Chuffer Davies

Hi Tom, There are any number of superb and powerful mechanisms still available to the serious modeller as has been continuously discussed on this topic. My current solution of choice is the High Level 13/20 cordless motor coupled to a high level 47/1 ratio gearbox. This combination will meet any demands made of it. I know Tony frequently swears by the DJH pre-assembled gearboxes and has demonstrated the excellent performance of these units. These are by no means the only solutions available. For anyone who wants to imitate the inertia of a Portescap (bevel geared) drive unit then the stay alive facility now available to DCC fitted models is superior in many respects. In summary, despite someone who used Portescap drive units extensively in the past, I can state with confidence that the drive solutions available now are as good, if not better, and I therefore strongly disagree with the views of the commentator of your video. Regards, Frank

Hi Melmerby, There is no reason to think that Dapol have sprung the pony truck to compensate for poor weight distribution. It is more likely that this mechanism was intended to provide better track holding of the pony truck when a train is attached to the integrated coupling. The weighting of model locomotives is always a compromise. Too little and the tractive ability of the model will be severely compromised, too much on the wrong places can make the model unstable but stability should not be an issue with the Prairie. You have stated (not unreasonably) that the vast majority of your tank locos have no springing and don't do it (wheels dropping on to the gap of a point frog). At the same time you have also remarked that where a loco passes over a plastic frog with a raised rail head it is prone to stalling. Dapol's attempt to address your 2nd problem is the reason why their Prairie behaves differently and drops into the frog of a universal point. The reason a rigid chassis is unlikely to exhibit a wheel dropping in the frog is because the middle axle supports the chassis whilst an outer wheel traverses the gap. By springing the middle axle Dapol have improved significantly the current collection of the Prairie (5 wheels minimum in contact with the track at any given time instead of 3) through uneven track work, but as a direct result the centre axle can no longer support the weight of the loco as an outer wheel traverses the gap in the frog and instead that wheel now follows the contours of the frog rather than flying across it. This is therefore a feature of the design but definitely not a fault as you had suggested. Regards, Frank

Any chance of a photo showing the rear axle arrangement. From your photo it would appear not to be a pony truck so how does it work? Frank

Hi Martin, I don’t see any contradiction. What they have printed is accurate. I’ sure there are factories in China that are responsible for manufacturing British RTR rolling stock. Hornby etc. would be correctly upset if railway modellers started describing their products as being Chinacorp products and omitting reference to Hornby. The same I suggest applies to the EMGS who should be given credit for the product they sell to members and not Peco who no doubt are one of several potential manufacturers approached at the time. Credit where credit is due, that’s all I’m saying. Enough? Frank

To avoid confusion I recommend we stop talking about Peco EM track work. Peco do not sell EM gauge track. This track work is produced by the EMGS for sale to its members. The factory that produces EMGS track work is owned by Peco but that is where their involvement ends. I’m guessing that the market for EM track work is sufficiently small to be unviable to Peco, but is best suited to specialist suppliers such as the EMGS and Wayne. Keep up the good work Wayne. Regards, Frank

Obviously a punctuation error so no need to retreat. I’m sure you meant to type: GWR has always been super; dull green, brown and cream of course. Regards, Frank

Hi Bob, I don't feel able to advise without more information as there are too many variables. Are you fitting the double junction into an existing formation or is this a new layout? Have you already laid the track up to the junction? I think if this is a new formation then I'd lay the diamond first and then fit the points around it, but in reality I doubt there is a right or wrong answer to this question. If you are still in doubt take a photo of the site with the diamond and point bases roughly in position and we can have a 2nd look at it for you. Regards, Frank

Hi, the casting is N/Silver and is easy to solder. I drilled a hole through one of the locating pegs and inserted my dropper wire into the casting before building the point. The rest of the wiring was straight forward. Personally I never plan to use fishplates to conduct electricity and adopt a bolt and brace approach and attach droppers to each individual lengths of rail. These were then wired up under the layout once the point was planted. Regards, Frank

Spot on, that's been true for a long time, particularly for the Star. The Hornby Collett coaches were most welcome when they were launched but other than poor representations of clerestory stock from Triang Hornby there has been nothing suitable RTR. I wish someone would produce some Toplight coaches for those of us modelling the GW in the late 20's and beyond. Regards, Frank

The two that immediately spring to mind are the Saint and the Great Bear. If the Hush Hush has proven to be a popular model for LNER collectors then I ‘m sure there would be plenty of GW collectors who would be prepared to pay for a Great Bear. The Saints were withdrawn between 1924 - 1953 and so many GW and BR western region layouts could justify running a Saint. Frank

Hi Michael, I think the difference is that you are developing kits for your own business and you no doubt have several models at various stages of development at any given point in time making your approach the most efficient. In my case my primary aim is to create etches as a scratch building aid for myself and so I only have one loco under development at any one time.

