Matthew W

Jerry passed Ashmelton on to me in the middle of last year. When I had a free weekend - ie Mrs W safely out of the way and the undisturbed use of the kitchen table - I first set about stripping off the N gauge track. It had been laid on foam underlay which had disintegrated, but still proved quite tenacious, and of course all the under-baseboard connections had to be cut free to get it up. That included the point rodding ( wire in tube ) as well as the wiring and some track pins. This tore up some of the underlying chipboard and still left some remaining ballast, which had to be removed, with a hammer and chisel, and a few remaining track pins which had to be extracted with a chunky pair of pliers. Using these in close proximity to exquisite but fragile 50 year old buildings etc was somewhat nerve-wracking !
 

However after several hours vandalism I managed to get it all up, apart from the track inside the engine shed: the buildings are very firmly glued down and irremovable, and I decided that even if I could chisel up the track inside the shed without demolishing it, it would be nigh on impossible to restore a ground surface inside sufficiently to relay FS track, so I cut through the N track with a slitting disc just outside the shed entrance, leaving the N track in situ inside. The plan is to lay FS up to the join, and camouflage the join in some way, and accept that no loco will ever enter the shed again.

Having “cleared the site” I sat down and had a look at what I had. This revealed two potential problems. The first is that the whole thing is very cramped: it is only 4’6” long by 12” wide, and there is a lot of station crammed in, making it quite difficult to work, and the scenery and buildings make the track, and any trains, quite inaccessible. It would work much better if stretched a bit in both dimensions. 
 

The second, and more serious issue was unexpected. The station platform is about 6mm too high. Packing the track bed up to cure this is the obvious answer, but that creates new problems because the other buildings are not similarly affected. Raising the track by the station platform would require sharp gradients down to the goods and engine sheds, and would also bring it up too high in front of the signal box - this just wouldn’t work. Lowering the platform is not an option - the platform and station building would never survive the experience. Similarly it is impossible to remove the other buildings from the baseboardand remount them to suit a revised track bed height.
 

So what to do ? I think the only workable solution is to cut the board into separate sections, each with one building or structure on it, and mount the sections on a new underframe, packing each one up to get the levels right. This would also give the opportunity to ease the overall dimensions of the layout.

All this is turning into rather more of a “project” than I first thought ! I have been umming and erring about the extent to which I should interfere with the original design. On the one hand, the original idea was to keep as much as possible of the original model, merely changing the track and sprucing up the scenery. On the other hand, some considerable change is going to be necessary, and mere “preservation” is not really an option, so one might as well make improvements where they make sense. And on the plus side, separating it into its component parts will give access to the buildings to restore them, although it will also play Old Harry with the scenery.

The prospect of taking a panel saw to the layout is shade daunting, but I am intending to set about it later this year, when it stops raining and I can get outside to make a mess.

Wish me luck !

Matthew

Thank you to everyone - I think I have enough to put something sensible together.

Matthew

Thanks both. Applying the NMRS formula to a typical US 40 foot boxcar gives an optimum weight of 18.5g ( an axle loading of about 4.6g ).

I took a random selection of three N gauge US boxcars from different manufacturers and out of the box they weighed respectively 17, 24, and 31g. In true Goldilocks style, the first felt "a bit light", the last "too heavy", and the middle one felt "about right". 

I then tried a Farish bogie bolster. Out of the box, with Farish wheels thinned down to 2mm, it weighed a meagre 8g, but runs well enough. Adding 11g ( which brought it to close to the NMRA "optimum weight" ) if felt " a bit too heavy" - it was noticeably less free running.

Then I tried two UK 4-wheel vans coupled together, total weight 17g on four axles so theoretically close to the NMRA standard. They run noticeably less freely than the bogie bolster, no doubt because the two chassis do not castor as well as a true bogie vehicle ( Gosh ! bogie vehicles are better runners than four wheelers - who would have guessed ?!! ).

