labels for the LEDs exactly where I wanted them so those were added by hand after printing. Finally, my wife Margaret who is very much involved in paper crafting and has a machine which will add adhesive to one side of paper or card and which will also laminate paper or card, laminated the trimmed print. This is glued to a ply-wood backing sheet which just shows in the full-frontal picture. The glue used for this was UHU, used as a contact adhesive. I hope that helps but of course you do need a computer with suitable programs and a printer. As you use this computer based forum then you must have those but you are left to get your own wife or laminating machine!!!!!!!! That said, I think that getting a sheet of card or paper laminated is now as easy as getting a photo copy at some local shop but I don't need such a service. Good luck in your endeavors, Dave

Way back in November I referred to my inability to correctly set the double slip without the aid of an illuminated mimic diagram and that I had accordingly decided that the point control must be electrical because my hand operated point units would not readily adapt to driving another limit switch to feed the mimic lamps. My S4 layout, 'Bowton's Yard' uses Tortoise point operators and these offer a simple circuit to light up LEDs to show the point setting. However 'Wheegram Sidings' is a minimal space layout, and there is in sufficient space below baseboard to mount a Tortoise. It proved too, that they would not hide behind the back-scene. I find solenoid point motors to be much too quick acting and also much too aggressive on the turn-out blades, so these too were rejected. For some time I have been intrigued by the use of servo motors as point operators but, although being a retired electrical engineer, my knowledge of electronics in general and servo motors in particular is virtually non-existent. Luckily friends at Manchester MRS and MERG have spent some time on this subject and there is now readily available via MERG, not only servo motors but a kit of electronic bits and pieces for any electronically-challenged person to build up into a printed circuit board that will control up to four servo motors. More complete information can be found at http://www.merg.org.uk. ‘Wheegram’ has only four points, well two points and a double slip actually, but that’s four point operators needed. The MERG kit will drive four servos, so I was faced with making only one pc board and this proved to be much easier than I had anticipated. The down-loads from MERG’s web page were most helpful and easy to follow. The ‘Quad Servo Driver’ pc board needs an electrical supply of either 12V dc or 9V ac to two of its terminals. Four sockets connect one to each servo, a common terminal provides a feed to your point switches and the output from these switches feed into four further terminals on the pc board. You need to provide the point switches, which are simple single pole on/off type. My point switches are mounted below the mimic diagram, (like point levers in a signal cabin!) but are actually double pole, double throw (also known as double pole change-over switches). I wanted the second pole as change-over contacts because these were to switch the LEDs on the mimic. I would advise that triple pole c/o switches are a better bet, using the third pole to switch the turn-outs’ crossing (frog) polarity. In my case the layout had already been wired to industrial quality limit switches to serve that purpose and I did not wish to take time to modify existing wiring. Another MERG kit allows you to build a servo setting box which is used to set the speed and amount of movement of each servo, this data then being retained in the ‘Quad Servo Driver’s memory, so that the setting box is only used once! I was able to borrow a setting box of a fellow Manchester MRS member (thanks Les) but the setting can be done using a PC or laptop and a program down-loadable from the MERG web site. It all turned out to be much easier than I had anticipated. The following pictures show a side view and an over-head view of one of my servo turn-out operators: In the side view can be seen the end of a slider unit made from 'Plastruct' square tubing and it is just possible to make out the spring wire lever which is driven by the servo and which inturn drives the slider. The limit switch can also be seen (with the red and the yellow wires); this is also driven directly from the servo's lever. In the back ground you can see the rear view of the mimic panel and all its wiring. Also showing clearly are the phosphor-bronze clips that both electrically and mechanically connect the train cassettes to the track. The view from above gives a different perspective of the same things. The next two views are of the mimic panel. One shows the layout in its folded-ready-for-transport or storage mode and illustrates how the control or mimic panel is built in as part of the layout structure. The next is an operators view of the panel. The DPDT switches are below the mimic just as would be the levers in a signal cabin. The route setting is shown by a series of illuminated, green LEDs which are switched on or off, along with the servo motor, by the switches (or point levers). Note the colour coding of the two DIN sockets, one feeds the panel with 12v dc for the mimic LEDs and 16vac for the controller or regulator. The second is the socket for the controller. The un-labeled push-button in the top right-hand was an afterthought and will be the subject of a future entry

Three locos are converted for EM and the blog includes some details. The following pictures show the locos posed on my S4 layout 'Birch Vale' with all three grouped on the other S4 layout 'Bowtons Yard'.. I'm currently building two more locos from scratch, a J10 and a Q4 but it will be a while before they can pose on a layout! May put up some progress pics though. But my next entry is more likely to be about the point control and mimic panel for Wheegram Sidings, the layout this blog is supposed to be about.

