Chris Higgs

Nice to see a Minitrix Class 27 alive and kicking. I had one too in BR Blue (probably still do if I can remember where I put it). Chris

Maybe. It will depend on the weight distribution of the loco. It isn't likely to work for a 4 wheel wagon or loco for example. But I still don't see that as the main issue (or indeed any issue at all if you put a bit of plastikard into the Peco point next to the frog to stop the wheelset dropping). If the checkrails on Peco points don't prevent the wheels passing the wrong side of the frog, you won't get reliable running. A better way than building a test chassis is to do the maths on the checkrail gaps, wheel BToB, flange thicknesses, and wheel tread thicknesses. Chris (Unashamedly using an Oxford comma)

Gresley push-pull stock? Then you won't have to run-around. Chris

I agree with Jerry. Anyway, one of the attractions is seeing some stock you don't just see on every other layout. So the ER EMU and the N7 is a real highlight. A Hunslet shunter (or two) would really set it apart. Chris

I always found Peco wagons ran better with the more-pointy 15.2mm wagons anyway. We have 15.2mm, 14.2mm and 13.7mm axles available. You can measure your axles, but the safest way is to buy a set of each of the Accosiation wheel lengths and try them out. You can shorten the axles slightly with a file on the point (be very careful). Chris

For me, there is no chance of this working reliably. Maybe people have other opinions, but unless someone shows me it actually working in reality, I'm not changing mine. Layouts that did (e.g. Chiltern Green) did so by avoiding points pretty much altogether, especially facing ones. Hidden sidings can do things differently e.g. Tilbury points. The relationship between flange thickness and checkrail gaps (0.3mm and 0.5mm in 2mm FS) is what is important. If you increase the checkrail gap to whatever Finetrax use (0.8mm??) you need a wider flange thickness to stop wheels passing the wrong side of facing point frogs (trailing points might be OK). I did one think of increasing the flange thickness of a 2FS loco wheel flange by putting some sort of etched disc on the back but it would have been horrible. You also need a wider wheel tread thickness to stop the wheels falling into the gaps on the frog but that might be solveable using some sort of insert to support the wheel flange. That is not the biggest issue. Some more off-the-wall ideas - a) moveable checkrails. I have seen points in larger scales with that, albeit you set them manually once and for all. Could be done with servos and microcontrollers?? b) Get your own N wheel flanges made and fit them to Association wheel centres. Beaver used to make N gauge loco wheels, they were awful. Or if you can find RTR loco wheels the right size for your prototype. I believe there is an inexhaustable stock of Peco Collett Goods loco wheels available online as spares for example. Chris

You would need to power the rear axle, I think that is the only way to get the motor into the bonnet. You will only have a 30:1 gear ratio, the chassis as designed gives you 50:1. Perhaps not such an issue these days with low-revving motors. And you need to work out if the motor will fit, the chassis design lifts it high up, whereas it will be lower with the gearbox. Probably time to play with some CAD to see how it would look. Your choice of motor is the key here. Chris

Yep.

Thanks to those who have replied to me on this. Sadly all of this will be on hold until the situation with PEC has been clarified. Chris

It would get anodised everywhere. But that is not the same as saying it needs to be anodised everywhere. You would only test that it worked where it was needed i.e. where the wheel is attached. Because there was some implication in previous posts that if it conducts between the bosses that that wheelset is somehow faulty. It isn't, as that feature was not in the design spec. Chris

The anodising was made so that there would be no conductivity between wheel and axle, and if tested (I don't know if they are) it would be in that area. They would not be tested between the inner faces of the bosses, as it was not necessary to have insulation at that point. Or so we thought at the time... Chris

As 6.77mm > 6.45mm they shouldn't fit anyway. So best I think you look for another approach. The axles were designed for, and worked well with the Farish chassis as they were at that time. The boss was deliberate to avoid the wheels slopping from side to side. As has been mentioned they are anodised and should not short out anyway. But if they are constantly rubbing in a chassis that is too wide for them perhaps it has worn off. Chris

