Simond

Ah, yes, been there. If you use 10 BA bolts glued in the wheels, and tap the Slaters bushes to suit (including the extra pair you have) you can secure the con rods with the extra pair. This will set the con rods outboard by about 0.5mm, the thickness of the flange. You can then shorten the bolts to the ends of the bushes. You'll need to shorten the bushes to stop the rods flapping about. You'll also need washers behind the bushes to stop the rods catching on the wheel boss - one or two 10BA washers should suffice, but beware the washers with a slightly oversize hole as the bush may go into it causing inexplicable and unexpected tight spots. The area where I suspect you will find issues is behind the cross heads, where clearances will be mighty tight. Shout up if this isn't clear! Simon

Not the worm then...

Bearings? Worm? Simon

Jeff 10BA crankpins are a good idea, I've done this on most of my locos, which have Slater's bushes tapped to suit. I file a pair of flats on the flanges and made a spanner to tighten them. DLOS (and others) of this parish and the GOG websites did a rather more technical / professional job of drilling a pair of holes in the flanges, and making a peg spanner to suit. I turned up longer bushes for driving axles. Slater's wheels tap easily for 10BA, epoxy secures the screw to the wheel. Best Simon

Chris AFAIK right hand crank leads, thus if the LH cranks are at top dead centre, the RH cranks must be at front dead centre. I trust there will be howls and screams if I got it wrong . Not least from me as quite a few locos will need attention! (But I don't care how many rivets he counts, he can't see both sides of the loco at once!!!) Turning to your socket / blanking plug query - depends what chip you might use. This would be easy if someone (HINT ) were to issue a 13xx sound project, but none yet available. My guess is that if one were to be produced, it might well be on Zimo, and I guess that an 8-pin, or 21-pin would be possible. For simplicity, I would recommend an 8-pin if you go that way, and a harness with an 8-pin socket, and an 8-pin blanking plug, are available. I did have a look on the websites of the usual suspects but didn't find the necessary bits, but I'm sure a phone call to any of the DCC suppliers will get you what you need. Personally, I have not used sockets on most of my locos, there are 4 key wires, red (right rail) black (left rail) orange ( one side of motor) & grey (other side of motor) and frankly, I'd just solder the decoder in. Messing around with lights and smoke generators, and sound will of course add further connections - again, these can be soldered, or you can buy micro-connectors to do these. Most decoders run very happily on DC as well as DCC, so whilst it costs, if you just fit a chip as you build it, you will be prepared for use on DCC if & when you set up the layout to use it. You can also incorporate "stay-alive" capacitors which will prevent stalls due to poor pickup, and you can arrange that the decoder acceleration & deceleration are applied when on DC as well. Everyone will have their favourite decoders but for what it's worth, I have ~ 10 Zimo non-sound decoders and two ESU v4 with sound. Happy with both. I have some old (>10 yrs)Lenz decoders, which are less good, no experience of more modern ones. HTH Simon

I concur with both Chris & Mark. My button pressing is confined to loco selection, and, on the sound equipped locos, tooting, cylinder drains, and the odd safety valve... So far, I have two locos so equipped, both v4 ESUs from Howes, and I love the automatic variation in chuff from wide open regulator to drifting steam. Haven't yet tried to fit steam generators. One day... Regarding throttles, Multimaus works well, Lenz LH90/200 also, and if you can stand the buttons, the LH100 is excellent. I am much in favour of separation of driver and signalman, so my points & signals are controlled by a simple lever frame - I have no accessory decoders (but may consider automation of a fiddle yard at some point). I am an engineer, and coincidentally work with batteries, I think there is potential for on-board rechargeables, but until r/c can do what DCC can do (and at comparable prices) I'm sticking with DCC. (There is an excellent & informative thread on the subject at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64616-battery-poweredradio-controlled-locos/page-13). If anyone does choose to play with lithium batteries, please RTBM and follow the instructions therein - do not provoke them, and they won't bite. Yes, sorry, off topic too.... Please continue the build. I'm following with interest as a 1361 is on my shopping list (as would be a DCC chip with appropriate sounds HINT HINT!) Best Simon

