Chris Higgs

As an indication and example how long are you typically on the pedal to form a laminated joint in one place between 2 pieces of .010" n/s.

Almost no time at all. As soon as it fizzes I take the power off. But of course it depends on the volume of metal being soldered how long it takes.

Like Andy, I also use the Carrs 179 paste - the idea of temperature-graded soldering is a bit of a joke with an RSU as it heats up so quick. If you can buy/borrow some of this, I think this may be the solution to your problems.

Do you have a measurement or value for the setting that you use on your RSU? I have a high and low current setting on the input side to choose from (this was part of the original electrical set up) and then I have 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4.5 voltage outputs. I haven't measured the current because I don't have the equipment to measure AC current this high at home but there is a good chance that there is some kit at work that would do it because we have projection welding equipment.

My RSU is from the now defunct Dean Sidings- I think the owner's brother made them in his garage. It just has a three position switch with no indication of the voltage/current. I tend to use the highest setting, except on small parts which will be simply vapourised on that setting!

Avoid any temptation to apply more and more heat if it is not working. I find that one way or another that only leads to trouble.

Have you tried normal soldering with your paste to prove it is OK? I have no experience of Eileens, the Carrs costs an arm and a leg but it is well worth the money, and lasts for years in 2mm modelling.

Perhaps you should also start with some larger pieces of metal before working on smaller detailing parts. Loads of people tell me an RSU is only useful for small detailing work but it is not so. I use my RSU for all my etched kit assembly and getting admiring comments from people like Tim Schackleton about how neat the soldering is.

Chris

Richard,

I only ever use my RSU with the tin foil and hardboard method. Using a thick metal plate I generally find useless. I only use Carrs solder paste, which works fine for me with no flux (it has it in already).

If you are burning the tin foil then you have it on too high a setting. Some solders, especially the cheaper ones, can be rendered useless by ioverheating them, which an RSU certainly has the capability to do.

Other than that, I can only say that a lot of techniques you have learned with a nomrla iron have to unlearned with an RSU. I know with mine I have to work hot and fast to get good joints, and remember to stop your soldering by taking off the power, not by moving the iron away.

Chris

Hi Missy, I can't believe that people are commenting that the stools you have used are the wrong type - these things are less a millimetre high!! I thought 2mm finescale modelling was about creating an impression, not getting bogged down in minute detail. I remember going to a talk by Steve Hall (P4 modeller) where he demonstrated the working point rodding on his 'Halifax King Cross' layout - fantastic, but probably not a realistic option in 2mm scale!Andy

Actually, technically speaking she is the one who broguht it up.

2mm FS modelling is about whatever you want it to be. Imüpession making, or fine detail, that's up to you.

But if its no extar effort to get it right, then why not do it.

Chris

These stops are described as "GWR" but were also adopted by BR as their standard design. They happen to look very similar to the stops used at Delph, even though it was ex-LNWR/LMS ...

I don't think that's quite true. As far as I understand it, BR adpoted a wartime LMS design as its standard. Swindon however seemed to have simply ignored this and continued to use the GWR design on WR lines.

However, looking at the prototype photo of Delph in your previous post, the bufferstops in question seem to be of the LNWR design (or one of them at least). This is quite similar to the GWR design, but at the bottom of the vertical rails there is a mounting plate instead of the rail being joggled out. This is nicely masked by the mound of coal in the photo!

Seems like I cannot post photos here, otherwise I would illustarte the various types. If you send me a message offlist, I can send them to you. In the course of researching some 2mm kits, I have so far amassed information on over 20 different types of rail-built bufferstops.

Chris Higgs

The 15xx, like the 94xx had 4'7.5" wheels and would also need the 9mm association replacements (same problem) but the 14xx/48xx had the 5' (10mm) wheels...

 

...if it is to be non-powered, how about converting the Dapol to be an open cab 517 or even reverse the chasis (2-4-0T) for a 'Metro'?