Does this tell us anything useful ? The NMRA point out that too much weight is disadvantageous, which seems right, and my feeling is that the NMRA optimum is unnecessarily heavy for British 2mm models. I suspect that you need a minimum of about 2-3g per axle and a bit more might be better, up to about 5g per axle - but that is not a "scientific finding" ! 

Matthew

I don't remember ever seeing a discussion of how heavy 2mm rolling stock should be. It is common ground that for locos "the heavier the better". But what about rolling stock ?  I am thinking of drafting a piece for the 2mm Association Finescale Manual about this, and would welcome other peoples thoughts and experiences. To start the ball rolling:

1. Farish and Dapol bogie carriages with finescale wheels seem to weigh about the 20g mark, ie an axle loading of 5g. From seeing them in action that seems to be light enough to allow long trains to be run but sufficient to keep them on the rails. I imagine the same would go for modern bogie wagons -is that so ? Or do people run heavier coaches/bogie vehicles ?

2. I have never made a brass kit coach - what, typically would one weigh ? Anecdotally, it seems there is a concern that all-brass coaches can prove too heavy for long trains, but is this true ? If so, how much can be saved by ( for example ) using lighter materials such as plastic or wood ( for example, for roofs or interiors ) ? 

3. How heavy do steam age 4-wheel wagons need to be ? I have a collection which weigh between 4g and 6g ( an axle loading of 2-3g ) and that seems enough to keep them on the rails. Is there an "ideal" weight ? 

4. On the other hand, is more weight needed to allow couplings to function properly ? There is a degree of "stiction" in DG or B&B couplings and arguably wagons need to be heavier to allow these couplings to work properly for shunting purposes. Is this also true of other couplings like the Electra ? 

5.  Is there such a thing as too much weight ? I have a bogie tank wagon which weighs 27g ( an axle loading of nearly 7g ) and it is little used because of the disproportionate drag it creates in a train. 

6. I have never made a brass wagon kit, partly because of concerns about the resultant weight. What typically do they weigh ? And what are other peoples' experiences ? 

7. Has anyone tried making a brake van heavier to impose some drag and keep couplings tight ? Or does this just cause derailments ?

Any thoughts or evidence gratefully received !

Matthew 

What a find ! I too still have the RM articles about it and occasionally look at them wistfully. The design is  a clever mix of compression and spaciousness and the buildings and landscape are very nicely done. The signals I think are LMS and the buildings could be appropriate for a branch absorbed say by the Midland - that might excuse the rock face and tunnel. If you have any ex Midland stock (!!) it would suit it quite well….

Apart from fitting loco lamps, final coaling and a fireman, Mons Meg is now complete. The repaint has been worth it, I think, and she is now weathered as if she is newly in use, but still very clean.

 

 

 

 

 

Should look the business storming up Holloway Bank with 16 on.

Tim

Brilliant - of course !  What was the recipe for the weathering ? It makes a huge difference.

Matthew

I made this little tool to alter Dapol and Farish wheels with stub axles. The brass threaded shaft is bored out at the end so it only presses on the outer edges of the axle coning and doesn't thus damage the very end of the pin-point axle. This needs cleaning up/replacing every so often as the pressure on it distorts the bored end as I 'turn' it to apply pressure and shift the axle/motor shafts using a pair of pliers, but brass BA bolts are cheap/easy to obtain, and it does the jobs required quite well. I am sure available suitable gear pullers could be made/adapted to do the same job.

 

wp rmweb 02.jpg

 

wp rmweb 01.jpg

 

regards

 

Izzy

Thanks Izzy - that looks good. Much better idea than my attempts at "bashing" the axles through !

Matthew

I managed to finish off the improved Dapol teak this evening, and also made some progress on one of the fish vans.