Nice to hear and see that progress with Delph is being made Dave. I trust that some progress is being made elswhere to? Keep up the good work and keep smiling Dave at Honley

Sorry for these long delays between inputs but modelling time must take precedence over key-board time! I'm underway with two ex GCR locos and their tenders, being identicle 4000gallon Robinson types. These are going to be my first attempt at this new-fangled CSB suspension thingy; at least, my version of it. More perhaps in a few weeks time. But last time here, I was going on a bit about loco conversion to EM gauge so what follows is a run-down of my detailing of a Bachmann J72 and a J50 kit loco comprised of a Kayes white metal kit on an ancient Hornby-Dublo chassis. (Both LNER, or at least BR ex LNER!). Both the J50 and the J72 are some-what ancient models, dating back at least to the 1970s, - days when only top modellers were adding detail, even to RTR ‘toys’! My J72 was a Christmas present from 2009 but I don’t think that Bachmann have changed it since its original ‘Mainline’ (I think!??) days. My J50, as explained earlier, dates even to further back than ‘Mainline’ starting to produce models. In this current era, we expect our RTR model locos to have things like:- brakes on hangers and with pull-rods; fine handrails with suitable knobs; lamp irons; injectors and ejectors; vacuum pipes and steam-heat pipes; etc. etc. etc. For the J72, my workshop notes list the following detail additions that would improve the look of the body: 1. A curly pipe near RH spectacle (what’s it for?) 2. Long pipes below running plate, fixed to valance. (what’s it for?) 3. Fire iron supports. 4. Fire irons, spare lamp, bucket. 5. Lamp irons; four each end. 6. Oil box and associated pipes on tank front. 7. Sand box rodding. 8. Real coal. 9. Vac. Pipes. 10. Fireman (Bachmann provide driver but no fireman!) 11. Steam heat pipes. 12. Change cab number so that Bachy buffers and tank vents are authentic. 13. Some fairly heavy weathering so as to look likes a typical shunter in BR days. The chassis cried out for some additions too:- 1. Cosmetic side frames with lightening holes. 2. Sand pipes. 3. Brake hangers and shoes. 4. Brake draw gear. 5. Couplings replaced with Alex Jackson type. 6. Replacement crank pins (original ones lost in wheel re-profiling). The cosmetic side frames served a second purpose in that they carry all the new brake gear. All the above were eventually carried out and I’m happy that the model will at least compare with the best of RTR today. The J50 only survived to be modified because I was proud of its history. As it stood it was an accurate model of no real locomotive living or dead! The white metal body was a reasonable representation of the ‘part 3’ version of the class but I was not prepared to use time in finding a reliable drawing of the class against which to compare the model’s dimensions. For a start, the old Hornby-Dublo chassis, which had proven to be such a great performer back in the model’s history, was totally incorrect in all but being 0-6-0!!. However not to use the chassis would go totally against my desire to restore this once loved model, while keeping it would go against my obsession with accurately copying the prototype. I decided to re-use the chassis but it would at least have wheels correct for a J50. Checked against photos and calculated dimensions the white metal kit produced a body which was fairly correct as long as you added the suffix “3†to the classification reference; i.e. the model could only realistically represent a J50/3. Reference to my workshop notes shows the following items that received attention:- 1. Correctly sized and positioned handrails and knobs. This proved to be a total removal and hole-filling job; apart from scale knobs requiring smaller fixing holes, the vertical rails at tank front were originally on the tank side, where as they should be on the curved corner at the tank front. Missing originally were the smoke-box door horizontal rail with two knobs and horizontal, knob less rails on the smoke-box sides and also on the cab sides between cab window and the bunker, these being approximately in line with the top coal rail. 2. Change buffers to LNER Group Standard type and make them sprung. 