Technically speaking, 4' 7.5" works out at 9.52mm, and there is a new 9.5mm driving wheel in the Association range - watch out that the flange still fits the body though. Similar argument for the 14XX, wghere 10.5mm is the true scale equivalent.

I also believe that the famine of 9mm drivers is now over, or if not, will very shortly be.

Chris Higgs

The 57xx/8750 bodies are nicer than the 94xx which is a little overscale in height. But a 94xx converted to a 15xx would be very cool...

Thats being quite polite to the 94XX. It is generally overscale (length and height), as it was designed to fit the 'generic' 0-6-0 chassis that GF did in the old days. So it also has the wrong wheelbase. Once I discovered this, I abandoned trying to design an etched replacement chassis for it, as it wasn't worth upgrading to 2FS.

Chris

Julia,

Only broadside or end on views are really reliable for deciding the proportions, and based on the side-on view of Railcar 2 in the Rusell book I would say that for railcars 2-4 (but not 12) your after photos have the angle of the top of the window correct, but perhaps not the roof line. I also note that the side windows differ between Railcars 2-4 and the later ones.

I now note from my Worlsey etch that Alan Doherty is clear his etch only covers cars 5-16, not 2-4. So I suspect he is not as far wrong with the angles as might be thought.

I presume you have also seen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1934_GWR_diesel_railcar.jpg

Perhaps you should settle for modelling the preserved Railcar 4 and head down to Swindon to take as many photos as you wish to get it right.

Chris

Julia,

I think you have to be careful here. Photos clearly show that amongst these 'early' railcars i.e. the curvy ones, that they were not all the same. Railcars 2-4 built to lot 1516 in 1933 (chassis by AEC, bodywork by Park Royal) had a squarer profile, quite like your 'after' photo, but they have the top marker light between the windows, unlike your model. But I do have a photo of Railcar 12 built to lot 1547 (it's in the Russell coach book Vol 2 page 218), and it is (I hate to say after all your work) just like your 'before' photo. This lot was built ba a different builder, Gloucester RC&W which may well explain the differences. There is also a photo in the same book of the Parcels railcar no 17, and this seems to be somewhere between the two!

I think these is a book on the railcars, and it might be wise to try and get a copy. You may have to starve for a week to purchase it though.

Chris

Richard, thanks for posting.

 

How is the pannier chassis retained in the body and does one have to use a coreless motor?

 

Cheers,

David

After having played around with the CAD, and also the actual Pannier body, I have come to the conclusion that you cannot fit anything larger than a 10mm cylindrical motor in without major chunks of the casting being removed. This applies to whichever axle you drive the loco off. So even the smallest Mashima I have (16mm by 12mm by 10mm) cannot be used, and it looks like coreless is the only option.

Chris

Thanks for the clarification Chris.

 

It would appear from your explanation that, in Richard's last photograph, he has shown the loco body the 'wrong way round' in relation to the chassis?

 

David

No, the last photo is of the 14XX Autotank, not the Pannier

Chris

The motors are 8mm because that is all that will fit without major butchery. It may not even be possible to fit a 10mm motor. (The 0-6-0T did have a 10mm FH on for a bit before fitting the body and that ran really nicely, but I took it out for a large number of reasons, including those given.) I don't know of any currently available 8mm motors that aren't coreless. I really like the Mashima flat cans, but even the smallest is too big for most 2mm models.

Its probably worth pointing out that I supplied Richard with the 'advanced' version of the Pannier chassis. This drives on the rear axle and allows you to use an 8mm coreless motor that will appear to be the boiler of the loco, with the daylight below that real Panniers have. The builder is expected to butcher the body to achieve this, and perhaps build himself a new footplate as Julia did - sorry, I mean Missy in this parallel universe.

There will also be a 'beginners' version that will drive on the middle axle as the Bachmann chassis does, and allow larger motors such as a 10mm coreless within the firebox/cab. This should require no body modifications.

For the 14XX there is little alternative to the 8mm coreless. Although a 10mm version might just squeeze in if a 21:1 wormset is used instead of the 30:1.