Chris I don't want to pee on your bonfire here, but have you got any play between the equalised axles and the frames? it looks from the photos that the frame cut-outs have not been cut out, which is ok if you have opened up the holes in the frames, but otherwise, it will be rigid - which is ok, of course, assuming that's what you are trying to do. Shout up if I can help. Simon

Fully agree with Chaz. It is fundamental to match the axle positions to the coupling rods when assembling the hornblocks. Further, you do need to have jointed rods if you have any kind of suspension. I think that on the 1366's the four-coupled pair on the coupling rods are rear and centre, (ie the joint is ahead of the driver crankpin) and the rear axle is fixed in this kit. This means you can fix the centre horns with reference to the fixed axle and test that it all fits /spins freely before jointing the rods, and doing the front axle hornblocks. It might make it easier to manipulate on your assembly jig. I also agree with Chris, there is something very satisfying about the soldering process, always assuming the parts fit and stay in place, the flux works as intended and you don't drip molten solder into your shoe. There are days I wish I had been blessed with at least two more hands, but in general, it does give a mild glow of, well, not pride, but something similar, as the solder freezes "bright". BR Simon

Might be a daft suggestion, but given that the central square is made in four quarters, and the other rails likewise, what would happen if you built the central bit to 18.x gauge, and gauged the rest from that. Seems to me that you would end up with unfeasibly large flangeways at the four crossing points, and the thing would be ~ 6" over scale diameter ( but could, presumably be filed down?). Whether the flangeways would look acceptable or not is obviously a question that I can't answer, but I don't think running would be a major concern. HTH Simon

Steve There is a photo of my t/t in Jeff's thread http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/76732-stepper-motor-turntable-drive/page-4 at post 96. The photo is not brilliant, but you can see that the gravel sort-of "fades out" near the ring rail. The photos I referred to when painting and subsequently weathering the bridge & pit show some kind of concrete plinth, or at least a different "texture" where the ring rail is installed. There is also some kind of conical dip towards the centre, which I, and the Metalsmith kit, did not allow for. This photo shows what I mean. http://www.gres.org.uk/page50.html, whereas, it is not so obvious in this one - http://www.lovedartmouth.com/groups/profile/12/pictures/503/2 Will post a better one of mine when I can - I guess you have some good shots of the original Ranelagh bridge pit, so you can work out how to do it - at least you won't make the mistake I did! Best Simon

Me too It's a damn shame when something of historic value gets weighed in for what it can raise in cash... I too hope the perpetrators get their just desserts. I built a model of 1366 from the CRT kit (see GWR.org), and AFAIK, when built, she was not fitted with a bell - see the pic at http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_060_1366.htm Can anyone advise when / if one was fitted? Ta Simon

Steve Will do but I'm up in Birkenhead & Pwllheli for the next week or so - hopefully beginning August I'll get a chance before heading off to Scotland for work. Holidays - Will do some research for Porth Dinllaen, and hope to get a ride behind a two-foot Garrett... Will get back when I can Simon

Steve Looking back at mine, I think the one thing that would have made mine much better would have been to make a circular plinth to put the rail on. Just to lift it up. When I surfaced the central well, I used some small ballast, maybe fine 4mm scale, but it ended up a little higher than the base of the chairs, and it isn't right. I'm not going to change it, but I'm sure that I could have done better if I had somehow made the chairs a bit higher. Hope it helps - I can do a photo or two back end of next week if it would help Simon

Rod I made a paving slab platform, much smaller than yours, by painting plastic sheet in varying shades of grey, and toning it down with talc. I then cut the sheets up into paving slab sized pieces, and laid them on a wooden block. I used Slaters brick sheets for the sides. I don't have a photo of it, so can't post anything this week, but I think it looks pretty good, as the slabs were laid in a different order to the way they were originally painted, so the colour variation seemed to work. I think you'd need a guillotine for a big platform like yours Hth Simon