3. Design, make and fit front steps, which are of unusual steel strap construction. 4. Sand boxes! This raised a problem due to the chassis having an incorrect wheelbase. On the real thing they were behind the middle steps which were sited between the leading pair of axles. This led to a quite curvaceous step back-plate that was riveted to the running plate valance. The model’s middle steps were of a more common appearance and fitted very close to the correct position on the body but incorrect in relation to the wheels. So I made what for me is a big concession; - no visible sand-boxes and therefore no sand pipes. 5. Injectors! These are a very prominent piping below the cab and fastened to the cab steps; the model ones are made from a square loop of 0.8mm diameter brass rod onto which was threaded three tiny cylinders punched from three differing thickness of plasticard and cyano’ed in position on the wire. 6. Makers plate! Very prominent at front end of tank sides. Mine were punched (a-la Jim Whitaker) from 0.004†shim brass. 7. A pipe on the left side of the boiler. It looks like an ejector pipe but can’t be because these locos were steam brake only. The model one is 0.35mm brass rod with short lengths of electrical insulation off small flex, as the elbows etc. 8. Fireman’s tools and rack on both tank tops. All fashioned from brass or copper wire on the model 9. Lifting holes in the front frame extensions. 10. Lamp irons. 11. Draw hooks so as to allow use of three-link coupling vehicles. 12. Cylinder oil cups below smoke-box front. 13. The body also needed some sound insulation; - Plastic foam on tank and bunker sides. As for the chassis; well correct diameter and spoke number are available in the Alan Gibson range of driving wheels as also in the range is a universal coupling rod etch that can produce plain or fluted rods. The problem of sand-boxes has been mentioned; I normally have these on the chassis but there are none on this model. Accordingly the detailing list for the chassis is quite simple but the achievement of the detailing not so simple: 1. Brake gear! I have profile-milling masters for brake gear components suitable for most LNER locos and I have easy access to Manchester MRS workshop which includes a profile-milling machine. However when the parts are cut and assembled. how to I fix them to the H-D chassis block which is of that terrible cast material usually called ‘Mazak’? It’s horrible to drill and worse to tap threads, plus it has a nasty tendency towards decay with old age --- problem! 2. Cosmetic side frames! These are needed to help limit side-play of the wider gauge wheel sets but they also helped to answer that last problem; the brake gear is carried on the new main-frames which are lightly glued to the chassis block. 3. Guard irons! There are some on the chassis block but too heavy in section really and not quite in the correct position. However removing them involves working that horrible Mazak stuff; so they were left. Accordingly non were included on the new side-frames. 4. Balance weights for the driving wheels! Easy job of cutting 0.010†plasticard into segments of a suitable diameter circle and MEK as adhesive. 5. Alex Jackson couplings! Must be capable of easy removal when working on a layout using three-link couplings. 6. As mentioned before, a modern-day magnet replaced the old H-D magnet. That’s it then. Two more locos converted to EM standards and hopefully improved along their journey. One is perceived as being a difficult conversion, but with my access to machine tools, proved not to be so bad as thought, although this had to be balanced against my obsession for detail which increased the time to completion considerably. The second was a silly project really; neither the body nor the chassis are suitable for purpose in the modelling world of today. Non the less I can visualise a slight inward smile when the J50 gets a “ nice model that†from any less than discerning modeller in future days, and its modern use will remind me of those days when it was a star performer. In the next few days I'll see if I can persuade these two to pose for photographs and up load them next time.

