Chris Higgs

I recently picked up one of the Hattons O Gauge A4s in LNER Garter Blue livery, which I am hoping to detail with "British Railways" in the tender, as I know at least some carried that post-1948 before being fully repainted into BR colours. But I have a couple of questions I would like answers to

1. After the war, I understand that the sideskirts on the A4s were not reinstated. But were the remaining cylinder covers repainted Garter Blue along with the loco, or were they black?

2. Which locos carried the "British Railways" on the tender? I have bought one with a corridor tender and single chimney. I have found photos of "Seagull", but it had a double chimney (I suppose I could change the chimney).

Any help would be gratefully received

Chris Higgs

2 hours ago, martin580120 said:

Thanks all, I think I've found the root cause, well, kinda...

 

I disassembled and reassembled it all, hooking the motor up to a small button battery and found if the worm is pressed against either edge of the gearbox then it seems to jam. By positioning the worm dead centre it turns freely.

 

I then refitted the skew/spur and this still turns freely, however as the skew turns, it forces the worm towards the sides of the gearbox.

 

I managed to video it, I'm not sure how clear it is I was trying to hold the battery and push the worm backwards and forwards with one hand whilst holding my phone with the other.

 

 

I think the root cause of this is my assembly of the gearbox itself, but it can be recovered by mounting the motor such that the worm sits clear of the two edges of the gearbox (I think). I'll have to be more careful in building future gearboxes.

 

Thanks @Chris Higgs, motor mounting was one of my next thoughts/queries. Do you have any examples you could share a photo of?

 

@Caley Jim, I've ordered up some threadlocker to add to the shaft adapter, and future ones, thanks for that tip.

 

I've never supported the other end of the motor using heavy gauge wire myself, but Mick Simpson suggested it to me, and I know he did it with the Class 08 kit. It is easier with a motor that has tags you solder wires to, rather than the one here where the wires come straight out of the casing.

But what Nick has done seems a more refined way of handling the motor mount on these type of locos in any case.

Chris

On 23/11/2022 at 22:54, nick_bastable said:

so is the shaft 1.5mm ?  the later chassis did away with the gearbox as it could cause issues

 

Not really an option here as you can see right under the boiler of a J94 so a normal motor mount  cannot be used. The cantilever gearbox is a necessity. A very good idea to support the other end of the motor, perhaps with some rigid wires rather than flexible ones.

20 hours ago, bécasse said:

The loco in this photo was delivered from Hunslet in green so it has to be green in the photo*. It was renumbered at Melton Constable, presumably by a signwriter who wrongly used yellow paint, the large D could be, and was sometimes, used where it would fit on a cabside. The yellow paint colour is a red herring as far as you are concerned as your loco remains in its original black even though it has been renumbered (at whatever its depot was at the time - Parkeston?).

 

This photo (penultimate thumbnail), which actually shows an 03 in green at Pickering, gives an excellent impression of how the buffer beam and casings (and also coupling rods) should be weathered on a loco that hasn't been repainted (or overhauled) for years. I would use a very diluted wash of black paint, doing each surface laid horizontally at a time and allowing the paint to dry before moving on to the next, then when all four are dry I would give each a dusting of a dark coloured powder.

 

I imagine that you have seen this photo (second thumbnail) which depicts your prototype in black before it was renumbered in 1959. The renumbering would have to have been done at a depot for it to remain black but that wasn't uncommon. The electrification flashes were added (normally) at depots in mid-1960.

 

* You are not alone in making this mistake, a similar error (in respect of an 08) can be found in this month's Model Rail.

Yeah, green it is, you can see that where they have cleaned around the numbering. The rest basically might as well be black, it appears just to be covered all over in grime.

Nice Stratford 'skinhead' 31 behind! Perhaps your next task?

Chris

On 31/10/2022 at 09:47, Caley Jim said:

As I said a few posts back, I couldn't get a proper drawing of the original artwork of the end profile and so had to 'trace' over a scaled .png of it. I was pleasantly surprised how well the fit was. There was some adjustment needed and the fit is not quite perfect, but with a bit of scraping of the print and a few strokes of a file to the ends it's good enough. I'm going to get some help in modifying the CAD at our next group meeting. I'm pretty sure that if I'd been able to get the original artwork for the etches I could have achieved a better fit. Of course much will depend on how accurately the printer reproduces the CAD. 

 

Jim 

Etching a set of new ends to your own profile could be a solution.