Does anyone do a sound project for these - I've been searching with no luck so far? it would be nice, and eminently feasible, especially as there is a 1361 and a 1366 preserved - I guess they sound sufficiently similar to enable a common project for both? best Simon

Street running is an interesting point, happened in Birkenhead docks too, and I'm sure, many other places where locos, people, horses and road vehicles used the same streets. I wonder what the rules were for "covering up" as the various tramways, standard and narrow gauge, needed to do, whereas it was clearly not needed in other locations. Man with a flag? Perhaps the docks were not "public roads" and thus subject to different regulations? best Simon

Chaz. As I said, personal choice is the final arbiter, hopefully supported by good advice and accurate info. In this case the "wrong" is that four-point is not three point compensated, the issue is physics, not prototype fidelity. It's not opinion, it's fact. But of course, it might not matter - the advantage of "right" over "nearly right" might well be negligible, or at least not worth the added effort. In terms of workload, I think springing is quite a bit more hassle to get right, particularly if you build "floating" rather than "sprung one way", and for that reason, I'm inclined to compensation Having in mind Chris' concerns over his experience, I'm sure building it four point compensated per the instructions will give a satisfactory result, and whether I would do something different, sillier or not is really only of academic interest. (And I too have done "silly") Chris I haven't used the jig, but I expect it will be easier than the rubber band, paper clip, hair grip & balancing acts that I resort to! Good luck, looking forward to seeing how you get on Best Simon

Miss P I do agree with your concerns over lateral stability, see my earlier comments regarding 4-4-0 where the CoG may be near to or even ahead of the leading axle, & 4-6-0 locos, where the CoG will tend to get very near the mid point between the two front axles. In both cases, even if it is within the support triangle, here will be a real risk that hitting a corner at speed might easily lead to roll-over. This is clearly one area where springing can have an edge over three-point compensation, and four point "quasi-compensation" would have an advantage - and Chaz, even my very small layout has some horrid twists after a few years - those of us who run in the garden will have undoubtedly experienced some less-than-perfect track too. In these cases, it must be true that, at some places, only one axle is in proper contact with the rail on one side of the loco, and thus, however briefly, pick-up will suffer. If you're unlucky this will coincide with the chassis tightening up as the rocking beam bearing misalignment reaches a maximum, and disappointing running may well result. Worst case might lead to derailment, but this seems improbable with normal 0F flanges. Whilst you, Michael Edge and Chaz all report successful outcomes, a little part of me says, "yes, ok, but it's still wrong", and personally, I would tend to try to modify the kit so I felt it was "more correct", but in the end, I guess it is a case of rule one. Assuming it is free running, it can't be worse than a rigid chassis so my advice to the original question would be , "build it as the kit was designed". Best Simon