OOPS! Posted the wrong picture there. That one is just prior to painting with most of the mods. carried out. So here's a few showing the chassis with old motor but new wheels, coupling rods& crank pins, and one showing the bright, new shiny magnet.

Well that's Christmas over and a few bits of old age illness seen off, so perhaps its time to key in a few more words. The third loco for conversion, which I predicted as a "quickie" was a very ancient OO LNER J50, 0-6-0 shunting tank. This was a favourite model in my OO days being one of the best performing models which operated on various OO layouts owned by members or club at Huddersfield RM. I had purchased it second hand because it was beautifully finished in lined apple green and it was LNER, at a time when that railway's locos were hardly recognised by the model railway trade. By today's standard it was a rubbish model!. A white metal body, by Kayes I think (? - may have been Wills!), on a totally incorrect wheelbase, Hornby-Dublo chassis, but it ran like a dream and looked like an angle! No real detail existed; model locos did not need things like brakes, sanders, lamp brackets, injectors, ejectors etc, to be warmly accepted in those now distant days, - I'm going back to the mid-late 1960s here. The builder had however fitted wire handrails, albeit in severely over-scale (by today's standards) handrail knobs, and the paint finish was excellent. It was however totally incorrect. Only one J50 was painted green and lined out and that was number 8891 which had a short bunker with an extended cage-type coal rail unit and was a J50/1 converted from a J51. Some twelve years of design improvement later the "583 Series" was born, and later became J50/3. The white metal kit bears a reasonable resemblance to a J50/3 which became the LNER Group Standard shunting engine, having a long bunker and three, plated-in coal rails. Visually the J50/1 is quite obviously different to a J50/3. So even in those far off years, unable to accept this, to me, quite obvious error, that gorgeous green finish was removed and un-lined black was substituted. The person I purchased the model from, a fellow member of HRM but not the builder, was annoyed with me for what he considered to be desecration of a good model. He was totally unable to accept my reasoning even though the model was no longer his. Remembering this still makes me smile; - funny lot railway modellers! For the EM conversion,my original intention was simply to change the Hornby-Dublo wheels and axles for a set of Gibson wheels with EM tyres and that's what I initially did. But right from the start my obsession with fine, highly correct detail started to interfere and this so called quickie proved to be anything but! However, the old Hornby-Dublo chassis now had a set of Gibson EM wheels with a new set of fluted coupling rods and went off to Wheegram Sidings for a test run. Gosh! It was very noisy, even though the chassis had been well cleaned and lubricated after its 30 to 40 years in storage. Worse even than the noise was the poor speed control and in particular the fact that it would not run slowly and smoothly. Nor did rice pudding skin need to worry about its pulling power. It had been a star performer years ago; what had gone wrong? What had gone wrong was that the motor's magnet had virtually 'died'! This leads to a much higher revving motor with very little torque development. Either I needed to re-magnetize the motor or replace its magnet by a modern magnet or replace the motor with a modern motor. This was supposed to be a quickie job and making a re-magnetiser would take time and offer little use for future. Sending away for re-magnetising would cost more in postage than the job was worth. Re-motoring really meant building a new chassis as the Hornby-Dublo motor was built to fit into the chassis block and mesh with the existing gearing. So a new magnet it would be A trawl of the Internet resulted in a multitude of suppliers of modern magnets of all sizes but in and among all those was SuperNeoMagnets@aol.com and coopertrains@hotmail.co.uk, both of whom seemed to sell magnets which were a direct replacement for various RTR manufacturers motors. Coopertrains answered my e-mail enquiry quickest and charged £11.50. I ordered on receipt of reply. Two days later Superneo replied with a lower price. Serves me right for being over eager! These modern magnets are light-years better than those from early years and are very good at retaining their magnetism as well as being somewhat stronger size for size. The one I purchased took all of five minutes to replace the original H-D magnet and from then the running was once again exemplary. Pity about the price I paid! When I started this conversion I had no intention of doing any detail improvements, but my desire for precision started to interfere and the flat time taken waiting for the new magnet resulted in some reading research mainly based on The RCTS' Locomotives of the LNER 'Green Bible' (Volume 8A for J50 class) and our good friend 'Yeadon's Register'; being volume 46A for this class. I started to compile two lists: Body Modifications and Chassis modifications, and quickly compiled 20 items which would improve the appearance and make this a presentable modern day model. Now the Hornby-Dublo chassis has the wrong wheelbase for any J50, but the white metal body is a reasonable representation of the J50/3. However if I am to resurrect my once much loved J50 and bring it into the twenty first century, I will have to accept some compromise on precision of detail. One such compromise is the driving wheel sandbox. In reality this is a complex shape which causes the middle steps to have a curved back-plate riveted to the front of the running plate valance; an unusual and very visual fact. On the model, because of the wrong wheelbase, it is impossible to put the sandbox behind the steps, which while approximately in the correct position for the body, are in an incorrect position as relating to the wheels. To get this correct needs a new chassis, but I want to retain that old H-D chassis. A compromise! Before I can list my compromises and relate how I achieved some of the changes I will have to consult my notes which are not currently with me so I leave with a picture of the conversion at this stage. HT201A.jpg]

This one made me sit up and realise the importance of chairs to the appearance of track!