This week has once again been a mixture of successes and disappointments concerning progress with the test build of the J2. Last week I built the combined boiler and smokebox assembly. Unfortunately once this was bolted between the cab and smoke box it revealed a 1mm mis-alignment between the fronts of the valve chest and the sand boxes. The alignment of these items is very obvious when examining prototype photographs and so I will need to adjust the length of the boiler's wrapper in the CAD artwork. This means that there will be a hiatus whilst I rework the CAD design and send it off to obtain the replacement etches. I can use this time to build the LRM tender for my J2 but its frustrating none the less. Another item that is bugging me is the amount of unfilled space under the boiler where the valve gear should be. The J2 had piston valves rather than slide valves increasing the pitch of the boiler by 3 or so inches. I am now wrestling with my conscience with regards whether or not to design some cosmetic valve gear with which to fill this void. There are several issues not the least is the fact that there are no archived reference drawings (as far as I can determine) of the J2's valve gear. I obtained a frame drawing from the NRM but the only details provided in this were the pitch of the cylinders, the position of the crank arm at the far end of the reach rod, and the brake gear. I have drawings showing the valve gear arrangement for the Q2 (another Ivatt design around the same time as the J2) but the position of the reach rod's crank arm is very different indicating that there must be material differences in their respective valve gear. This is how I solutioned it for the Q2: You will note that the position of the valve gear on the Q2 is such that it slots into a housing at the rear of the smoke box. I would therefore need to build a new smokebox for my J2 which means given all the other corrections I now need to make the only element of the version 1 test build that will survive will be footplate at this rate. Such is life, I'll let you know what I decide. Happy modelling. Frank

Hi Ken, for those wondering about venturing into the world of bespoke etching I think it is best to look at this as an aid to scratch building and recognise that if mistakes have been made it is going to be cheaper to fix them on the go rather than order a replacement set of etches. Each time a new set of etches (brass for the superstructure and n/silver for the chassis) are ordered you are looking at a 3 figure cost. In my case I intend to offer my artwork to John at LRM and so I will have to correct the errors in my artwork and take the financial hit of ordering new photo tools and test etches from the suppliers. In which case I have the luxury of a new set of etched components from which I can build a replacement cab. I don’t think I’m alone in saying that modellers who can deliver good results fall into two schools. The best are able to get things right first time, but modellers like me only achieve good results because we have the patience to keep correcting our mistakes multiple times until we eventually get it right. Happy modelling, Frank

Time for a progress update on the J2 with work having proceeded on the test build of the cab and smokebox. Another case of one step forward and one step backward. The step backward related to problems with forming the cab. There were two problem areas: the cut outs in the front sheet of the cab to clear the splashers and the boxes over the frames was the wrong shape and I have had to add some brass to obtain a closer fit. The bigger issue was I'd had miscalculated the length of the cab side sheet wrapper by a horrendous 4mm. Eventually I realised I hadn't added the 2mm each side caused by the curve in the footplate. I made an attempt to splice in an extra 4mm in the middle of the roof but its less than perfect and so once I have a new set of etches I will build a new replacement cab, but it'll do for now. The smokebox has been far more successful and will not require any adjustment. I have therefore gone ahead and added the piston valve tail rod castings. The tail rods are a major characteristic of the J2's and it is these along with the main piston tail rods that distinguish the J2 from a J1. Before soldering the wrapper to the smoke box's frame I filled it with lead. Whilst this is a relatively small space it has provided a useful 60gms of additional ballast. The last etched components to fit will be the combined firebox and boiler. The component parts are now sat on my workbench awaiting rolling and assembly over the next few days. Thanks for reading, Frank

Nice kit, nicely built I’d say! Congratulations both. Frank

Hi Grahame, As you have stated, as well as 6 wheeled coaches the GNR had 8 wheeled (rigid) coaches designed by Howldon. The 8 wheelers used the same w iron arrangement on the inner axles as was used for the centre axle of the 6 wheelers. The main features being; the inner axles had their W irons mounted outside the sole bar, longer leaf springs and flexible spring hangers. I have drawn up etches for one of the Howldon 8 wheelers because these were subsequently converted for use in various articulated sets including the quint sets found on the Queensbury lines, but for which no kit existed. One of my colleagues (Russ Whitwam) is building stock for our Clayton layout and is in the process of building one of my etches in the original 8 wheeled rigid form. The method of mounting the inner axles can be seen in this part finished model along with a 6 wheeler for comparison. Only the outer axles had brakes. Regards, Frank

