Dave at Honley Tank

Hi Dave, " Obviously, you're a tidier modeller than I am!" If you went in the workshop right now you would not say that!; I can barely move. However I do tend towards returning tools, stock, materials etc to their normal storage places. If I don't I won't find 'em next visit!! Brass wheels: It's about twenty years or more since I made the first set and those were left plain brass at the tyre. I can't say that I notice the colour of the tyres when running and I don't remember any averse comments from others. Since those early days, most have been nickel plated which gives a closer impresion of steel; this may also improve electrical pick-up, but it is not a pleasant process; nasty chemicals and fumes - would only do it outside!.'Shan't do it for the Lima. For my own thoughts, diesel wheels are so small and fairly well hidden inside a bogie, the chance of noticing the trye colour is virtually negligable. Certainly I have dificulty getting all wheels on the track 'coss I can't see 'em! We went through real (Delf-- Oops!) Delph last week - how's the model going? Dave

Hello again, Some juggling of domestic duties has led to my being able to find a regular weekly time spot for the workshop. Its a three hour break but, for useful modelling time it works out at perhaps 21/2 hours - remembering where you were when you finished last week, and tidying the bench at closure pinches valuable time. However, recently both the Boley lathe and the Myford have had their bearings warmed up! I have been in wheel-turning mode in the last few sessions, The Lima wheels of the Class101/2 DMU are all brass and, after a good dose of looking at, I decided that they could be skimmed to S4 thickness and I could then re-profile the tyres to Manchester (i,e. Sid Stubbs) profile. The un-insulated wheels are a good, firm fit on the knurled Lima axles and these I was able to skim while still on their original axle. However the profile tool involves forces above those that this method of holding could withstand and I was forced to make a special holding tool for this part of the whole process. After all the experimentation I ended up using the Boley and its step chuck to hold the wheel on its tyre for the skimming to <2mm thickness, and then to the Myford with the new holding tool for re-profiling the wheel flange. By now, I had discovered that the Lima wheel diameter was about 1mm less than the Gibson wagon wheels that I had intended to use as the insulated wheel - ( Lima use the 'American' system of pick-up on this model). This meant that I had to modify the insulted wheels too - i.e. twice as many wheels to machine than I originally thought! I've taken a few pictures along the way but as yet I've only processed these into my computer files, so perhaps a few more next time -: Here is the chucked wheel-holding tool. The orange marks indicate the section which should be under number 1 jaw of my three-jaw chuck. The clamping nut is made from the same MS rod as the main body and has flats at one end to suit a 2BA spanner. The screwed section is 8BA, mainly because 2.5 mm diameter will nicely accept an 8BA die and the wheel is made a tight, slide fit on plain 2.5mm silver steel. In short the tool is only two bits of 1/2" MS rod, both drilled through 2.5mm and tapped 8BA at their outer ends, the clamping nut having its inner-end inside diameter opened to 3mm for about 5mm. The threaded rod is 2.5mm silver steel, screwed and 'Loctited' into the main body. Sorry; could not get this without flash, which has produced a poor pic. It's supposed to show the wheel fitted with a tufnol bush which has just been drilled through on centre. The length that this bush protrudes on the wheel's inner side is later to be faced down to a length (0.080" if memory serves!) which minimises side-play of the axle so as not to allow the gears to un-mesh. a completed axle ready to slot into the Lima motorised bogie. And here it sits in the bogie ready meshed with the bogie's gearing system. That's all for now; TTFN Good modelling to you, Dave

Hello everybody. Sorry I've not visited here for a few weeks but family commitments are very much limiting my modelling time and that's likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Its difficult to find time for the workshop and I'm probably averaging less than two hours a week, compared to more like twenty hours in past times. The current project is S4ing a Dapol Class 101/2 - (any one got suitable numbers for a Manchester based set, suitable for the Hayfield line?). It's caused me some problems, at least one of them due to my own carelessness (but I claim old age!). The trailer car utilizes 2mm axles and the driving car has 2.5mm axles which I, via sight and not micrometer, thought was 7/64". Having made four new axles before discovering my 0.010" error, and then finding that I had no 2.5mm silver-steel in stock, left me in not the best frame of mind! Obviously my eyes have not adjusted to this metrication business. A further delay ensued because Squires had none in stock and neither did their supplier. By the time the stuff was delivered I'd forgot why I wanted it! The Dapol wheels are solid brass, are much too thick and have a massive flange compared to S4 standards, I decided it would be possible to re-format them to Manchester (should be Sid Stubbs!) profile. This is the correct scale profile for a well worn tyre - to my mind more correct than the P4 profile which is for a new tyre. I'm currently in the process of doing that and consider that I would have been better advised to make new wheels from scratch. Indeed, that may well be what I shall end up doing, The trailer car was dead easy. I kept the Dapol axles but with P4 wagon wheels - 3-hole disk with the holes filled in. But the power car uses what I think is normally called the "American" system - live axle but alternate bogies collecting from opposite rails. More - in a few months?!? - when I've completed the conversion. Good modelling to you, Dave