Surely you can just stick some Sellotape over the contacts around the middle axle area? Chris

You could maybe break open one of those 5 adaptors to leave you with a plug that goes into the power cable, and then solder wires from it to the board. Chris

Possibly not the thread to post this in, but then again as they were Association products at some point... Given that many of the items I have produced over the years are no longer available in Shop 2/4, and I have had a few requests for, I am thinking of doing a new limited run of some of these items. The ones I have in mind are Coach kits: - basically these are ones I have resin roofs for BR CCT BR GUV BR MK1 BG Wagon Kits: GWR Toads GWR Shunters Truck GWR/BR Lowmac Wagon/NPCS underframes: Dapol Grain hopper (two types) Dapol Fruit D Chivers LNER Long CCT Chivers BR Tube wagon Chivers Long LMS Wagons (two types) Chivers GWR Open C plus any I might have forgotten. Please get in contact direct to me (not by replying to this thread) if you have are interested. There will be a minimum order quantity as I am not in a position to field large numbers of orders for one underframe! In case you are wondering, the LMS and LNER fitted underfames (2-371 to 2-373) and BR Plate wagon underframes (2-376 to 2-378) are not on the list as I am working with the Sales Officier to get these back as permanent shop items. Chris

They look very nice. I have no idea why Dapol decided to make the body profile overscale - it seems in both width and height. I must admit I had just assumed they had adjusted the profile of the hopper bottom to match the overwidth chassis that N gauge tend to 'bless' us with. But no, just seems they made a pig's ear of it (Dapol defenders look away now). I think I would suggest to anyone going down the route of building a significant number of these would be to make a master for resin casting, or alternatively do a 3D printed body. Love the chassis, who designed that? 🙂 Chris

Not at British Oak (I think) but in that same delightful livery. Chris

It will be a shame to see the Ultima range of castings disappear, they are tiny works of art and very well executed. But I suspect 3D printing can replace them if someone puts the effort in. A lot of the coach side etchings were Bill Bedford produced and/or rebranded. The GWR NPCS kits such a Monsters/Giant/Siphons were also lovely - even though they got the roof profile horribly wrong. Not that I am too bothered, I have enough of the castings for several lifetimes safely stowed in their own dedicated gloat box! I am no fan of 3D printed coaches though, the sides are way too thick to ever be realistically glazed. Ends maybe (especially odd shaped ones like Hawksworths), roofs definitely, but sides, no. Chris Higgs (yes that one).

It represents that a steel bufferbeam is a U shape (same as a solebar) with the open side of the U facing inwards. So indeed the outer face of the bufferbeam is flat. And the end of the bufferbeams both sides of the beam are visible. Chris

According to Tatlow (the large 4? volume set) in Volume 1 page 219, there were diagrams 5,6,7 and 71. Diagram 7 (800 built in 1905) having steel underframes, Diagram 71 (375 built plus 50 VB) reverting to wood underframes. There are pictures of both. Tatlow speculates that cow urine corrodes steel hence the reversion to wood. The book states they were of different lengths (diagram 7 being 19'3"). Chris

I think Dapol inherited the idea of making wagons over-width from Peco. Although of course Lima were the true kings of that. Chris

7 tons to be precise. The same as the (also rare) Stanier 3500 gallon tenders, for which Nigel does an etch. They looked slightly better behind the Jubilees they were originally built for. The story is told in Model Railways for Jan 1974. Chris

Oh OK. I am thinking of actually finishing one of my own 8F kits, and I could pair it with a Fowler tender rather than the more normal Stanier 4000 gallon ones. Any thoughts Nigel on doing sides for the high-sided Fowler tenders, as I think they were basically just higher side sheets? Chris

Are the tenders to 1:152 or 1:148 scale? I'm assuming the former, although you show one paired with a Bachmann 4F body. This has probably already been announced somewhere but I haven't been paying attention lately, sorry. Chris

There must be a load of these lurking in gloat boxes across the nation...