My first conversion to EM wheel standards was a Hornby (nee Dapol?) J94, and that must be one of the easiest of conversions to either of the wider gauges. My second was a Bachmann (nee Mainline?) J72, and that must be one of the most difficult! There is some guidance in the EMGS Manual and, certainly at one time, though I'm not sure it's still available, the EMGS sold a kit of bits and pieces to help the conversion.I did not follow that route Now the J72 is one of Bachmann's older models and is still sold with the original design of split-axle chassis, and that is what makes the conversion so difficult. I think the B1, the V2 and the J39 have similar chassis design. Certainly some years ago I decided that the easiest conversion of a J39 to S4 wheel standards was to scrap the Bachmann working parts and scratch-build a new chassis; - split-axle of course. It's now many years ago since my mentors convinced me that my modelling progression would be via split-axle, split-frame chassis construction. You can see therefore why I have an interest in these Bachmann products; - LNER and split-axle! Unfortunately the Bachmann or Mainline chassis design bares little resemblance to scratch-built chassis and I would describe it as 'individual'. However when I took the J72 apart, I picked up on something that I had not done so when converting the J39; the wheel casting includes the section of the axle which runs in the axlebox (or bearing), while the axle proper simply holds its pair of wheels to gauge and does not run in the axle boxes. (See picture). As most of you know, I'm a bit of a nut when it comes to using machine tools to help with my modelling and these wheel castings offered a simply way of chucking in the lathe - on the bearing section of the wheel stub-shaft. This means that it is in fact an easy job to thin the wheel and also to skim a little metal off the wheel flange, both very simple and easy lathe tasks, and as the lathe mounting is on the bearing section of the wheel, then all will be concentric! With no more than a straight pull, the wheel casting will leave the Bachmann insulated axle which is discarded. The stub axle which we use to mount the wheel in the lathe chuck or collet if one is available, is actually open-ended and hides a square protrusion on which the Bachmann split-axle fits. I won't be using these bits of Bachmannism. Before mounting in the lathe, the Bachmann crank pin boss needs to be sawn away. It is then very easy to centre-drill the wheel casting and then drill out in steps to 3.1mm diameter and taper ream from the inside. I do that by hand power, until a 1/8" rod will just enter and no more than "just", or the wheel will be too sloppy on its 1/8" axle. That Bachmann square protrusion for their axle is machined away in all this action. Back in the lathe and face 0.020" off the front of the tyre and about 0.010" off the spoke area and axle boss. This is best done with a freshly sharpened tool and with small cuts, say 2 to 3 thou. Otherwise the spokes may get distorted. Now just touch a 45 degree chamfer on the tyre edge. Again using a sharp tool take 0.002" or so off the flange depth and then with great care use a smooth, round Swiss file to remove any sharp edges on the flange, - remember that word "care" This gave me a wheel/tyre profile very close to that shown as the wheel standard in the EMGS Manual. I made my own split axles but those available from EMGS stores are OK if you wish to purchase them. With the modified wheels mounted and quartered on the split axles the job is then as simple as described for the J94 conversion. No bearings (axleboxes) to worry about, but don't forget to add the rescued Bachmann wormwheel.