It would appear that my understanding of PM system on RMweb was, until the last few days, very much out of date; I'm sure I have in the past been informed by rmweb, using my private e-mail address, that I had a PM to read. I must be wrong because I have just by accident found about a dozen PMs, of which I was totally unaware, and these date back to December 2014. My sincere apologies to the writers for this lapse, I have not meant to be rude, I've simply been badly informed. Over the next few days I will attempt to reply as best I can. Dave

The two NCE DCC systems are now up and running, with 'Birch Vale' unchanged except that now there is the chance to plug in a hand-held controller at Newmills hidden sidings; - the main controls are at Hayfield end where the operator can easily reach the two, hand-operated point levers. From the first days of adding DCC, I built in the ability to switch to either DCC or analogue and this is retained. 'Bowton's Yard' has a new control panel which allows for either DCC or analogue control and which also allows switching between layout and programming track. This sits at Guidebridge hidden sidings, alongside the 'signalbox', which allows route setting over all the layout. Also now fitted close to Stalybridge hidden sidings are twin sockets into which can be plugged hand-held controllers. I've taken a few pictures:- This is what I've always called the "Signalbox" and is part of the original controls. It accepts an input from a controller, which until recent changes was the Lenz 'Compact'. Fairly obviously this is where a route is set up, the route being indicated by lighted LEDs. At the far right, there is evidence of recent changes at 'Stalybridge', where the change of a single Y turn-out to a cross-over, needed a change of position of one LED and a bit of hand-drawn mimic track. The NEC system is mainly built into the main, hand-held unit, but a bit of 'electrickery' is in the main socket panel which is designed around being fitted into the baseboard sides. The 'master NEC hand-held must be plugged in here. I needed to build a free-standing panel to house this main socket, but decided that the ability to switch to analogue control should be achieved for 'Bowton's', as it is for 'Birch Vale. Also, NCE suggest a need for a change-over switch with which to switch a programming track on and switch the layout off. The programming track existed from the Lenz days and shows in this picture; as also does the new free-standing panel at its first 'lash-up' testing. The "lash-up" having proved the new panel, there was need to tidy up the labeling. This was achieved by CorelDraw and printing black-on-white on inkjet paper. Cut to size the two sheets were laminated in clear plastic and UHUed to the plywood panels. This picture shows the end result. The analogue controller was left off, but it plugs into the 4-pin DIN socket, providing 14-18 volts ac to the controller and accepting 0-12 V dc to be switched (or not!) to the layout. I use a Gaugemaster 'HH' for this job. Good modelling to you, Dave

Hello26power, I've pm'd you about your request; you should have my reply now. Dave

