Chris Higgs

I would plan just to use the 15.2mm wheels as is. Of course, you do have the issue of getting them into the vehicle in the first place, and probably you cannot then get them out again. Chris

Exactoscale part E4CW 601A - which you now order from C&L Finescale. Requires a 1.5mm hole in the axlegaurd to mount. Chris

Is it necessary to use a lathe? Would not a plain 1mm axle suffice, with a a bit of 1mm ID tube sliced up for bearings. Chris

If anyone is contemplating purchasing these vans, I suggest you do so soon. The chief shopkeeper is working on a cull of very slow moving items in the shops, and these are in that category. I have not had to re-order the bodies since they were first produced, which is a long time ago. This has always surprised me, as I spent a load of time getting them made, and as I have said, I reckon they knock spots off anything you can buy, either as RTR or kits. Perhaps its because they have the planking grooves to scale (they were cut with a 1 thou cutter), that they look odd compared to everything else around in 2mm. Take a look at Richard's photos to see what I mean. Farish planking is truly awful and is the main reason their vans still look like toys. I made some etched parts for these to make banana vans but had to discard them as the planking looked so crude on the etch by comparison. So, use them or lose them. Chris

As the man who created the roof etches, I always based them on real photos. And there is a photo of just such a van with external roof strips, although it's one with end vents, and so not as in your build. The van in question was W89667, and it is found in "Pre-Nationalisation Freight wagons on British Railways" page 30. Although to be fair, the strips are nowhere near as prominent as those on the etch. That's the problem with etch, you only get the one thickness. You might try rubbing them down a touch. These resin vans are just about the only thing on the market that does to scale the gaps between the planks and the bolt heads. Everything else in 2mm/N is horribly overdone. Chris

I suspect you won't like the answer... Chris

Would it not have been easier to drill out the bearing to the 3.1mm of the drive bushes you are using, rather than turning the bush down? I am pretty sure more people will own a pillar drill to do the former than a lathe. This would also perhaps mean that an Association 3mm muff could then run inside the Farish bearing, and so could be a bit longer. I have also been thinking about whether it would be possible to etch up a replacement for the Farish bearing (as it is square) into which normal Associaition frame bushes could fit. Chris

I suppose you do realise that N gauge stock (at least the recent stuff)will run fine on Easitrac plain track as well as Finetrax. Its the points where you have to decide on whicvh standrds to use. Chris

As commented elsewhere, there are too many V hangers. The etch can build either a DC braked version, or the later 'standard' style of right hand brake levers and has the V hangers for both. You need to remove those not required for your version. Also the battery boxes represent a combination of many possible variants. The prototype Siphon in the photos seems to have a BR style voltage regulator that GWR built examples would not have had when new. It is a late built BR example (O62) - you can most easily tell from the extra side vents - and the voltage regulator might even have been added in departmental service or preservation. EDIT: I checked my references and found that the right hand brake levers are appropraite for the GWR wartime built examples and the later BR built ones. For the pre-war O33s, these had the DC style brakegear. You can see photos of both types on Paul Bartlett's site. Chris

As BR Loco Maroon (used on most of the Westerns except the very first) is a different colour from coach maroon you should not expect a match there. Chris

Love the photo at Ilfracombe with a Bulleid set Chris

Are there photos of the real thing anywhere? The ten itself looks good to me, but is it the right total height? Chris

There are many many models with this arrangement. However I have heard that the Lawton coreless motors being much cheaper do not have very robust bearings to resist end thrust. The Maxon is generally considered the strongest of all. The short shaft merely reflects the kind of application it is most used in, which is certainly not model railways. Chris

There have been reports of some being less good than others, but without really knowing exactly how extensive this is. There are a number of other motors available elsewhere in the same size. Chris

Yes, but in this case it is clearly just too big for the job. Perhaps fine in a nice tender. I have seen articles describing how to cut these things up to get them into such locos as a J72. Maybe necessary in its day but times and technology have moved on so we don't have to do that any more and there are far smaller motors that pack just as much torque. In the loco you illustrate, the motor only needs modifying in that manner because it is so large and can only fit in the cab, a smaller motor could have been mounted next to the worm in a more normal fashion. And surely if you have a smaller motor you can fit in lead around it that is going to more than compensate for any loss of weight. Chris

Well, you can use the new(ish) motor from the Association shop. It is 8mm over the flats (10mm high) and so will fit between the wheels (8.5mm BtoB) in its vertical position - which as a chassis designer I find a very useful feature as you can put it very low. 1mm shafts but you can solve that a number of ways. Or buy yourself a new controller! That first motor looks like it came out of the Ark. Chris

Sounds like a job for 3D printing to me. But whoever would do it would have to be pretty good at 3D CAD with all those compound curves.

How about 3D printing them at Shapeways? Probably very fragile in 2mm, but certainly do-able in larger scales. Chris

Having been at Didcot on Saturday, those central boxes are in fact labelled "Propane Gas" and may well date from departmental use or have even been fitted in preservation. I think they are spurious for almost all if not all stock in service. Chris

Almost certainly they will not be fine enough. The key dimension will be the the flange width. I believe when N-gaugers talk about RP-25 they mean RP-25 Code 72 - see the following http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25%202009.07.pdf In the RP-25 wheel profiles the flange width (T) and depth (D') are pretty much the same (as it is on a real wheel), in this case 0.5mm (20 thou to our American cousins). Whereas for 2FS the flange depth should be 0.5mm, but the width only 0.3mm. So those wheels are going to get stuck in the checkrail gap, which is also 0.5mm. At the least you will need the back of the large turning down a bit. And as pointed out you will need to regauge the back-to-back. Chris

The photo also shows nicely the V hanger arrangement I have been discussing, as there is in this case no lower footboard to obscure it. Chris

Not the same as it happens. The roof and side profiles changed with every design, and this is from a few years later. Chris

The upper end steps were removed from BR Mk1s when the overhead electrication of the WCML came along, and I suppose this was done also to other stock still extant and likely to operate there - you can see the electrification warning flash on the photo. However I think many GWR coaches did not get that far and were withdrawn with their steps intact. Many coaches had steps, even when there was no obvious reason for them. K41s and others have handrails on the roof as well to help staff clamber along. I am now beginning to think the steps were on one end only of the K41s, certainly the official photo of 147 as built only has the accompaning handrails at one end.They appear to be at the guard's end. K42s are the same. The V hanger goes in front of the trussing. it is joggled so it can do this. Standard practice on GWR brake coaches and lots of photos in the Russell books show it. Most photos of the Didcot K41 seem to be of the other side however, as is this one. Chris

As an aside, this coach clearly has had the end steps removed. Chris

Here are what I believe are the dimensions (in 1:148) for the V hanger and cylinder positions on the two sides K41 V hangers.pdf Chris