My first loco conversion to EM wheel standards was a Hornby J94 0-6-0 shunting tank but it must rate as a most exceptional gauge change! My J94 had previously been converted from its purchased condition of OO to S4 wheel standards & had served well, with a DCC chip on board, on both of my S4 layouts, - 'Birch Vale' and 'Bowtons Yard'. Question: - How many other modellers have converted a P4 model to an EM model, and from digital to analogue, ? Not so many is my bet. However, the choice of using the S4 J94 (sorry! in earlier submission I had written "J39" here) was the knowledge that it is such an easy conversion. Remove the keeper plate and coupling rods and then drop out the complete wheel set. Rescue the wormwheel from the middle axle for re-use on Gibson replacement wheel and axle kit, having been sure to order the correct axle diameter kit. I point blank refuse to tell you who ordered the wrong kit, but I'm very happy to add that Colin Seymour- (Alan Gibson No.2) was totally unfazed when a change was requested. Loctite the wormwheel in position on one axle, check before the Loctite cures, that things are OK, because the wormwheel does not sit on the axle centre line. Happy? OK now add the wheels and quarter them. Drop the new axles in place and return the keeper plate but check that the Hornby pick-ups are adjusted for the new gauge. This next bit is the hardest part. The crank pin holes in the Hornby coupling rods are way too large a diameter for the normal Gibson crank pins. I turned up a set of bushes (well no I didn't, I'd already done 'em for the S4 conversion), but I think Colin can supply some if you are not a lathe nutcase. That's it; job done. No. 68063 is a beautifully smooth runner on the new EM layout which has now been officially named 'Wheegram Sidings'. Apply the little grey cells to "Wheegram" - "Whee", as in wee meaning small; and "gram", a unit of weight, - and I consider Wheegram an apt name for a layout that has been designed around a desire to construct an exhibition layout that can be carried by a decrepit old modeller without strain. Oh! before I sign-off. I see that in para. four above I have said simply -"... quarter them". Sorry, I do realise that many modellers are afraid of this wheel quartering necessity but honestly it is not so difficult nor demanding of precision as many seem to think. My method is to use a very fine tipped, permanent ink pen, to place a thin line on the wheel tyre and coned section, immediately above the spoke in-line with the crank pin, or the first spoke clockwise from the crank pin if we have a 'crank between spoke' wheel. Do this for half of the driving wheels but for the other half, draw the line on the tyre above a spoke, (count them!) which is approximately 90 degrees clockwise from the crank pin spoke used before. Loctite one wheel on each axle and allow to cure. Now add the other wheel to each axle but ensure that your penned lines line up with each other for each pair of wheels. Honestly, that level of precision is quite acceptable. Obviously you should work as accurately as you are able, the lines should be kept as thin as possible and they should be, as best you can manage, on the centre-line of the chosen spokes.But it is just as simple as that. My next conversion was from a new, RTR J72 but it was a much more model engineering job than the first. I'll tell you about that one in a few days time.

Gosh! six months have flashed by since I last made an entry here. Partly this is due to a serious attempt to cut back on time at the key-board in favour of time in the workshop but partly too to becoming very involved in other things not of importance here. OK then, what's been happening at 'The Tank'? In the entry 7thMay, there were two pics. showing that the track was down. On the left-hand side of the first pic can be seen the home made, hand-operated point levers with a standard 'V3' limit switch to switch the polarity of the crossing (frog if you prefer ). These were to prove to be unacceptable;- not because they were unreliable but as I progressed to running trains I kept setting the double slip incorrectly, ending up in the wrong siding or, worse still in the fourfoot! I have a double slip on one of my S4 shunting planks but that layout has an illuminated mimic track diagram which clearly shows the route you have set. Accordingly I decided that this EM layout should also have an illuminated mimic and the fitted point levers were unable to cope with that. More about those later but in the next entry I'll talk about the conversion of locos and stock; not sure when but I'll find time-honest!

Rest over so back to the track laying. Plain track is C&L flexitrack purchased via EMGS stores and once the P&C work was completed the whole layout quickly got its ballasted track down and fixed. First viewed from the hidden siding area and then from the opposite end Track at the ends of baseboards is rather vulnerable to damage and to strengthen things up a bit at such places I pin and glue copper laminate sleepers and aim for solid, soldering of rail to these: So now all the tracks down and ballasted it remains to add point operators of some description and make a start on wiring. That's for next time.

We have the baseboards but what about track? The first pic shows my original track plan in sketch form but I wanted this layout 'Templotted'. My good friend and fellow Manchester MRS member Les Fram is far more Templot literate than I, and kindly offered to convert my sketch and " nothing tighter than 4' radius or B6 turn-outs" to a scale drawing. Thanks Les, a great job with the final result, albeit in sketch form is at pic2. I have been building track since about 1964 in TT then in OO, followed by P4 and then S4 so the fact that my first EM track making was to produce a B6 turn-out running into a double slip was not quite so daunting as it may sound. Picture 3 shows this under construction; the template on which this was built was a photo-copy taken from that part of the scale Templot drawing. The P4 template in that pic was there to help me with gaps and electrical circuits and the other back-ground sheet is about the best order in which to assemble a slip. This computing lark, especially this program, is some what taxing of my abilities and I'm off now to rest the little grey cells. More in a day or so.

Thank you for your kind comments Arthur. By joining Manchester MRS I have had mentors of the highest quality, modellers who have always been only too willing to pass on thier experiences. I do my very best to carry on that tradition. Dave

Well the pictures are there but probably need some explanation, so, from the top: Picture 1 The green bit is the hinged extension designed to hold the two boards together when in the folded position. The machine screws fasten into pronged 'T' nuts fixed into the board end. There is a step in levels shown here to. That's the start of the hidden sidings which are cassettes. More about those later. Picture 2 The hinged extension folded down to running position and extending the length of the hidden siding. Picture 3 Showing the Paste-board hinges and the means of clamping the two baseboards tightly together. Picture 4 The whole lot folded for transport. I included the 12" steel rule to give an idea of sizes. Picture 5 Showing the step in levels. The step depth is equal to the thickness of the trackbed on the cassettes. When I add to this blog next time, I'll include shots of the track developing.