I got in to dcc round about early summer 2003. I did so by buying a toy train set for about £60; it was OO, continental, diesel loco plus three wagons, but with a Roco dcc system, including a transformer! As I was able to sell the loco and wagons for about £20, my first dcc system cost me well below the going rate. (It's also left me with an oval of OO track on which I can test run repaired stuff for local kiddies etc). However the Roco hand-held cab had a centre-,off knob with forward speed control clock-wise and reverse anticlock-wise and I found this confusing because since those long gone days of Hornby-Dublo, I'd got used to a switch for direction and clock-wise knob turning to increase speed'. A friend recommended the Lenz 'Compact' system, then costing about £75 but now withdrawn. This was a far better system than most reviews inferred, and in my opinion one of the best starter systems (and indeed continuation systems!) for the typical British 'shunting plank, and Lenz was well represented in Britain with Mackays of Scotland; and fairly locally for me, MG Sharp of Sheffield. As always there is an "however"; indeed, here there are two "howevers". In 2009, Margaret gave me a sound equipped Class 20 diesel for a Christmas present and the Lenz system had insufficient function buttons to match all the sound functions. At some later exhibition I 'found' Digitrains; they sold me a NCE 'Power Cab' system, (then <£100), which got round that problem. This also meant that Bowton's Yard could have its dedicated controls (Lenz) while Birch Vale got the new NCE system., The second "however" is that Mackays seem no longer to be agents and MG Sharp also seem to have matured into different retail routes, making it difficult to get reliable info about Lenz and their current systems. They no longer have a low-priced introductory system apparently, and if they have a British agency, I have not found it! At a recent birthday Margaret had difficulty in thinking of a good present so I started thinking in terms of a replacement for the out-dated Lenz system. in view of inter-changeability like hand-helds etc, it was sensible to stay with either Lenz or NCE. The previous paragraph indicates why NCE was chosen. Over the last week or so, and continuing, I've been modifying the wiring and building control panel enclosures for the NCE power panels which are designed to fit into the baseboard sideframes I didn't want that,- they are going into the end of existing control panels. With the order on Digitrains, I include two "UTP" panels. These are similar to the power panels in appearance but are meant to accept hand-held control cabs remote from the main system. Eventually, for both of these S4 standards layouts, it will be possible to plug in a hand-held at either end (or both!) of the layout. Among all these changes is my decision to concentrate on 18.83 gauge, so making 'Wheegram Sidings', the EM layout that started this blog, surplus to requirements along with the two dcc systems (Roco and Lenz). If any one is interested then PM me. I'm off now to produce an electrical schematic drawing for the new 'Bowton's Yard' control panel which is to incorporate change over switches between analogue and digital control and for the digital side, a change over between track supply and programming track supply. What a confusing hobby we chose!?! Good modelling to you, Dave

You're quite correct Dave; there were many more yard and minor line derailments than the management were often kept aware of. However, even if our track construction is so good, that we have the number of derailments "just like the real thing" had then we all consider it to be too many. My track building and laying skills are even worse than my loco building skills. Years ago I used to take my newly finished locos to Dean Hall for testing because they always ran better on the P4 layout there, than they did on my home layout. I work on the principle that derailments due to poor driving, like approaching an incorrectly set turn-out, or excessive speed, will always occur. Derailment of my locos and stock, which can be blamed on poor track work, I accept. But derailment due to poor loco/stock building must be seen as totally unacceptable. EM is less forgiving than OO in these respects and P4/S4 is even less forgiving; but we should not be building locos or rolling stock that will forgive poor track; the answer must be to improve the track. 'Birch Vale' was re-railed with track to S4 standards after I had built 'Bowton's Yard' and the track on BV has benifited from the experience with Bowton's. Currently, locos and stock which run perfectly (well nearly!) on BV don't run so well on Bowton's. The answer is that I should re-rail Bowton's !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dave

Thanks both for your comments. Dave, no doubt because the picture ended up away from its words(see comment from me above), you missed my; " That apparent kink in the RH rail is not so apparent to the naked eye and certainly causes no running problems; - (the camera cannot lie!?!)." Ian, As every thing seems to run perfectly, change is unlikely, but as it's supposed to be "hidden sidings", the "character" hardly matters!

That last pic is SbridgeB.jpg and should be a above the craft room pic. Not sure what's happened, its OK on my pre-post copy! Dave

