Chris Higgs

I didn't do the 14 because I thought someone else (presumably you) had already done it. Otherwise it certainly would have been on my second list as a useful industrial. I had been given the impression (no idea by who) that it was already finished and ready to go. Chris

I am doing two things in this regard: 1. Ordering replacement etches of the assembly jigs only for these three locos. 2. Checking whether the chassis will build OK as is - for the more impatient! Notwithstanding remarks on the VAG, I found that the test etches of both J94 and 03 built OK, which is why I did not spot the error at the time. This was because although the axle rods were going through the jig at an angle, the two frames were still held square to one another and so soldering up true. The slots in the jig, which are primarily there to hold the frames at the correct width were wide enough to accomodate the fact that the frames were not actually quite vertical in the slot. I have to test whether that is still true in the production etches, which were etched with a different company. Unfortunately I have to attend a funeral today, and so will not have time to investigate until tomorrow at least. Those using the old fashioned method of assembly with the Association jig (3-270) won't be affected by the issue. Chris

18" is probably the absolute minimum you could get away with, and on a gradient - well I would try out a test. I don't think there are any layouts out there that have this combination. 24" radius would be better. Chris

Not wanting to get too involved as I am just a 3mm dabbler, but I do model in P4 and 2mmFS. It seems to me that the theoretical S3 outlined does differ from 2mmFS in a key dimension - that of flange depth, and there it differs by 40%. Knowing that P4 mostly needs compensation or springing with a 0.37mm flange depth, I really do wonder whether a 0.3mm deep flange would stay on the track, especially on anything but the most generous curves. And I suspect nobody has actually tried? I have a P4 layout with 5' radius curves and it needs checkrails to keep the stock on, even with compensation. Don't want to say never, as they said just the same about P4, but it does seems to me that some dimensions can really only scale down so far before things like dirt on the wheels become significant. Having said all that, I have never seen a connection between the flange depth and everything else in track/wheel standards. I have often wished I had some wheels that were P4 for everything except a having deeper flange. Incidentally, your figure for P87 flange depth is incorrect. It should be 0.35mm (actually the spec says 0.31-0.35mm). Chris

My favourite tools are 1. Small pair of watchmaker's pliers. I only seem to need the one pair which I inherited from my Dad. My kids will tell you what a stink there is when they have been lifted without permission from my workbench. 2. Top of the range needle files. Worth every penny. 3. RSU 4. Mole wrench. Does everything else around the house and even finds a few uses in 2mm modelling. 5. CAD software Piercing saw was lost years ago. No idea where it is. Chris

0.25mm (10 thou) like everything else in 2mm! I did the Association 08 kit frames in 15 thou, which wrorked well, however the finer parts - brakes and rodding - won't come out in that thickness. And creating a chassis with two different thicknesses is a logistical nightmare. If 10 thou is good enough for the maestro Bob Jones, it's good enough for me. Build the 03 first, the 08 is more challenging. Not much room for the outside frames (it's that issue with overwidth wheels and true-scale track gauge, Natalie) and you have to get those outside cranks right. Chris

Best to say accurately drill. I have had a few tribulations with gear meshing over the years, which is why I etch all my stuff now. Not to mention no need to cut out stuff with a piercing saw, at which I was also rubbish. I can build one of these chassis kit from its parts in an hour (excluding the brake gear). Ok, I've had a bit of practice. Everything from then on is the stuff you have to do for every loco, kit or scratch built. Quartering the wheels, fitting the coupling rods, getting everything running smoothly. Chris

Well there almost certainly will be a clearance issue. In 2mmFS, we have to move the effective centres of the cylinders outwards to clear the coupling rods and valve gear behind. This is normally done subtly by placing the hole and slots for the slidebars off-centre in the outside cylinders. These issues tend to arise more with etches shot-down from larger scales where these specific dodges have not been designed into the kit. Cutting off the splashers and moving them marginally outwards is an absolute pain. Even in P4, often the front crankpin often has to be omitted to avoid fouling the valve gear. The fact that the 3mm Socieity now do moulded track for 13.5 I think shows it has caught on. Or alternatively one well-heeled devotee stumped up the money to produce it. :-) Chris

Well, yes and no. They have built a high speed route from Brussels to Liege (near where I live). It is little used by high speed trains, a bit more so by conventional trains using a non-stop route which cut half and hour off the trip. Even these only run twice an hour each way, so hardly releasing loads of extra capacity on the conventional route. The extra 15 minutes reduction in travel time by going in the Thalys just isn't worth the extra money they want. I cannot see that it has paid for itself, or ever will. So NIMBys or not, these thing do actually have to make economic sense. To be honest the minutes saved London-Birmingham really don't impress me that much, It is when you start to talk about Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow it begins to add up. So if they only intend to build to Birmingham I would forget it. It needs to be part of an overall strategic vision for a national network, as it was in France. I somehow wonder if that is really the case in the UK. It certainly won't help anyone in Caridff or Exeter. Chris

My understanding is this. Although 14.2mm is almost exactly the correct scaled-down track gauge, unlike P4 where everything is just scaled down, including loco wheel widths, flange depths etc. the 3mm version does not do this, with a more pragmatic set of other standards. That, as it does in 2mm Finescale, produces a side effect that overall widths of wheelsets is overscale, and hence you get issues with things like splasher widths, clearances behind outside valve gear and so on. Using 13.5mm gauge (which is the same in 3mm scale as 18mm i.e. EM is in 4mm scale) gives a good solution to these issues. 12mm is just the track gauge of continental TT, and like OO in 4mm scale, is what the commerical manufacturer at the time (Triang) decided on when they produced commerical stuff way back when. Use a British scale for the locos but a continental scale for the track. It lives because it's what most people still choose to use. As in 4mm scale, the three track gauges are not going to go away. Unlike 4mm scale, there is no war going on about them. Chris

