Chris Higgs

My Dapol Pannier arrived today. After admiring it for a minute or two – it’s a little beauty - I proceeded to strip it down to its component parts! For those who feel the same urge, here is a sequence which works – it is not necessarily the one I followed though.

1. Unclip the outside brake rodding.
    
   
2. Unclip the couplings.
    
   
3. Remove the gear cover plate from the bottom of the chassis, which includes the coupling mounts. This has clips to the front and rear of the wheels. If you are careful, you do not have to cut any of the piping that is found below the footplate to do this.
    
   
4. This reveals a small screw under the footplate at the front. This bolts the footplate to the tank and boiler assembly. Unbolt this
    
   
5. Remove the cab, having first unclipped the main tank handrails as well as the rear vacuum pipe from the cab. This is as per the instruction sheet. Then remove the DCC chip blanking plate
    
   
6. There are two clips which hold the rear of the tanks to the footplate. Unclip these and lift the tanks until two screws are revealed each side of the chassis where the wires are attached. Unscrew these, as well as two on top of the blanking plate socket. This now allows the tanks to be fully removed. Whilst doing this be careful to detach various bits of pipework as needed without damaging them.
    
   
7. There is a screw at the rear on top of the footplate. Unscrew this, and the chassis can now be removed from the footplate.
    
   
8. Remove the crank pins. They are a knurled fit into the wheels, and can be prised out using a combination of small screwdrivers and pliers (and patience). Undo the crankpin nuts using the tool provided by Dapol in the accesories pack. Remove the coupling rods.
    
   
9. The wheels can be detached from the plastic axles by prising them off. The wheels are metal wheels with half axle, which has an outside diameter of 3mm and internally a 1.4mm square hole which fits over the axle, ensuring quartering - provided you don't remove the axles themselves from the chassis.
    
   
10. You can separate the two halves of the split-frame chassis by undoing the two screws in one side of it. Be warned, at this point consider carefully if you will have the skill to reassemble it with all the gears in the correct positions.
    

Having got this far, I can see three possible options for converting the loco to 2FS.

• Get the Dapol wheels turned down. They are quite a fine profile (1.7mm thick, 9.45mm diameter with 10.65 diameter over the flange, flange thickness 0.5mm) and I think just removing some metal from the rear of the flange to reduce it to 0.3mm thickness would produce a working result.
   
  
• Attempt to replace the wheels with 2FS ones from the shop. The 9.5mm drivers (shop item 3-008) could be used, and a standard ‘metric’ muff of 3mm diameter (3-102b) would run in the bearings of the Dapol chassis - assuming there are no wear issues with an acetal muff running in brass bearings. The gears on the driven axle are 20 tooth MOD 0.3 gears (3-393). The only problem is that there is then no pickup from the wheels!
   
  
• Fit a replacement etched chassis. I believe the rear axle driven frames that were provided with the Farish pannier chassis would fit the Dapol body, and the centre axle drive type might do so also, although it is far from an ideal solution. I am also thinking of a new variant with centre axle drive but with the motor facing forwards instead of back.
  

Despite being tempted, I haven't and, am unlikely to.

See my new thread.

http://www.dansk-jer...307/tur7307.htm

That was some trainspotting trip! Puts what I was doing at the same time in the shade.

K41

BR Blue (? Did any examples survive into BR Blue?)

Yes they did. There are photos on the Paul Bartlett site of both diagrams in blue. K41s up to the mid-1970s at least.

Chris

Ah, thank you. I only have the main volume and not the appendix (maybe I should try and track down a copy).

 

If you can afford them you should. I find them as a reference much better than the main books with almost all diagrams covered. There are quite a few mistakes in there though.

The Michael Harris book 'Great Western Coaches' is excellent also. It has a full list of the lots built in the back, but the text also explains in more detail than the Russell books about how the coaches were built.

Chris

Are there going to be any Track Books left by then? I was going to pick up mine at Warley.

More can easily be printed with a quick turnaround.

Chris

Steam at Swindon have got back to me with the following thumbnails.

 

http://www.steampict...nt/8053029.html

http://www.steampict...nt/8053031.html

http://www.steampict...nt/8053035.html

http://www.steampict...nt/8053037.html

 

147 is a K41 and is pictured in post-war Hawksworth livery.