]I promised some pictures and then only up-loaded one; sorry! Here's a few more: I'm not too sure of what I'm doing here. I think I've attached the pictures so I'm going to press "Publish" and hope I've done it all correctly.

The need was for super-light weight & to fit the boot of my small family car (Diatsu Sirion). With various off-cuts of MDF and plywood I came up with the estimate that a 'coffin' 3' x 1' x 1' would nicely slide into the boot. Thus was the size of the layout fixed Next was the basic construction. "Super-lightweight" really ruled out the good old 2" x 1" and chipboard but I ruled those out many years ago. 3mm ply with 1" x 1/2" PAR built up in box girder was also likely to be too heavy; tried that in the past to. What about all that 4mm foam board I had cadged from the local super market - there was still sheets of the stuff? Certainly light but to give firmness and anti-twist it would need some sort of egg box construction. Probably too complicated. What about expanded polystyrene, - my caravan was built with a sandwich of foam between ply on the inside and aluminium on the outside, a very strong, anti-twist construction. With the practical experience of heat-insulating ' Honley Tank' & the rest of the garage/railway room using what I thought was expanded polystyrene, this material had been in my mind as possible baseboard material for some good few years. Then low and behold two articles about the stuff in MRJ. With those read and absorbed and some www. searching I came up with the knowledge that the material was actually extruded polystyrene not "expanded", that it was available in many thicknesses and sheet sizes, and that it was not so cheap as I had thought A visit to our local DIY store (the one with a B and a Q in its name proved that they sold individual sheets 1 metre long by 1/2 metre wide and 50mm thick. One sheet weighed only a little more than nothing and because it is intended as heat insulation, the price is subsidised. OK!the basis of the boards would be extruded polystyrene but the ends and sides would need some protection because this is fairly crumbly stuff. MDF suggested itself for the ends- mainly because I have loads of off-cuts in stock. Also the 10mm thick stuff would allow for sinking in of pattern makers dowels to ensure that the two boards would always re-align correctly and two bits each about 70mm x 300mm would add little to overall weight. Also in plentiful stock was 4mm ply; so the protective sides became 1000mm x 70mm x 4mm, again not much additional weight. With four pieces of pine cut to 150 x 28 x 21, and a pair of 'pasteboard' hinges I had two baseboards nicely hinged together measuring 1000 x 300 x 300 when folded and 2000 x 300 x 150 when unfolded. There was need to hold the folded pair in the 'coffin' shape for travelling or storage and this became a further hinged extension made from strip timber and some of the ex-supermarket foam board. The usable baseboard length then became about 2250mm or 2&1/4 metres if you prefer

"Honley Tank" is my workshop and it gets its name from the old Great Central locomotive works at Gorton in Manchester because my hobby is building models of steam locomotives which have a close connection with Gorton Tank and/or Gorton Engine Sheds which were adjacent to 'The Tank'. Well OK my hobby is not solely building locos but that is where I derive my greatest enjoyment and satisfaction. However I'm no great believer in pretty models which stand around in glass cases or museums; my locos must work and must run slowly and smoothly. This means that I need a layout to run them on. I've been modelling since the nineteen fifties, first in OO, then TT, but virtually from its beginning, in 18.83 gauge. I joined the Scalefour Society just a few weeks after inception but have just resigned. From the above you will have gathered that I don't qualify as a young modeller, indeed the ever advancing years and their effect have recently caused me to do some deep thinking and this has caused what is perhaps a change in direction that has amazed some of my modelling friends; - I've just started into building a new exhibition layout which will be in EM gauge and which has to incorporate super light-weight,fold up baseboards which can be bundled into the boot of my small car and which can be up and running in minutes rather than hours. This blog is where I will publish the progress of this new venture both in layout building and in loco and stock production. Am I the first person to convert a RTR loco to S4 wheel standards and then convert it again, but to standards of the EMGS? Weird or what? Next time a few pics.