Chris

On 31/10/2022 at 01:35, VRBroadgauge said:

A question Jim. Are you happy with the junction between the 3DP and the etch? I'm about to do something similar with some heavyweight cars. I was told that the it was very difficult to get a satisfactory join between the two that stayed satisfactory. My first thought was to etch the roof but there's a problem with getting the curves right. I also have an end car which has a compound curve.

In your experience is there something I should do to make this easier?

Having designed a whole lot of resin and later 3D-printed roofs, I can vouch that curving an etched roof to a elliptical or 3-arc profile is a whole order of magnitude more difficult. Not sure what you would see as difficult about the joint between 3D-printed roof and etched end would be - there is the question of differential expansion in varying temperatures I suppose. 

Chris 

On 19/06/2022 at 21:39, Chris Higgs said:

In other news, it appears Network Rail have given up on trying to build their signals with the overscale LEDs in, and just resorted to making the heads bigger. And if you were wondering where the stock of Midland Railway bufferstops went, I think I found out.

 

Talking of bufferstops, as we approach 100 years since the Grouping, I have come to the conclusion that apart from the buildings and civil engineering structures, bufferstops seem to have lasted the longest. Just this past week I have seen GNR examples at Hitchin, and GER versions at March and Cambridge, with the very latest electric stock parked up against them. I suspect the LBSCR one just north of East Croydon is probably still there too.

Chris 

On 01/11/2022 at 10:31, Coombe Barton said:

Now there's a Tornado type project!

Certainly one for those 'fictitious liveries' we tend to see these days. Only requires a set of etched plates. Need to get it out by next May though. 

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

Now time has moved on a little, is there a known solution for converting the Farish C-class to 2mmFS? 

 

I have access to a lathe so in theory I could turn down the wheels but before I get myself in trouble...

IIRC, a C class has a 8' + 8'6" wheelbase so the Farish Jinty conversion chassis would at least provide some frames.

Although given the nature of the Farish construction with the bottom portion of the boiler being part of the chassis, I suspect wheel reprofiling is the path of least resistance.

I do recall having drawn up a C class set of frames with the idea of somehow combining them with parts for a Farish 4F but abandoning the idea as too silly, the wheelbase being the only real common factor.

Chris

On 29/10/2022 at 18:12, Hroth said:

The front end of a King, easily spotted on the magazine racks.  I'll give it a week to percolate down to my usual newsagent!

 

Very patriotic!

 

Presumably 6030 "King Charles III"

16 hours ago, Richard Hall said:

Not quite sure whether moving the pivot point was worth the effort.  I think my first compensating beam was a fluke: much harder to get it central on the axles and the ride height correct, second time around.  I'm now getting an oscillation at certain speeds which rapidly increases until the loco derails. So it still needs a bit of fettling, but here are a couple of bad videos for now. First up, the naked chassis, completely unweighted.  If the low speed control looks a bit unimpressive, bear in mind that the controller is an H&M Clipper.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9q4UrAFsJE

 

And secondly the same chassis with Pannier body tackles a ridiculous gradient.  1 in 5, maybe a bit steeper.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9QM0VtImxM

 

Still not 100% sure all this will end up leading anywhere useful, but it's fun.

 

Richard

A point I have seen made is that compensation  keeps all the wheels on the track, but not in the same way the prototype does (or at least normally does). Hence don't expect it to ride like the real thing. If you want that, you probably have to spring it. Certainly my fully sprung 4mm CCTs glide along compared to my compensated wagons.

Chris  

9 hours ago, Sithlord75 said:

That's good news Chris.  Does this mean the previous post about some of your stuff being produced in limited numbers is now back on?  

 

Cheers

Kevin

 

In due course. For now, I am concentrating on getting some new artwork done for certain previous items I have agreed with Tony to get back into the Association range on a permanent basis. One is already with the shop but I will leave him to announce that.

Chris

On 12/10/2022 at 21:12, Chris Higgs said:

 

Just to say, I am currently liaising with Grainge and Hodder (the other etchers in the model railway business) to use existing ex-PEC photo tools. Hopefully by next week I will see whether this has been successful.

 

Chris

 

Results from Grainge and Hodder were successful. Bob Jones is also getting PPD to produce etches from some of his ex-PEC photo tools.

What this means is that we will not have to produce new tools for some existing Association items previously sourced from PEC.