109 is the same but seems to have a slightly simplified version of the livery with no brandings discernable.

166 is a K42 and is in chocolate livery. It looks nice but the branding is very route specific (124 would probably be a better alternative).

95 is a K42 in post-war livery and does not appear to have any route branding. If we assume chocolate and cream will be a popular livery then this might be a good one to model as one running number.

 

I do not mind splashing out for higher resolution images if any look particularly useful.

These all seem to be photos already found in the Russell books - 109 is from the main book volume 2 and the other three are in Part 2 of the appendix.

Chris

Ok 2mmFolkS,

 

I have hunted high and low on RMweb's search facility but have found no reasonable answer (though some old posts of mine ) so I turn to you for some guidance about point tiebars. I am aware that soldering to a pcb sleep is not the recommended way of doing things so what do people reckon is the best way to do this?

 

Thanks

Tom

Have you bought our new and wonderful book 'Track'? If you are not a member, then not as it's only on general release in the new year. That will tell you all sorts of tiebar mechanisms, plus more or less everything you could ever want to know about 2mm trackwork.

However, soldering to a moving sleeper is still very much a valid method. The solder joints have to be small but strong.

Chris

Did all K42s have a continuous rainstrip though? Or if they did were they removed soon after construction?

Based on photos in Russell, continuous rainstrips were applied to a number of different coach types built in 1937, mostly suburbans. They do not seem to appear after that, so were probably not deemed a success.

Chris

Hi, i have been following this thread, very good work, there is though a point i would like to make concerning the Faulhaber and in general all coreless motors. To use these types of motors with a worm gear is not good practise, what you will find is that they will work perfectly in one direction but will be slightly noisy in the other, this is because the worm will be trying to pull the motor axle away from it's natural position and will generate interference around the commutater leading to the eventual distruction of the motor making it useless. To avoid this and when there really is no alternative than a coreless motor you must have a thrust bearing in between the motor and the worm, but what is most important is to ensure that when setting up the position of the worm and it's thrust bearing in relation to the motor this shoud be done with motor axle in it's natural position and not working against itself. In other words the motor axle and the worm shoud not be able to move backwards and forwards away from where it was intended, i hope i haven't confused anyone, it's just to make sure that your expensive coreless motor's last longer, bye.

Hmm, yes OK, we have heard this as the conventional line, but there are rather a lot of 2mm models out there that have been powered for years and years using direct drive from coreless motors without adverse effect. Could be that they don't actually do many hours running, spending most of their time in boxes, or perhaps the smaller forces involved in such light models do not produce that much stress.

Chris

I'm wondering how much more of the area contained by the blue rectangle was not present on the prototype? Some trawling of photographs will be necessary to check PECO's work

I'm pretty certain that the space between the frames under the boiler between firebox and smokebox will be open, with the inside valvegear showing.

Chris

I am also looking for any photos of assembled etched bufferstops from the Association range, to create a similar document.

First version of the bufferstop photos can now be found at https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B7V9MIj3SLTgYlhxcXhrdEVsMWc/edit

Chris

Try here, unless you want them in situ?

If they are in situ and painted, then yes. I am looking to include a few more pictures of them in a finished state. There were some nice SR ones on Annendale Town at the AGM, but I didn't have my camera with me.

Chris

All in my blog or this thread, unless you want them emailed to you.

I can't seem to find the photos of the GWR bufferstops you built. This was some time ago.

Chris

I'm on the lookout for any photos people may have and are willing to share of builds of the etched loco chassis range. I want to create a document of photos with captions to help others. Of particular interest would be things not already covered by the instructions, such as how you mounted the motor, and conversions and modifications.

I am also looking for any photos of assembled etched bufferstops from the Association range, to create a similar document.

Chris

Apologies in advance this isn't a 'how I did this' kind of post but 'look at this'. I wondered just how long these took to put together. I recall the previous tank engines I made didn't seem to take that long and so thought I'd keep the clock on this one.

 

After half an hour

 

 

After an hour

 

 

I did intend half hourly photos but there isn't much that happens too visibly between the frames being assembled and the wheels going in so this is two hours later. I reckon that if it were a tank engine I'd be finished now. All the wheels are to gauge.