A few posts ago I reported starting work on modifying the hidden sidings on Bowton's Yard. This virtual rebuild of both hidden sidings is now complete. One end represents Guidebridge and now has a system of train plus locomotive cassettes, along with loco storage behind the goods shed. This is much more flexible than the original single line and later-added short siding. The result though was to show up the poor storage at the Stalybridge hidden sidings and this led to my building a cross-over for that board. Having completed that, I came to realise that this storage would lock locos out of use and that it would be useful if I could add a loco cassette system at that end too. Some careful measuring up showed that I could probably juggle another 10" - 12" length increase on that board. In fact the decision was that the easiest answer was to make a new small board, mainly because, to accept cassettes, its bed needed to be some 6mm lower than the existing track bed. Pictures tell the story more easily than words so' here goes: I don't need any help to carry this baseboard! The new extension for loco cassettes at Stalybridge Rather more locos on view than the layout needs but this is Guidebridge hidden sidings, taken from above the Bowton's Yard goods shed or warehouse, The train cassettes are about the same length as the layout's run-round loop. The loco cassettes will accept any loco so with a small loco it is possible to build up a train that can't easily be run-round! (wicked joke at exhibitions!!) This is looking in the opposite direction to the above shot but nicely shows how the tracks into the shed have been extended to the hidden sidings and give loco lay-bye features, allowing a need for fewer loco cassettes. Looking from the very end of the Guidebridge board, toward the layout's scenery section. This is taken from the opposite end and shows Stalybridge hidden sidings. The camera is resting on the end of the new mini-board and it has shown the needed step down to accept loco cassettes. Also in view are two shelf brackets which are part of the support system for 'Birch Vale'; i.e. one layout sits about 12" above the lower one's track bed. Almost all the new cross-over appears in this shot taken from the layout end of this hidden siding. That apparent kink in the RH rail is not so apparent to the naked eye and certainly causes no running problems; - (the camera cannot lie!?!). The line to our right is the head shunt for the yard, and the MDF with a hole in it is the stop-block. Originally this line terminated as one route of a 'Y' point, the other route being the 'main' line and the only train storage at this end. Shortening the head shunt has no effect on shunting moves and the space left by the shortening could, if need be, become loco lay-bye space. I had to show you this; it's Margaret's craft room which I commandeered for building the cross-over. I have no such long, flat space in my workshop!

Thanks for your interest 'Focalplane', but I believe my mate Dave Holt is correct; - lampbrackets on 4mm can be plain, but on 7mm they need the rivets! (See you at Roy's tomorrow Dave?) I did seriously consider 7mm about twenty years ago but John Langan, who I am proud to say was one of my mentors,came up with; - "Well I can see what you mean Dave, but remember a thou is still a thou what ever scale you use". A joke perhaps, but so true. I've been trying to model to P4/S4 standards since before the inception of either society and have two layouts, over 25 locos, over 100 goods vehicles and some twenty coaches; all scratch, kit, or RTR converted by myself over many years. That's too much history for any acceptable change. At least it is at this stage; - who knows what the future holds? Dave

Sorry to the two people who look forward to my posting on here ; I've not done much worth writing about, even less worth posting pics for. With both myself and wife Margaret now well into our eighties, age deterioration is beginning to take more control of our activities than we would like. In recent times I've been looking at modifying my hobby operations in the hope of continuing modelling for longer than my aged body looks as though it will allow. Indeed this blog was started as an attempt to describe a simple, light-weight, EM gauge layout which would quickly bundle into my car's boot and exhibit as a one-man-band; EM being chosen as probably being more forgiving than P4/S4. It may be; - slightly! - but really not worth the change. Accordingly I've really done nothing toward progressing 'Wheegram Sidings' for many many months. I reported some posts back that Margaret had received an N-gauge trainset for Christmas, and that together we had started building an exhibition layout. Margaret's interest ran out fairly quickly and I would certainly not claim to have great interest in such modelling. That project has been relegated to a back-burner even further back than the EM back-burner. In early May I did some research into narrow gauge, radio controlled, live steam, but decided that starting to build a suitable garden layout would be an extremely silly idea at this time in life. At present, I'm back where I was. I've enjoyed making some track and points for Bowton's Yard (18,83 gauge S4 track and wheel standards) but I have done so in relatively short modelling sessions, - say one -two hours rather than my old approach of four to six hours nearly every day. The hidden sidings at each end of 'Bowton's' have now been re-built and increased the operational potential. Recently I re-started the up-grading of the two C13s and although I find it frustrating to pack up after such a short time, it's less frustrating than ruining several hours of work by continuing beyond my present day concentration span time. I might actually be adjusting to old age sensibly!!??!! Good modelling to you all. (Well both of you!) Dave