I can't really see the point of "4-point" compensation - as Miss P says, it's a fudge, and like a four legged stool, only works on a flat surface, or, in this case, one that has vertical curves, but no twist in it. I have built 3 sprung, 1 hybrid, and 9 compensated locos, and one rigid one, and they all run satisfactorily. Springing is generally more challenging, and I find that I can't see a significant benefit over compensation, although I think both are better than rigid. I think Chaz mentioned in his Dock Green thread how satisfying it is to see the suspension "work" as the wheels run over something like a match. For those who are not familiar with three-point compensation, the aim is to reduce the support of the loco to three points, irrespective of how many wheels the loco has, which means that there will never be any rocking, like a three-legged stool, and the weight will be more-or-less evenly shared between the wheels. The simplest case is a four wheeler. If one axle is rigid and the other can rock about a fulcrum at its mid point, provided the centre of gravity of the vehicle remains within the imaginary triangle defined by the rigid bearings and the fulcrum, the vehicle will be stable, and will maintain wheel contact, and therefore, pick-up from all four wheels. There are two ways of achieving this on a six-wheeler. The simpler route is to place a cross-beam between two of the axles, and pivoting on this, have a longitudinal rocking beam bearing on the tops of the axles (usually leading & driving) The other (usually trailing) axle is rigidly supported in the frames. This allows two axles to rock, and they will also rise and fall to follow vertical curvature of the track. It is usually simplest to have the driven axle rigid, as there is nothing in the way, but of course, this only works if it is the leading or trailing one. The support triangle is now between the two rigid axle bearings, and the centre of the rocking beam If you need to drive the middle axle, for example, an 0-4-2, or because you want working valve gear, the other approach is applicable. In this case, you provide a pair of independent rocking beams acting on the axle boxes of two axles much as the kit does - but the axle boxes must not be attached to the beams, otherwise it will bind as shown in Miss Prism's post above - they need to be able to rock to allow the wheels to follow any twist in the track. The motor & gearbox can fit between the rocking beams. The third axle has to be able to rock from side to side to accommodate twists in the track. In this case the support triangle is between the pivot points of the rocking beams, and the central fulcrum on the third axle. In eight-wheelers, you need three rocking beams. One is used to compensate two axles as in the first solution for 6-wheelers, and the other pair are arranged as in the second solution - thus the support triangle is between the centre of the single rocking beam, and the two pivot points of the pair of beams. At this point, I wish I had a CAD app on my ipad! 10-wheelers add a further challenge - rigid is not good, particularly if when the boiler and chassis are assembled, the chassis twists, as I discovered, and fixed, on a pal's 9F. For full compensation, a rocking beam, supported by a rocking beam is going to be necessary to get from three axles to a single point of compensation, and that will be tricky - like Gresley (actually Webb) conjugated gear, so another approach is probably easier. I've never built a 10-wheeler, or a CSB chassis, but it might be a good option here, alternatively, build a hybrid, light springing on the centre axle and compensate it as an 8-wheeler. If you spring or compensate, you do need jointed rods, otherwise they'll bind, or bend. It is possible to include bogies and pony trucks in the compensation, and certainly helps with awkward cases, a 2P I built springs (sorry) to mind. In this case I put a rocking beam between the bogie pivot and the centre of the leading axle. The rear axle was rigid, and motorised. I did something similar on my Castle, as the centre of gravity was too far forwards to allow me not carry some weight on the bogie. The middle axle is sprung, and the rear is rigid. Best Simon

I'm perplexed by the first diagram of the chassis. Are there two parts #3 as it appears - one close to each frame? And if so, does the rear axle rock as it would need to in order to provide true "three point" compensation? Or is there only one part #3 rocking on the middle of the leading & driving axles, in which case the rear axle can be fixed in the frames? Thx Simon

Jeff I take it from your question that you haven't yet got a solution for your t/t? Mine works (not that there's a layout for it yet) almost perfectly, much as a result of the help I got from your thread - if I can offer any help, just shout Best Simon

Thanks Rod Do (did) your locos have large motors? I'm surprised, and maybe a little concerned, that you've discovered this, as I've built some 12 locos in 7mm, with motors ranging from Portescaps to a Crailcrest (bit too wide for wasp-waisted Churchward fire boxes!), and all of them are on standard decoders, mostly Zimo, with no problems so far. I've only got two with sound, (Howes Loksound v4) and neither of them has been tested with a "wheelspin load" train yet, so perhaps I need to do some experimentation before spending more of the hard-earned! Best Simon

Rod I guess you have to do what you did - ie apply a DC voltage and see which way it goes, unless you are blessed with the ears of a bat! I think therefore that a suitable resistor in series with the speakers to limit the current is all you can do I read on through the thread, which I have very much enjoyed (being a Birkenhead lad, born, bred & buttered!) and saw you did have some problems with your sound decoders - were these eventually resolved? The thread has given me some further inspiration for my project, it looks great, so thanks Simon

Sorry this is a quote from a post from last year, but do be careful about putting 3-4V DC across your speakers - that's about an Amp on a 4 Ohm speaker and they won't survive it for long! Sorry for the double-edit: I mis-read the speaker bit and thought you were likely to fry your chips... Best Simon

Martin Post the code! Another newby will follow your footsteps, and learn from it, and maybe one of the experienced types will say "oh, but if you do... It'll be better/simpler/cheaper/quicker" and we'll all learn! Best Simon