 

 

 

The steps I followed to improve the finish:

• Disassembled the coach fully, including de-soldering the lighting pick up wires
• Coat of Klear to seal the original finish
• Mix of chrome yellow, small amount of burnt umber, and liquin applied with a scratchy brush over the areas left in red oxide
• Another coat of Klear to seal
• dark Games Workshop wash applied to bring out the door frames
• "sepia" Games Workshop wash applied to the solebar to tone down the red oxide look
• Buffers painted with Humbrol gunmetal - not sure what the weird gold colour Dapol used was about!
• Edges of the clear window mouldings picked out in dark grey to minimise the prismatic effect
• Window moulding given a coat of Klear to improve the clarity
• Roof moulding given a thick wash of Revell Anthracite, then largely removed with a thinners soaked cotton bud
• Roof airbrushed with relatively thin coat of Revell Anthracite

IMG_20180325_191656.jpg

 

IMG_20180325_191803.jpg

 

I blackened the brass pick ups, but I'm wondering whether it might actually be better to rip out the pressed brass bearings and pick ups and push in some association bearings. It looks like the Association only does coach wheels on 15.2mm axles - the Dapol originals are 14.8. Has anyone else converted these models? Perhaps with the tips slightly filed off, and /or top hat bearings pressed into the bogies with a soldering iron, the 15.2mm version will work?

 

The project thats made some progress is the GCR fish van, from the second hand BH kit amongst Bill's stuff. Not 100% happy with it - I started to solder back on overlays that seemed lose, only to find the rest was glued, so I ended up replacing each joint with the overlays in situ - lots and lots of cleaning up! The sides seem OK, but the roof, which was evidently half-etched with "planks" to help fold, seems a bit too prominent. I don't know whether to maybe remove and replace with a thinner rolled nickel silver roof?

 

IMG_20180325_195233.jpg

 

Justin

Hi Justin, the bodywork looks so much better after being breathed on.

As to the wheels, I have just tried 7mm Association wheels on 15.2mm axles in my Dapol Gresleys, and they fit the old, non-light-bar-ready bogies that are on the first batch of these which I bought when these coaches first came out a few years ago. These have moulded pinpoint recesses in the bogies, and although the 15.2mm axles are a sloppy fit, they seem to run OK.

However, as you point out ( and I had not noticed ! ) they don't fit the newer light-bar-ready bogies.

I tried removing the metal insert on one side, and the 15.2mm axles then fit, but because the recess on the plastic side is too big, the result is that the axle does not sit leval and the bogie, and the coach body on top of it, adopt a marked list to one side, so that's a non-starter.

Fitting top hat bearings looks tricky: the recess in the bogie moulding is vaguely conical so they don't sit comfortably, and while you might get away with melting them in I would think the risk of getting it wrong would be quite high. Drilling out the recess might enable you to glue them in but I am not sure they would then match the available axle lengths.

I thought of turning down the existing Dapol wheels and using the existing axles. The problem with this is that you then need to move the wheels down the stub axles to get the back to back + axle lengths right, and I have not yet found a way of doing this.

What I think I will do is keep the metal pickups and use Association wheels on 14.8mm axles. Shop 2 sells 14.8mm axles which you could use as replacements for 15.2mm axle wheelsets, or 15.2mm axles can be filed down quite easily: I have just had a go, and with the axle held in a pin chuck it only took a minute or two.

As to wheel sizes, the 7mm wheels look better but do lift the body very slightly, while 6mm wheels keep the height down but look noticeably undersize. Except at eye level the wheels are however pretty invisible behind the bogies. If you use 6mm wheels, then they can be had on 14.8 mm axles anyway.

As to couplings, I think Nigel Cliffe devised and wrote up a way of fitting DGs into NEM mountings a few years ago ( maybe in an old 2mm Mag ? Or maybe it was on his blog ? ). 

Hope this is of some use.