My last posting, about continuous springy beam chassis raised my friendly disagreement with Will, and simply shows that we each have, and should have, our own approach to all things, but it caused me to think back on my own development which has led to the way I do things. My industrial apprenticeship years had a great influence on the person, or at least the engineer, that I have become. I served as an apprentice electrician in a large, electrical maintenance team, but unusually for that type of work, I was directed to a professional electrical engineers education, qualifying as long ago as 1959. In those days electrical engineers were offered two qualifying paths: "heavy current" or "light current". The latter was essentially radio and television which in those days worked by thermionic valves; the electronic revolution was just about to start! So my experience is quite definitely in maintenance and repair of heavy current devises rather than electronic devises. But what matters in my current thesis is that I have a back-ground of keeping things running i.e. maintenance. Because of that, anything that I may design from scratch will always be influenced by my need to make maintenance and repair easy. Also, throughout these informative years I was continually advised to keep things as simple as possible - the old KISS principle. Another unofficial principle of engineering is Sod's Law, which basically means that if it can go wrong, it will go wrong. Making sure that it can't go wrong may be difficult and may also prove to be too expensive; therefore make sure that your design makes it easy to put right again. My apprentice ship to railway modelling started even earlier than my electrical one, but it has been continuous and was brushed-up by mentors of proven ability when I joined Manchester MRC in the early 1980s. This is when I came to know that split-axle chassis simply do not have electrical pick-up problems, and that never again would I build a scraper-collector chassis. (I was rubbish at it anyway!!). Split-axle is a little more complex initially but removes a massive maintenance problem for the chassis life time. I keep notes of my modelling in order to record how I built something, (saves re-invention) and I'm adding below a copy of a page from my "My Locos" file. This was written in the mid 1990s and based on my experiences and experiments over the then last three to four years. It has been up-dated more recently. Simple perusal shows the influence of my experiences during employment, and careful reading will highlight those points that lead to easier maintenance, but the majority of it comes from my mentors who had developed their ideas over many years starting around the end of the second World War. Loco chassis design features which I shall in future always aim to include: 1. Split axle construction 2. Outside axles to fix the ride height, with one being the driven axle and not allowed upward or downward movement, and the other being sprung downwards but normally riding at the top of its horn way. 3. Any other driving axles allowed to ride 0.020” higher than the outer drivers but sprung downwards 4. The ability to drop any or all axles without the need to remove the wheels from the axle. 5. Similar rules for the tender chassis; but with weight transfer from tender to loco; and electrical plug and socket connection between loco and tender, to aid pick-up. 6. Easily removable brake rigging. 7. Ability to remove motor and gearbox from chassis but leave all axles in place with normal ability to roll chassis on its wheels. 8. Driving wheel crank pins to be ‘push-fit’ to wheel and normally to be 1/16” diameter, tapped for a 14BA screw. 9. All driving wheels mounted on their axles using the lathe as an aid to true squareness, ‘quartering’ and pushing to gauge. 10. For all locos with outside valve gear; draw a ‘space’ diagram which shows the dimensional relationships of side frames, cylinder assembly, motion bracket, axle side play, coupling rod, connecting rod and crank pins. The above list was compiled during 1996; added since that date:- 11. Quarter by eye using fine-pen lines on tyre flanges, one side marked in line with crank pin, second side marked in line with a spoke about 90 degrees lagging the crank pin. 12. Springs acting on top of 'top-hat' axle boxes to be approx 20mm cantilever of 27swg phosphor-bronze wire. ------------:------------ For what its worth, some of you may find those to be sensible guidelines for scratch building. Regular readers who study my posts may have noticed that I treat my own list with flexibility. For example my Q4 (see http://www.rmweb.co....71-q4-progress/)has the drive-chain mounted on a middle axle which is sprung; so my para.2 above is not fully met. The reason is that the motor/gearbox unit could not be housed inside the body if mounted on either outer axles. Likewise,para.7 is not fully met if one is wordily pedantic! The motor, with the worm gear is easy to remove but the gearbox stays on the axle, however the required end result of roll ability is achieved. The whole unit - motor / gearbox / axle / wheels, - will drop out of the chassis. OK the likelihood of that need may be very low, but Sod's Law will ensure that need if you fail to plan for it! Dave.

