Chris Higgs

Axles in generous axle holes - how generous?

It may indeed be that the chassis is not dead flat. In fact on an 0-6-0 it's better to have the middle axle a touch high. - The chassis is dead flat on testing with mirrow and the centre axle by luck is marginally up by a hairs breadth.

This axle should then have two light phosphor bronze springs on it.- Do you mean on the centre slightly raised axle?

This adjustment must not be done on the driven wheel, of course. - sadly the centre axle is the driven axle!

 

And in answer to Jerry's questions,

are you testing it with the body on? - yes on and off makes no difference and I've tried loading it with a large piece of lead sheet wrapped over the loco.

have you used any additional means of pickup eg. Simpson springs? - I've looked up Simpson Springs but cannot find a picture showing exactly what is meant by this.

do all the wheels sit squarley on the track - yes the front and rear ones do but the centre ones are ever so slightly raised

adding very fine conventional wiper pickups - both back and top acting.- Please can you point me to a diagram or picture so I know what you mean exactly. (sorry to be dense!)

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

this is what I was thinking given I can not get a wheel in a muff unless I ream it out first

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

I have struggled to get the broaches to enlarge the holes in the muffs - it may be that my broaches were not sharp-enough, but the acetal material I think the muffs are made from is rather difficult to cut/machine (I recall one former chief shopkeeper likened it to trying to turn noodles in a lathe!)

 

Andy

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

That sounds interesting idea Chris. But where do you buy drills in 0.01mm increments? And when I do find some what do you recommend going up to - 1.54 or more or not so far?

Tony

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

CHris

I made a D bit reamer (as explained in the Build an 0-6-0 2mm booklet) from a length of axle steel to tackle this job.

 

All this involves is taking a piece of axle steel, file a flat at one end approximately 1/2" long so it resembles a D when looked at from the end and then file a slight bevel on the end. Then you have to temper the steel by heating it until it's red hot then plunge it into cold water. You can then use an oil stone on the flat to make the cutting edges nice and sharp.

 

That's how I do it anyway and it works quite well.

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

John,

 

You will need to make up the two half-axles as you describe, and connect them using a plain muff. You can use the axle steel for the half-axles, and any of the plain muffs will do. Fixing the flycranks to the axle might be a problem - I haven't quite got that far with my chassis yet.

 

Hope this helps

 

Andy

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

Chris

That all sounds pretty difficult but I might still try the rear axle drive just to try to get the improved appearance. There's some nice photos of the chassis and motor on centre axle in the instructions and earlier in this post, does anyone have (a) similar photo(s) of the rear axle build?

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

That's very interesting as I hadn't realised the metal removal was to fit the motor. I had been under the mistaken impression that it was a cosmetic exercise to give a clear view under the boiler. What therefore is the biggest motor one can fit after say minimal removal of metal?

 

And does it mean that even with the drive on the centre axle for this conversion you had to remove metal to fit the motor? I'd appreciate knowing what size motor you managed to use or that one can get in?

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

That's very interesting as I hadn't realised the metal removal was to fit the motor. I had been under the mistaken impression that it was a cosmetic exercise to give a clear view under the boiler. What therefore is the biggest motor one can fit after say minimal removal of metal?

 

And does it mean that even with the drive on the centre axle for this conversion you had to remove metal to fit the motor? I'd appreciate knowing what size motor you managed to use or that one can get in?

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

It must be really frustrating being a manufaturer at times. For years modellers have been crying out for working ready to plonk signals. Now they're here we're grumbling that the control mechanism isn't perfect. Either way they can't win.

 

Happy modelling.

 

Steven B.

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

Finally started on 57XX.

 

I started on the rear wheel drive frames, as practice. The frames were quite easy to separate from the etch, and bend up, but what is that extra bend line for on the frame spacer piece?

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.

Having ascertained the body needed a lot of surgery for these frames, I opted for the centre drive frames. These were not so easy to separate, or get my cutters in - I'm using the Xuron ones. However success. Pleased to see the axle holes etc accept the bearings accurately, but I'm concerned that the holes for brake supports clash with frame spacers.

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

Chris

 

What copyright issue? There might be a patent issue if the design is patented, but given that Missy has drawn her own artwork and it is significantly different there is no copyright issue IIRC.

 

Cheers, Mike

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

Thats a bit of a coincidence! I have been pestering the 2mmSA to do NEM DGs for a while now and the reply was "well you design them and we will see" so on my latest sheet of etching I have had a play with some DGs to see if it is possible,,,

 

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

...Here lay the problem!, the copious grease was all around the flywheels and in what little clearance there was, preventing the motor reaching full speed. I cleaned it all up, put it together, ran it, and for a short while it seemed ok, then it started to slow down. Subsequent investigation revealed the damage had been done with the motor burning out...

We seem to have heard this before. I do hope we are not about to witness Class17gate all over again.

Chris

Thanks for the tip Chris. Not sure I can really justify more 'foriegn' cattle wagons but as I like them I will be getting one!