 

 

Only the crankpins, rods and quartering remain to complete before the brakes are added. Four hours total should do the chassis. The body is pictured behind, but will need some adjustment to get the chassis to fit. I'll cover that in a bit more detail if I remember to take the photographs to show the changes required.

 

Edit: I will add that the wheels were painted, cleaned, polished and blackened before the clock started; and that was quite a bit of work. However it is not specific to the replacement chassis.

Richard,

A couple of questions. I see you put in the springing wires after the frames were assembled. How did that go? I know Bob Jones prefers to put them on first, but they would probably foul the assembly jig then.

Also do you intend to mount the motor in the tender using the existing Ixion mount? As part of the design of the Black 5 replacement chassis I have produced some motor mounts based on Bob's designs and I am in the process of revisiting the design of the tender chassis for the Collett to work with them. However it will be a while to completion as I need to get hold of the Dapol tender myself to see if there are any other changes that would be beneficial.

I am just building up a test etch for a 4mm LNER Gresley suburban coach and am a bit daunted by the number of separate panels, door handles, handrails, droplights and doorstops there are. I think I will go back to building loco chassis, it is just so much simpler!

Chris

I am hoping to build a GWR Saddle Tank, and intended to use the Association 57xx chassis as a starting point. From reading the various entries on this thread I am a little confused as to whether the drive is on the centre axle, or one of the outer axles, or whether there are two different chassis to provide this choice.

 

What I want to build is an open cab Saddle Tank, and am wondering if this chassis will be suitable after all.

 

Can anyone with experience of the 57xx chassis advise please?

 

Thanks in anticipation,

 

Ian

There are (or were) two sets of frames supplied with the kit, one for centre axle drive, one for rear. Currently only the centre axle drive is supplied, but that may change again once I have obtained a Dapol Pannier and made any changes needed.

Both types were designed to keep the motor and drive out of view in the cab. That is not the same as out of the cab altogether, and from the CAD it looks touch and go as to whether either version would be suitable as-is for an open cab loco. However, you could still use the frames, coupling rods etc and mount the gearing and motor to your own design.

Chris

Can I ask a question about the etched chassis for a pannier please. I'm not sure where or which thread to ask about it but here seems a possible place. I've just started in 2mm and would like to make an N gauge pannier look a bit more realistic and I'm sure I saw a discussion and some photographs of this having been done. I've found some information in this thread plus some elsewhere from Missy and Rich Brummitt under "double heading" that's mainly about the etched chassis although missy's seems to have done more what I had in mind about but I was convinced I'd seen even more recent information and in particular photos of scratchbuilt footplates with splashers and other detail added to cut away Farish bodies. Maybe I dreamed it or it on some other website but Googling hasn't revealed anything more. Does anyone know if it was for real. I'd really like to know more about doing something like this myself so any help appreciated.

Yes there is a thread about that (forgotten where). But my advice is to wait for the new Dapol Pannier (due out next week if Dapol are to be believed). It will I hope be a better loco, and if enhancement is still needed, will be a whole lot easier to work with it's plastic body. Once I get my hands on one I will be reviewing what if anything needs doing to the etched chassis to use it with the Dapol body (both centre and rear axle drive versions).

Chris

Thank you! I followed your advice and, after only about 20' of work, both rods were fitted to the wheels which are spinning very smoothly. I am very pleased, this is my first try in wheels quartering and it looks like it is not a complicated process at all.

Quartering is one of those things where it can go together no problem one day, but the next time you try you get all sorts of niggles.

I assume you know you have the coupling rods on upside down?

Chris

No guarantees but Nick Tilston of N Brass Locos or perhaps BHE would be my first guess for having something suitable. The difficulty can be finding out what the items look like when ordering over the phone/Internet. The pictures on Nick's site are better than nothing but are pretty low res.

Sadly the N Brass ones look like the earlier Churchward taper buffers. Kings and Halls also had taper buffers as built.

You could half-inch a set off a Peco 2251, but that would be a very expensive way to do the job!

Chris

Hi chaps,

 

So what do we think...........coach maroon or loco maroon?

Loco maroon I expect it will be. Which is sad for me as I am planning a model of Princes Risborough in summer 1962 for which I want a shiny new Western in coach maroon. Possibilities for a limited edition perhaps?