Many thanks for those links 26Power; I'd not realised that clicking on "recent entries" only gave you access to that one entry. I normally go direct to my blog page which has a series of numbered buttons, (currently 6), each of which will take you to the individual page. Dave

I've just thought that the "CSB" in the subject may have attracted readers new to this blog. If that's why you are here then you may wish to click your way to page three and look at pictures of two simple chassis under "Q4 Progress" and "A Dinosaur's Opinion". These may add to my words above. Dave

For Mad McCann The maths can be done using the spreadsheet on CLAG's web page so no real problem there assuming spreadsheet literacy. My objection is that there are many pivot and holding points along each main frame, all needing good precision positioning; and then there is need to distribute body weight fairly accurately over each driving wheel. My argument is that the needed skills must be applied so much more frequently than the method I was taught, and my experience shows no improvement on performance. For any type of chassis a degree of accuracy (or tolerance in engineering terms) must be achieved in the relationship of axleboxes, crank pins and coupling rods, and non-engineers can easily be taught those skills. Indeed it is possible to purchase equipment that lowers the needed skill levels in this area of chassis building. The skills to make a CSB chassis need be no higher than that, but with the considerably increased number of positions that need accuracy then there is increased chance of one or comullative errors occurring during the building progress.. If that risk guaranteed a better performing model then the risk is worth taking but my experience is that the performance was no better and maintenance was more difficult. The choice is of course for the builder but good ideas very often prove to be not so good as once thought, and historical engineering can throw up many examples of good ideas that in real life were impractical. I believe the principle of CSB to be excellent but its end result to be no better than simpler design theories. If like Will you find CSB easy to get right then that is the route for you, but If you have never built a successful chassis then my advice is to start with simpler designs. When you've built a few of those then perhaps try CSB. Dave

Will, Neither of us will change the others opinion, we've had the discussion more than once before; therefore, at least as far as this blog is concerned, let's simply agree to disagree. Incidentally, one reason for my continued use of split-axle is that I could never adjust those da***d springy scrapers correctly! Dave

Will, The fact that I went to the trouble of building a csb loco surely disproves what you infer. I built one and found it much more complicated than my usual system; tested it and showed it was no improvement on my usual system. That's hardly a reluctance to "change the habits of a lifetime" Emma You have the old chicken/egg situation; which comes first loco or somewhere to test it? If this is your first attempt at loco construction then whatever you do go for the option that you see as simplest. By all means PM me if you want more info about the simple and well proven system I use. If you choose the csb option then perhaps Will is wiling to give you guidance; he may have built more CSB chassis than I; I certainly will not build another. As I said before KISS! Dave