All the best, Matthew 

-

If you want somewhere to start then I too would suggest one of the simpler new Farish models, like an 0-6-0 tender or tank engine. They are robustly made with a split frame, solid metal chassis, whereas some of the Dapols seem to contain a lot of bendy plastic bits and spindly little pickups which don't take kindly to being pulled about.

Above all, for a first attempt I would try to keep it simple so that you get something that actually works - it is terribly dispiriting otherwise. I have not tried them yet but the Jinty and Pannier look very straightforward. Similarly the J39, which has the advantage of tender pickup and therefore is less prone to stalling on iffy track.  

There is a short review article describing the Pannier conversion in MRJ 239. The Jinty looks much the same - both involve just "dropping in" replacement wheelsets, and adding replacement rods.

There are two excellent articles by Mick Simpson describing the conversion of a Farish J39. The first, in the 2mm Magazine for Feb/Mar 2014, involved re-profiling the Farish drivers, and the second, in MRJ 238 described using replacement, 2mm scale driving wheels. In each case the tender wheels were simply turned down.

I converted my J39 along the lines of the former article. Mick describes how he turned his wheels down, but you could have them turned down by the Association wheel turning service. I got away with filing them ( by hand ! ).

All you need to do is reduce the flange depth slightly, and take a bit off the back of the wheel so that the flange is thinner. - a bit hard on the fingers but provided you have a file with a reasonably coarse tooth pitch ( sufficient to cut, rather than just polish, the Farish wheel casting ) and a safe, ie non-toothed, edge ( to protect the axle ) and go carefully it is not as dodgy as it sounds - try a wagon wheelset first to get the hang of it.  

For his first conversion, Mick also found he had to modify the bearings, but this is now unnecessary if you use the conversion bearings available from the 2mm Association.

Good luck - I am no engineer, but I got considerable satisfaction from the J39 conversion and find myself gazing fondly at it like Bambi's mother !

Matthew

Lots of interesting ideas here !

Funny you should mention Redruth yard as I have been thinking of something based on it, as a refurb of my old, and semi-derelict, c. 1990 test track. There is a plan and one photo in the Oakwood Press book "The West Cornwall Railway" - this is the sum total of my "research" so far - which shows one mixed gauge siding and three points: all mixed gauge, one a three way, and the other two ordinary turnouts.

The West Cornwall was originally standard gauge, but was re-gauged by adding a third rail when it was acquired by the GWR in 1866. The Redruth yard was the old WCR station, which was bypassed by the broad gauge connection to Truro, and relegated to a yard. According to the book the yard remained standard gauge, apart from one line of mixed gauge.

A proper model with old WCR locos and stock and a bit of broad gauge would be delightful, but do I have the desire ( or ability ) to build them ? A resounding "not b.......y likely" I suspect from those who know me !  But even as a simple "generic" inglenook-type shunting yard it is quite appealing.  The big building appears to be a combined passenger station and goods shed, and the line exits stage right through a cutting.

Matthew

It is the evil empire Apple's doings.    They put orientation tags into images, which is sort of fine on a device which rotates around.  But those are not necessarily handled well by other software.

 

It can be sorted by nerds who edit the EXiF data in the image file. 

 

- Nigel

To my amazement I appear to have mastered joining the forum and actually writing something on it !

Apologies for the upside down photos. Down yere in Cornwall we do use the old ways, not these yere dangy new EXIF data files. Do ee ave any simpler solution Nigel ? Like locking the rotating function on me iphone, praps ? Tim suggested takin the pictures standin on me ead in the first place but I ent too sure bout that - im an is fancy Lunnon ways !

The little brick huts are made of cardboard and brick paper, after I became fed up with trying to paint bricks. Quite teasy as it tends to go all bendy as you stick it together ! They are reinforced inside with balsa blocks to keep everything square (ish ). The slate roofs are Slaters 4mm plastic, and the downpipes are handy for concealing the joins in the paper.

The wooden hut is plastic and the roof is covered with tissue to simulate roofing felt.

Matthew