Chris Higgs

Indeed they are slightly different. However you have I think misunderstood how the separate axlebox overlays work (at least that's the way it looks, my aging eyes are struggling). The idea is that each layer should be spaced at the correct 9' spacing to match the bogie, so they can be attached both at the same time. Whereas you have created the two sets of three as a mirror image of each other, which means only the centre ones are spaced at 9'. They probably would have emerged if anyone had pointed out to me that the Pressed Steel bogies on the full brakes differed from those on the passenger coaches - it had escaped my attention! Chris

The bogies at bottom right do look rather familar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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

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

The recommended size for axle holes when using 'SImpson springs' is 1.6mm. These are nothing more than pieces of very thin phosper-bronze wire which bear onto the axles in the gap between the inside of the frames and the muffs and act as springs/pickups - in reality mostly the latter. Your chassis already has extra holes etched into it to locate the ends of these. You can buy such wire at Eileens emporium of use N gauge coupler springs straightened out. The coarseness of the gears used in the design mean it's OK to have a little bit of play even on the driven axle in this case. But I would not totally rule out the possibility of other issues. Running on wires attached to the motor, double check that it really rotates smoothly without any tight spots in the rotation. Causes for this could be quartering issues or irregularity in the gear teeth. It's possible these might not stop the loco when running on such a test, but will when it has the extra effort of moving its own weight along the track. Chris

You obviously need a bigger vice. I have no problem pushing them in that way. Turning them to quarter is another matter. For those that don't know how to get them out again, you use a soldering iron and melt the muff off! Chris

The problem with broaches are that they soon end up cutting on a large section of the muff all at once. Plus the hole will be slightly tapered - at least in theory not good for wobble. With my drills I end up with a parallel hole and the reaming out is much easier. Chris

Sadly I have now forgotten :-) But it was at an online supplier, and I think not a model railway one. CHris

I bought myself a set of drills with very small increments: 1.5mm, 1.51, 1.52 etc. These I can run into the muffs until I reach the desired size. A general comment on the muffs - they are made tight as it's relatively easier to open them out than fill them in! Tolerance reasons on them and the wheel axles mean we cannot make them exactly to a certain tightness of fit. A significant proportion would then have to be discarded as too loose. Plus each loco builder has his own preference of how tight he wants them to be. Chris

I would recommend using some brass rod instead of the axle steel. You will find it easier to solder to the flycrank. Chris

Somewhere on RMWEB (or its previous versions) Richard Brummitt had details of the test build he did for me, which was of the rear axle drive. Chris

For the rear axle drive you have to remove metal both to accomodate a decent size motor, and to leave daylight under the boiler. WIthout removing metal you could only get in a 6mm coreless motor, with metal removal you can get in an 8mm. Anything larger and you will obscure the space below the boiler that this method is designed to create. These rear axle frames are really for advanced modellers. To do a really proper job you also really need to make a new footplate from brass, as Julia did on her Pannier. Removing metal from Farish bodies is a right pain because of the alloy they use. You will get through a few tools on you milling machine or Dremel. For the centre axle drive no metal removal is needed, although you may wish to remove a tiny bit to position a 10mm coreless motor further forward. The new Association can motor (8mm by 10mm by 16mm) can be accomodated without any body changes. Chris

For the rear axle drive you have to remove metal both to accomodate a decent size motor, and to leave daylight under the boiler. WIthout removing metal you could only get in a 6mm coreless motor, with metal removal you can get in an 8mm. Anything larger and you will obscure the space below the boiler that this method is designed to create. These rear axle frames are really for advanced modellers. To do a really proper job you also really need to make a new footplate from brass, as Julia did on her Pannier. Removing metal from Farish bodies is a right pain because of the alloy they use. You will get through a few tools on you milling machine or Dremel. For the centre axle drive no metal removal is needed, although you may wish to remove a tiny bit to position a 10mm coreless motor further forward. The new Association can motor (8mm by 10mm by 16mm) can be accomodated without any body changes. Chris

Well, they could always spend that little extra time thinking about the scenarios in which their products might get used. In almost all walks of life, the earlier you make the adjustments the easier they are. Chris

It's not a bend line, but a seperation line. Some people will prefer not to leave the metal running right across the spacer with only a small off-centre isolation gap. So as an alterative you can use the hole as a drilling jig for the spacer, then remove the centre section. This is no problem. You can either make sure the wires mounting the brakes are short enough to fit into the frames but not not foul the spacers, or simply drill a little into the spacer to give the wire a hole to sit in. I prefer the latter as it requires less precision work. Chris

I think you will find that as the business end of the coupling is the same, changing details like how it is mounted may not be sufficiently different to protect people from copyright issues. Trust me, I have encountered real difficulties in the past with these issues, even when there was no copyright issue (because the person involved had not noticed he was not the first person to actually invent the idea!) it still caused everyone a lot of hassle because that person just would not let it rest. It put a numebr of people to a lot of wasted time rebutting him. So I won't worry my pretty little head about it, Missy. But someone might well have to. Chris

I hope you are considering the copyright issues here. I don't know who you pestered in the Association, but it wasn't me as Products Officer and if you had, my answer would have been that we don't own the copyright and therefore are not able to redesign them for NEM pockets. We just sell them. I suggest you contact D.G. Couplings if you have not already done so. Chris