The intention was that these chassis would make it as easy as it can be made - although that still might not be easy enough for some! The J94, although obviously not state of the art as far as RTR bodies go, or even properly to scale, is a nice heavy thing which should help the running qualities. And fairly spacious inside for the motor, DCC chip and whatever. Not to mention fairly easy to pick up bodies only at good prices on ebay. Some of the other locos are much more difficult to get hold of. But if I was pushed to choose a body which will produce a good looking and running model without major mods I would probably go for the Jinty. The problem with leaving loco building to last, is that a layout without locos is, well just a diorama. Unless you are just going to run diesels. Chris

Will be there in a couple of minutes. But this is very much an advanced option. There is a bunch of body hacking to be done in this configuration, and to be frank, really needs a new etched (or scratchbuilt) footplate like Julia did to do it justice. Chris

I have put the draft instructions online at https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7V9MIj3SLTgYTZkZGM1NDEtZTQxNi00ZGM5LTg5ZDUtMGU\ 3NGY0NWI0MDM1 https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7V9MIj3SLTgNmZhNzNkZjItYmY0MC00YjI2LTk2ODYtZGZ\ hNTUzYTIzNTZh Chris

These have prices now on the 2mm Product website, and the etches arrived at Shop 3 today.

<quote> 0-6-0 tender (principally for Peco Collet goods, but probably also suitable for Dean goods) - etched chassis expected to be available early next year from 2mm Association </quote> Don't do that, I have a proper Dean Goods chassis etch. 2251 and Dean Goods are not that similar.

Just to let everyone know, a replacement chassis for these bodies will be included in the second wave of chassis to be made available through the Association. I picked up three of these bodes at an avaerage price of 3 quid on ebay, so it makes a nice cheap loco. Anyone got any comments on just how accurate it is to the dimensions of a J69? Chris

Actually, it wasn't the only advantage. I run some 4mm stock with Kadees, and having the knuckle coupler at a higher point makes them less obtrusive when running under corridor stock, epescially when bviewed from the side. Not to mention the fact that the higher setting is closer to where the real railways actually have them. Chris

The chassis is just the same as the others, but it includes etched sandboxes as the shape is amenable to an etched foldup box. There is a tender chassis, it's just the inside frames and brakegear ie. not the outside frames which you can use from the Raithby kit. No castings are included in any of the chassis. This is the chassis listed for the Farish 4F but the website is WRONG. Its not suitable for the Farish 4F at all Chris.

An etched GWR tender is already in the pipeline. Could be a long pipeline though Chris

They would probably say, wait and make sure it runs. The real thing probably also got adulation before it was delivered. Chris

Yes, although I haven't done the instructions, when they do a parts list will be included. And normally the instructions or at least the parts list will be online so you can get all at once. Often, and it will be the case here, there will be a recommended motor, but others may choose something different, inclduing from another source. And there will I know be at least some the chassis where a choice of wheel sizes can be made - either a set which are full scale size but perhaps quite tight inside the splashers, or use the next size down and have a bit more leeway. Chris

It probably creates a fair impression, given that Hattons it ain't. When you joined the Association you became part of a rather grand mutual help organisation. It's not, neither does it aspire to be a commercial operation. People are there trying to produce items for 2mm modelling, and loco wheels are one of the most complicated. We can physically only produce so many per year, and if one of the key men falls illin the chain (as happened quite recently) production falls to zero. If idiots like me start producing products that stimulate more demand, that only makes things worse :-) The fact that there is noone else out there producing things like loco wheels in either N or 2mm will tell you about the vaibility of them as a commercial product. The only solution to this, is to get more volunteers to produce items or do other jobs in the supply chain. And that means people like you. Because there is no them and s here. When you joined you became a part of the 2mm SA. In a legal sense as well as it happens. Chris

Yeh. move it somewhere else. But as to no right or wrong, be sure Hornby Dublo 3 Rail can never be counted as finescale. Chris

They are not close to 2mm scale. The etches are specifically designed to convert the proprietory bodies. That means they all have exact wheel spacings for 1:148 (except for the 4F which is a conversion chassis for the Raithby etched kit, so it is to 2FS). It also means they have strange cutouts where the boby mouldingd have bits sticking out. So they are not intene ded to be generic chassis for uses other that for which they are designed. I have has a couple of queries about doing 2mm equivalants, that might be possible given I have the artwork to rescale, but the cost of these would be higher than the conversion chassis. Chris

Here as promised are the other two chassis. The 14XX can either use the can motor shown, or an 8mm Faulhaber. Its going to need a pretty heavy boiler to counterbalance the motor at the back. The wheels are 10.5mm and do fit within the splashers, and I have to say are a bit of a contrast to what Dapol offered. I don't have any of the required 7.5mm trailing wheels to match. The 57XX is shown with 9mm drivers, and although 9.5mm would be correct I think some metal would have to be removed from the splasher insides. The less refined moulding of the Farish era body shows up here, as does the complete lack of daylight under the boiler. Rear axle drive with lots of metal removed as Julia did produces a much better result, but is too advanced for the entry level chassis that this is supposed to be. The chassis can take a 10mm Faulhaber/Maxon, but it has to sit further back than the can motor to clear the gear below and the inside of the body above. Chris