Chris

6 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

What about the depth of the axleboxes and springs? The Bachmann ones are way too shallow to represent the real thing. The original Mainline ones were better in that regard.

 

Chris

 

And looking at photos of the real thing

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brclass45/hbe0eab79#hbe0eab79  (also look at the others in the same collection)

it is a minefield to get the combination of axlebox covers right.

Chris

On 09/10/2022 at 10:17, adb968008 said:

I’m looking at it again this morning, at those axleboxes..

 

i’m not sure if i’m being hasty here… but when comparing all 3, Bachmanns original class 46 is closer to Heljans in size.

 

Heljans 45/1 size is 6.10mm axlebox, and an axlebox cover diameter of 4.75mm

Bachmann 45/0 is 5.67mm axlebox, and an axlebox cover diameter of 3.45mm

Bachmann 1990’s 46 is 5.36mm axlebox, and an axlebox cover diameter of 3.6mm

 

it wouldnt stand out so much if all three were close but theres 1.3mm ( 4.5 scale inches) difference between the three.

 

does anyone know the correct size of a class 45 Timken Axlebox cover ? - ive one offer of 11inches off a 37  that would put Bachmanns 1990’s axlebox as the winner.. but if anyone has the correct size ?

 

What about the depth of the axleboxes and springs? The Bachmann ones are way too shallow to represent the real thing. The original Mainline ones were better in that regard.

Chris

5 hours ago, Nig H said:

Hello,

 

Here is a copy of a notice that will be appearing in the next Newsletter.

 

"Members Products

I will soon be releasing the following kits:

1. LMS 2P 4-4-0. Similar to the Midland 483 class but with detail differences. Price £30.

2. Midland Railway Johnson-style 3,500 gallon tender (rivetted version). Many ex Midland 4F 0-6-0s ran with these tenders so offer an alternative to the Fowler version included with the Mike Raithby 4F etc. Price £20.

3. Fowler 3,500 gallon tender. I have decided to provide this kit as the Mike Raithby etches for the 4F and 8F are no longer available, the etchers having lost the tooling. This style of tender ran with a number of LMS locomotives including the 4F, 2P 4-4-0, Patriots, Jubilees and 8Fs. Price £20.

I will also have available parts needed to convert my Midland Railway Johnson 3,250 gal tender to the original style with lower front bulkhead and full length coal rails. Price £2.

 

Please contact me if you need more information or are interested in buying any of them.

 

Photo Etch Consultants Ltd.

Many of you may have heard that the etchers, Photo Etch Consultants, have ceased trading. I and several other members used this company to produce many of our etched kits. Fortunately, much of the photo tooling, including my own, was rescued by Bob Jones and Chris Higgs and returned to the owners. However, finding another company that can use the photo tools is another matter. My photo tools are too wide to fit a standard sheet used by PPD Ltd, my other preferred etcher. So to produce more of my kits I would need to arrange new artwork with either fewer of the existing drawings on a PPD sheet, or parts on the existing drawings re-arranged to create a narrower but deeper fret that would use space on the PPD sheet more economically. Either of these alternatives is costly in terms of time and the expense of creating a new photo tool.

Given the above and that sales of my existing kits are low once the initial rush following their release is over, I am considering not re-stocking most products once existing stocks have run out."

 

The new kits arrived today. I just need to produce instructions for them.

 

Nigel Hunt

 

Just to say, I am currently liaising with Grainge and Hodder (the other etchers in the model railway business) to use existing ex-PEC photo tools. Hopefully by next week I will see whether this has been successful.

Chris

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

If you have a lathe then another option is to use it to machine the Minitrix wheels to 2FS. Then you can use the original axles. It’s fairly easy to do. Just skim a bit off the wheel backs to get the 0.3mm flange width. And skim the fronts to reduce the overall width - if you want to. 
 

Bob

A lot of Continental wheels do not have the NMRA profile Bachmann et al use now. So need the flange depth reducing as well.

Chris

12 hours ago, Klaus ojo said:

Roy,

I am not sure what is better. sanding the tip minimally or finescale drilling in plastics?

It might differ from model to model, but when I made a check with the next available wagon in my boxes I found that one wheel 15.2mm was spinning freely while the second was a tighter fit not yet spinning. It is not much to get them spinning. - Thanks, Chris, for these wheelsets! Now I could get a 2mm poultry wagon within minutes...