My excursion into construction of a continuous springy beam chassis (see previous posts about my J10) was useful but has resulted in quite definitely negative feelings about them. It seems to me to be an excessively complicated system that demands a skill level that the majority of modellers are unlikely to have developed. At least that is so if the published technology is to be believed. I have to admit that my predilection for split-axle current collection and models that can be handled by the ham-fisted and which are capable of day in and day out working on layouts without too much maintenance, quite definitely effects my opinion. My J10 was completed and carried out many hours of work on both ‘Bowton’s Yard’ and ‘Birch Vale’, where it proved to be a worthwhile addition to the stud. It is however performing no better than locos I built with beam compensation way back in the early 1970s, nor is it better than those I have built since, - guided by Sid Stubbs, Norman Whitnall and John Langan, (in future such chassis I shall call “SWL chassis”). These last are split axle with tufnol block frame spacers and simple downward acting cantilever springs acting on the axleboxes. The axleboxes can be simple ‘top-hat’ affairs turned up at home. The tufnol blocks make for a very strong chassis and because of screw-&-dowel-fixing, the mainframe assembly can easily be fully stripped in the future should this be necessary The two outer axles normally ride at the top of their axle slots and fix the correct ride height, any inner axles have the top of their axle slots about 0.020” higher than the outer axle slots, and that value is not too critical! It is possible to drop any axle independently simply by removing the axle retainer, normally screw fixed. There is no need of any complicated calculation for the springing; - about 20mm cantilever of 27swg phosphor-bronze wire, again not critical! Adjust the pressure on the axlebox by bending the wire – just as we do with Alex Jackson couplings (edited 1/4/16 - or the scraper wires used with scraper electrical pick-up) – so that there is gentle pressure of the wheel on the track. It’s all so simple, just basic mechanical engineering principles and none of it over-critical. Such a chassis can be built and tested before its body is completed (or even started!). Initial test running can be done with a temporary weight equivalent to approximate body weight and fixed round about chassis middle. No need to worry too much about correct weight distribution. In comparison a CSB chassis needs a good bit of forward thinking and technical calculations. Granted that resort to a well-known web page can do those calculations for you but it seems that the ‘sums’, distances, and weights are all important. You need to ensure a clear space for the spring, along the length of each mainframe, making frame spacer design quite critical. Designing frame spacers that also insulate the mainframes from each other (split-frame for split-axle), leave space for the springy beams and produce a rugged chassis is no sinecure either! Removing an axle means removing both springs. Easy to say, not to difficult to do, but replacement means threading that wire through quite a lot of tiny holes, all this to be achieved in a very limited, difficult to illuminate space. I found this bit extremely frustrating. Were my J10 a brilliant performer way beyond anything I had already managed then I would have to agree that CSB is worth all this extra effort – it isn’t! I would now like to show how – “ it isn’t!” was proven! What then about performance? First, perhaps “performance” needs a definition. For me, any loco should de-rail very rarely, and any derailment that is not down to poor driving, or inordinately poor track, should not occur. Just like the real thing! A model loco should be capable of pulling a model load equivalent to the maximum load that the prototype class of loco was allowed, in this case 2F. The model should also be capable of smooth creep speed, preferably less than normal walking speed, but to achieve this feature, typical top speed should not be compromised. I’m more than happy that locos I have built in the last twenty years have achieved those features and have also been of sufficiently robust construction as to not need ‘kid-glove’ handling. Perhaps my B1 and my K3 need careful driving techniques when asked to pull 10 coach trains on curving gradients, but that cannot occur on my own layouts and they rarely go visiting. For the J10 pulling power test I set up a 33 wagon train on a gentle curve (about 12 foot radius) on ‘Bowton’s Yard’. This incidentally covered all of one fiddle yard and all but about three foot of the scenic section, so it was a train length well beyond any I could ever sensibly run! Is there really any point in having locos that could pull more? The J10 started the train without problem, even with all couplings taught. So well done! But my only other 2F classified loco, a J72, performed the task equally well, and that one was built over twenty years ago and has a SWL (Stubbs-Whitnall-Langan) chassis. There seemed little point in subjecting other models to this particular test. I know that my J11 (3F); J6 (3F); J94 (4F); J39 (5F) have all hauled similar loads in the past. “Had my J10 proved to be a brilliant performer way beyond anything I had already managed, then I would agree that CSB is perhaps worth the effort” – it didn’t, so it isn’t! I’m sorry you CSB proponents, at least those of you who have actually tried the system and achieved success. But was that success using comparison against previous attempts where “toy train” chassis design was applied? Or are you a modeller whose locos normally haul trains of un-prototypical length, on layouts with un-prototypical curves and/or gradients? Because my layouts, (two with S4 track and DCC, and one with EM track and analogue control) are shunting planks, then I don’t have need of locos that can do better than their prototype, But who does? For that reason, the B1 & the K3 referred to earlier have not had weight added over their driving wheels. None the less, their haulage limitation is comparable to the real thing. Perhaps I’m lucky to have been introduced to a simple chassis design long ago. And perhaps the modesty of my heroes led to them not writing sufficient articles about their designs and because of that, others could not copy their ideas Whatever the reasons, my experience is that their remarkably simple design of chassis is more than good enough to achieve what I need, and I believe that similar needs apply to the majority of you too. Oh! - at the first call for heavy maintenance my J10 was fitted with a SWL chassis. It's performance is not changed but future maintenance will be quicker and easier. Keep It Simple, Stupid ! Good modelling wished to all of you, Dave

I promised: "more next week" but the general day-to-day life of old wrinklies took over and work on the layout lost all importance. However some progress on the proscenium box has taken place, the track is wired and hand-operated point control is complete. The bridges and retaining walls are fixed but road surfaces are still needed; as of course is very much more. Here's a few recent pics:- Two shots; left and right views; of the proscenium box. The box, which will be finished in teak varnish, is totally removable from the baseboard; indeed the various parts, like proscenium arch, top sheet, rear sheet, are themselves all individually removable being screw-fixed with no glue, to the end sheets which bolt to the baseboard. Obviously, lighting is a necessity and this will be self-adhesive LED strip lamps fixed to the proscenium arch; next job! These two shots show the view toward each of the bridges which should lead to hidden sidings. Current thinking is that the layout can be worked as the Inglenook puzzle without need of hidden sidings so we are waiting until nearer completion, and after a few hours of playing the puzzle, before making that feature. More as and when we progress Dave