 

Jerry

Instructions are in VAG files area now. Please read - Richard this means you :-)

Chris

I expect you have been brainwashed by Tim into thinking all great layouts must take 30 years to build. (he is of course wrong, the truly great take more than 50).

Or just waiting for Easitrac to come along?

Chris

Do you mean like this.......another shot from a few years ago - that water tower isn't there any more.

 

Jerry

That bus is a bit unlikely for the early 70s, though.

Chris

New chassis jig for the 03 arrived this morning. The frames now have the bearings soldered in, and are sitting in the jig with the axle steel rods through the jig and frames, waiting for me to fettle up and fit the ocb spacers. But that's tomorrow.

 

Here's a quick tip I don't put in the instructions. The quickest way to cut the spacers to length is with a Xuron track cutter and file smooth. Beats cutting them with a saw.

Chris

Instructions are over-rated. Real men shouldn't be reading them.

Hint: in this case, you will need to read them. There is one part that must be done in exactly the specified order, otherwise it goes horribly wrong.

Chris

You may be interested to know that three new Association cattle wagon kits have been ordered from the etchers and should be in the shops in a month or so.

 

1. GNR/early LNER

2. late LNER

3. late LMS (also a BR diagram).

 

Probably only the first is in period for your layout though.

 

Chris

These went to Shop 2 Friday. I still need to write the instructions though.

Chris

The big problem I see with doing replacement wheelsets for recent DMUs - particularly Dapol - is that they seem so ephemeral. By the time you read a review in a magazine and decide to buy, many have already sold out - forever. I don't know if Dapol are using common components in N scale. My friends who buy Dapol 4mm products say they seem to invent new, non-standard solutions for each model they produce. This makes conversion to P4 particularly difficult (except for the Sentinel shunter, anyway). Sending the wheels off to be turned down to 2mm standards may be the only practical option in 2mm scale.

Dapol use three different factories, and I suspect this lies at the bottom of what we see. I suspect the factories tell Dapol how the design details will be, rather than the other way around. And if when you come back for more there is no capacity to make it , that's the end of it.

I was quite disappointed by my Dapol 121 which everyone seemed to be raving about. It's bogies sideframes are way more chunky than they need to be. And the windows have a far more prismatic effect than other manufacturers seem to manage.

Bachmann on the other hand own a factory as I understand it.

Chris

P.S: I am very happy with may latest modern EMU though, an 8 car unit manufactured by Hornby in N. I will leave you to work that out.

This allows us, as we always use hard steel tools, to be still making class 22 models in 40 years time.

Farish do that (churn out 40 year old models). Whether they should is another question.

Interesting, Chris, and it caused me to measure my 'J69'. You are absolutely right about the main part of the body but, as I suspected, it is the smokebox and boiler that cause the problem in the looks. At 1:148 the smokebox should be 10mm in diameter and it is 12mm while the boiler should be 9mm and it measures 11mm thus giving the look of a rather over-blown front end. Perhaps a cut across in front of the tanks, then horizontally level with the footplate and replace with correct size pieces of tube might just give it better proportions.

 

David

Probably a step too far. Might as well build the David Eveleigh kit if I want an accurate model.

Chris

I always took the GP tank to be a sort of warped Jinty and certainly the Weetabix version that I have is exactly that. The 'J69' (I use the inverted commas wisely) was an early production along with the 94xx and the Hall. Its distorted size was due to the flat can motor that Farish used in these first three productions. The wheels were most remarkable as the flanges were truly enormous which made the wheel centres look tiny. I seem to remember that Chris abandoned the idea of a chassis for the 94XX when he decided that the body was too compromised in its dimensions to make it worthwhile. When Farish changed the chassis to the type with the motor of their own design which was slimmer than the can they did not change the body casting to reflect it.

 

David

I found to my horror that I owned one of those later GPs. I have a whole box of the plastic version in my attic, but I also have now a metal one whjich came as a job lot on ebay with a J94 body that I did want. The funny thing is, I picked it up and realised functionally it would make an ideal 2mm loco! It weighs a whole lot and have acres of space inside for a Mashima motor. Think I might design it an 0-8-0 chassis to counteract all these teeny-weeny things that are everyone else's taste in locos. Should make a change as I can put the wheels where I like to suit the gears rather than the usual palava of having to match a published drawing. MR design for a hump-shunter for Toton yard?

Or perhaps not...

Also measured the 'J69' and was surprised it was not as distorted as I thought. Tanks are too high and long, but not by much. The body itself is actually not as wide as it should be for a J69, so it could even take some side overlays.

Chris

Frome market day special - I have about double this number of cattle wagons now with several more on the way, they are a favourite type of mine. I would still like to add some sort of passenger accomadation to this train for farmers/market goers though not decided what yet. I envisage it being advertised in the public timetable as a weekly service mixed train - primarily cattle.

 

You may be interested to know that three new Association cattle wagon kits have been ordered from the etchers and should be in the shops in a month or so.

1. GNR/early LNER

2. late LNER

3. late LMS (also a BR diagram).

Probably only the first is in period for your layout though.

Chris