Alternatively with  cutting off all 4 edges the W irons 2-312f from shop2 will fit exactly between the plastic W irons of my Fleischmann 4 wheel van. With a bit of filing on the bottom and drilling a hole for the screw it might even be possible to mount the 12.25 mm W irons reversable. The brass bearings will be a fit into the hole in the axleboxes. At least on this model. Amanda, what models do you have? Eventually I might have one to check as well...

cheers

Klaus

 

2-314 is better, it doesn't need anything cutting off. The main question is whether you would need to cut a slot in the floor to accomodate it. There is a picture in the shop listings. And none of them will work with bogies, that would probably need a specialised etch.

Chris

13 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

Why not make one of those tools that drills out the axle boxes a bit? A cone one one end, a drill bit the other end. I think DCC Concepts make them for 4mm scale, they my do then for 2mm as well. It'll save a lot of bother filing down axles.

But isn't reversible (in case you ever want to sell the stock). I have used those tools in 4mm, they didn't work as well as advertised. I ended up melting the bearings into place. Which didn't work that well either (as you might expect). 

Filing down axles takes only a couple of seconds, a lot less time than using one of those tools. And is perhaps a good idea anyway, as the very sharp points on them do have a habit of eating their way into the plastic and out of the front.

Chris

I have done this. On lots of Fleischmann coaches and wagons. The 15.2mm works fine, in fact it was me who first arranged for the 15.2mm axles on 6mm plain disc wheels to be done for this purpose. The 14.2mm and 13.7mm were created for the same purpose, as other manufacturers have different axle lengths. And indeed you can take a smigeon off axles on the end. But be careful, you cannot put it back on! It takes the tiniest touch with a file to reduce the length by quite a bit.

I have a set of Roco 6-wheel coaches which run quite nicely, they have Cleminson chassis. It always amuses me how the continental manufactures get their coaches to couple up with almost no gap between the corridor connectors when the British RTR seem to think that is impossible.

Chris

BTW, I find the 14.8mm axles pretty much useless, even for the Peco wagons they are supposed to work with. The coning angle is designed for the Association bearing cups and that is what it works with.

2 hours ago, Jan W said:

That is not the case; you forget that the other wheel of the wheelset is on the track so nothing will happen on normal turnouts. It might go wrong on symmetric three way turnouts or crossings (double slip) though.

 

Jan

Can't say I agree. If the CoG is towards that end of the loco, there will be tendency for both end wheels to try and touch the ground, surely? Depends on the weight distribution as  to whether the other end of the chassis which would have to lift will allow that to happen. 

Anyway, I still think its an idea that isn't really going to work. 

Chris

On 17/09/2022 at 22:34, Jan W said:

You are right Chris, I should have said fixed chassis with six or more wheels.

Anything with four wheels will give problems.

 

Having thought some more about this, I think even a 6 wheel chassis would drop into the gap running one way or the other. If for example the weight is distributed so that the leading wheels do not fall i.e. it is sitting on its middle and rear axle, then when the rear axle reaches the frog gap, then it should fall in instead.

You would need an 8 wheel rigid chassis with centre of gravity between the two middle axles to avoid any chance of falling in. And as by definition any pony trucks will fall in, it had better be an 0-8-0 (or 0-6-2 with radial axle). And if a tender loco, that will need to be an 8 wheel example as well.

At least it makes your choice of prototype easy...

Chris 

30 minutes ago, andreas said:

 

Building locos to n gauge standards is of course an option. Bachmann have recently started offering complete wheelsets for all their models at around £6 per axle. The only downside are the unsightly coupling rods and the challenge of adopting existing kits (is that even possible?) to the much narrower BTB.

 

That seems a very reasonable price. I doubt I would try adapting 2mm chassis kits though. Probably easier just to cut your own frames.

Chris

> I looked at using small 2.3mm muffs for the non-driven axles so I can get the first stage wormwheel down as low as possible. The clearance between the worm wheel and a 1/8” muff is minimal when the second reduction comprises 14t:14t so every fraction helps.

Its possible to mill/file a small slot in the 1/8" or 3mm muffs if you want to clear the wormwheel in this configuration.

Chris

5 hours ago, queensquare said:

Not Bath but only a few miles south. Great to see and hear a bit of steam on the S&D in glorious autumn sunshine, even if it's only a short stretch toward Chilcompton. A really enjoyable afternoon.

 

Jerry

 

 

 

 

 

Edited to add the photos!

 

GWR bufferstops on the S&D?