HONLEY tANK's 'N' gauge trainset Progress has not been too bad; the baseboard, with its removable back-scene boards is more or less completed, We chose to use Metcalf kits for bridges and retaining walls and those are all built. The high street shops are also to be Metcalf, half-relief in this case, and many of those are now built too. The track is down and ballasted, and this week the point operation and wiring has been completed. Here's a few progress pics:- The baseboard built and with a sealing coat of paint or varnish all round. It's a bit larger than first thoughts - 34" x 12" x 3.5" Prior to the painting the 'Inglenook' track layout had been tested on the table top. Remember, for the puzzle to work, siding length must be train length related. Here the test track is cellotaped in its approximate place. Since then, we decided to have a through line too. Margaret's idea to call this layout 'Woodnook' led to the desire to include a small wood. Again to keep to the "easy modelling" theme, we purchased a "Forest-in-a-box" (sea-moss) from Greenscenes and here's her first tree; a real "shake out of the box" model! Margaret took to the Metcalf kits and here is some of the High Street. Entry to/from the rest of the world will be via road-over bridges, one at each end but the RH version will only be opened up if the team modelling game becomes excessive and the layout extended. Our dining room converted to temporary workshop! We had reached the stage of doing the electrics. I'm sorry to have to admit that Margaret forsook the chance to learn how to solder, so the wiring was my solo effort. More next week, Dave & Margaret

Smashing Dave; I'm jealous. Ah! but though! I've got two C13s erning their crust. Happy New Year from us both, Dave

MMRS's exhibition looks to have been a glowing success. However for Margaret and me, and our ability to help the cause, it did raise problems. Both octogenarians, abilities and availability have a tendency to vary and the tea room, normally supplied and run by our ladies, was not allowed by the hall's management; therefore no job for Margaret! The space allocated for the demonstration stand was about half that of normal so it was not easy for her to sit with me and join in the demo. This caused the two of us to do some fairly serious thinking about future years. These thoughts were also driven by my consideration that we should put more effort into grabbing the interest of those 'older' children who, once viewing Thomas the Tank Engine with much glee, now thought such trains to be babyish and below their own older years. I'd also argued with members that we should offer more interaction with the public and there should be at least one layout at our show that the public were allowed to operate rather than simply admire, and to this end I was considering a shunting puzzle layout. One of the very first, if not the actual first, of such layouts to be devised was thought-up in the early 1950s by a long-time Manchester MRS member, Alan Wright. Alan died in 2005 but left us with this legacy of a shunting puzzle which by 1979 had been developed into an exhibition layout called 'Inglenook Sidings' and this puzzle layout appeared at our exhibition in December 1979. Out of all these musings of Margaret & I came the decision that we would together build a layout small enough to fit easily on our dining room table so as to be worked on in the comfort of a centrally heated room during winter months. It must be simple ready to run locos and stock, with the scenery essentially comprised of easily built, easily sourced, card building kits. Not only must it be small, but also light, easily carried, and self-contained. Operation from the front allowing one of us to supervise operation by the public. Such operation could be driven by the puzzle, or for younger people, by our direction. This blog originally started as a description of my building a super-light-weight, EM layout, but little has been said about this recently, and it looks as though that trend will continue because Father Christmas delivered an N Gauge Train Set, (?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) not to me but to Margaret, and that is the basis of this new venture for the staff of Honley Tank. An N gauge copy of 'Inglenook', this layout will be about 2' long by 1' wide and will comprise RTR locos & stock, a back-scene of Metcalf kits and a small wood to one corner. The wood was Margaret's idea' it will be the only scratch-built part and it allows us to name the layout after a hamlet less the a mile from our home, - 'Wood Nook'. Work has started, so perhaps some pics next time. Dave

MANCHESTER MRS' EXHIBITION I'm getting a bit long-in-the-tooth now for taking layouts to exhibitions but I can still manage a bit of demonstration work. Next weekend, 5th & 6th December, our 2015 exhibition takes place at Manchester University's Barnes Wallis Building, close to Piccadilly Station. Full details are available at www.mmrs.co.uk. I shall be on the demonstration stand from 10.00 to 12.00 hours each day, and possibly some other times too, dependent on staffing; please come along for a chat. Currently, workshop hours are being spent re-starting my LNER Q4 scratchbuild and that will be the subject of my demonstration. Actually for "demonstration" read "something to talk about"! Hope to see you there; make yourself known won't you? Dave