Chris

There will always be compromises...

Tony,

Julia is indeed correct. This issue arise with every 2FS loco which has splashers. The combination of scale gauge track but overscale width wheels means that the spasher dimensions have to be made both wider overall to fit the wheels in, and also wider individually to cover the flange. Depending on the wheel size used compared to prototype, you might even have to make the splasher larger to accomodate the overscale flange depth. On many locos this is more noticeable than it will be on a Pannier, and is often one of the trickier jobs involved when building a loco etch that has been 'shot down' from 4mm scale.

It's just the nature of the beast when modelling in 2FS. If you really want scale width splashers, you are looking at modelling in P4 or S7 instead.

Chris

Thanks for that I'll see if I can find the sheet on the YAG I must have missed it. Will also look up article.

The problem I foresee is quartering. Dead easy when there's no slop in axles as the etched rods are so accurate. But add in the axle slop and you're into a completely different game with possibility of jerking wheels as coupling rods "rotate" if quartering not spot on and you've lost one of the ways of it happening naturally. Just a thought.

All I can say is that the senior 2mm modellers who use this technique do not seem to have any problems. If indeed you are quartering the wheels such that "when the run, that's OK" you might see more issues. But really you should be quartering the wheels such that they are all at 90', not just close enough to run.

Lathe solution is rather clever but to be honest even if you own a lathe the Association quartering jig is quicker to set up. And certainly cheaper if you don't.

Chris

These centres come from the 2mm website "gear mesh calculator", which I wrote and am reasonably certain is accurate.

 

64DP 14T to 18T, theoretical perfect mesh 6.35mm, with running clearnances = 6.48mm

M0.4 14T to 18T, theoretical perfect mesh 6.40mm, with running clearance = 6.53mm

100DP 18T to 31T, theoretical perfect mesh = 6.22mm, with running clearance = 6.35mm

100DP 20T to 30T, theoretical perfect mesh = 6.35mm with running clearance = 6.48mm

 

Gears, gear mesh calculations and related items are discussed in a pair of articles by Denys Brownlee and Henk Oversloot in a 1990's 2mm Magazine, which is in the archive CD set.

 

 

- Nigel

The chassis are designed with the M0.4 figures with slack so are 6.53mm in this case.

So 20:30 100DP should work fine, but as pointed out you do have to know where to buy them.

I'm going to be using the M0.3 gears for the design of the next batch of chassis as it gives more available options and in most cases a slightly higher gear reduction.

100DP 18T to 31T = 6.35mm

I think this should be the spacing for 19T to 31T. The way it works is that for gears of the same pitch, having the same total number of teeth on the two gears should give the same total spacing. So 19:31 and 20:30 should be the same spacing.

Chris

Thanks for that Chris yes I had noticed the extra holes (talking of extra holes what are the holes for in the etching of the springs in the 57xx?)

• Do they need to be on all three axles?
  
• I've used all100DP gears and not 64DP but assume they could still be used
  
• I was reluctant to open up the holes to 1.6mm when it ran perfectly well at 1.5mm
  
• Yes it runs fine on wires connected direct to motor at very slow speeds and with hardly a flicker from a milliammeter needle as drivers slowly rotate.
  

After running it in some more on a little shuttle unit the pickup problem now comes down to just the front pair of drivers which is strange given that the centre drivers are up a hairsbreadth.

 

I found your coupling rods so accurate that when the second side slides onto crankpins easily I know the quartering is correct. That why I preferred no slop in the axle bearings or the crankpins holes.

 

And I'm reluctant to take it apart now that all the brake gear etc is on and everything painted. And fortunately it is getting better with running in on the shuttle rather than on rollers or against the buffers.

Common sense says that introducing a bit of slop on 100DP spur gears could be more problematic than 64DP/M0.4.

I would have thought either springing only the centre axle or all six would be stable combinations. Never spring the outside ones without the centre one, that would create the dreaded rocking action.

You could try adding the springs just as pickups, without enlarging the holes. Although it has now been done for so many years, it is questionable as to using bearings as pickups, which is what the split frame design does, is totally wise, given that oil might get in there.

Which combination of 100DP gears did you use? None of the available combinations seem to match the mesh centres used for the M0.4 gears, so I think you took a bit of a risk there?

Chris