I have always been impressed by the pointing rodding on our Hungerford layout. I should state at this point that I had no involvement in its construction or installation and it is wholly the work of other more competent modellers than I. The planning for all the runs (including correctly positioned compensators etc.) being carried out by Mike Evans who then installed the point stools at the same time as the track was laid and prior to ballasting. It was much later that the rodding was built and installed from Colin Waite etched components by Russ Whitwam. I think the end result is as good as I have seen on any layout. Unfortunately the Colin Waite etches went out of production years ago but fortunately for us we have sufficient left (I believe) to install the rodding on Clayton. If this proves not to be the case I will create some bespoke etched components to match the CW items. You may recall that this picture was one taken by you (Tony W) many years ago for a magazine article and it remains one of my favourite pictures of the layout. Frank

Hi Barry, Loco balancing is more complex than many realise. A key point to note is that the weight being lifted by the bogie at the front is a constant and so the down force being added to the rear axle by springing the bogie is being transferred mainly from the driven wheel rather than from that weight above the bogie. What you really need is more weight to be added over the rear axle. A really good source of this can be from resting the front of the tender on the draw bar. If you can get enough weight in the tender you can then add weight to the smoke box to increase weight on the driven axle of a single whilst retaining sufficient down force on the rear axle to keep it on the track. Who’d have thought that studying levers and moments of inertia for ‘O’ level physics would now prove so useful for understanding how to balance a model locomotive? Frank

Quite amazing work Michael, congratulations to all involved.

You take a lot more care than I by the sounds of things. I push the wheels on by hand rather than using a wheel press but have not had any problems despite this. I admire that you design your frames to permit the wheels to be dropped out as a complete assembly but its something I have never felt the need for. Once my models are built it is very rare for me to want to remove the wheels again but if I do then a quick twist of the wheel on the axle breaks the Locktite and off they come. Any idea whether the lighter fuel could be affecting the plastic? I have never cleaned the holes in the wheels before pushing then onto the axles. Could it be that lighter fuel softens the plastic permanently making the wheels more prone to becoming loose? All very interesting... Frank

Hi, I have had a similar experience to you with regards Gibson wheels becoming loser the more times they are fitted to an axle but not to the point that they have become unusable. A critical requirement for me is to remove the burr from the axle's end before the axle is first inserted in a wheel. I do this by spinning the axle in a mini drill and chamfering the end of the axle with fine wet and dry paper. If not removed I find the burr can act like a blade and remove plastic from the centre of the wheel, both opening the hole and making it almost impossible to set the wheel square on the axle. The second thing to note is that the plastic has a memory and so although it may feel loose when re-fitted it will try to return to its original size. I find that if I go back later the wheel generally grips the axle more than when it was initially installed. Finally, and equally importantly when I carry out final assembly I always Loctite the wheel to the axle. I can't remember the last time a wheel so installed came loose other than when the centre boss has split which has happened a couple of times with Gibson wheels. Obviously I try to minimise the number of times a wheel is removed from an axle, probably half a dozen times maximum during the assembly of the frames, but I have never found the need to purchase a 2nd set of wheels because the first have become too loose. Regards, Frank

This sounds like an equivalent method to the EMGS shorting tags but not sure how well they would stand up to having the axles removed multiple times. Definitely worth considering though. Frank

Hi Wayne, What a shame.... I would have to agree that the castings are both a strength and a weakness in your product. The vertical alignment between the code 75 rail and the top of the frog's casting were slightly out on my three test EM points but it would have been a simple matter to run a file over the top to remove any step had it bothered me sufficiently. If, however, shrinkage and reliability of supply are going to become an issue then you are going to have to change your approach. Who knows, in years to come metal 3D printing of frogs and K crossings might become practical but that time is not yet I understand. Would it be possible to print the sleeper base of the diamond as two separate ends with some kind of clip in the middle to lock them together when pushed home? By starting at the middle of the diamond and sliding continuous side and check rails into both bases at the same time I would have thought it would still all come together neatly? Just an idea! Pre-machined rails definitely remove much of the complexity of building trackwork so these kits will still be enormously beneficial. Shame about the tie bars though, I particularly liked your current solution. The new approach is one I've seen used with varying degrees of success in the past so may become the most challenging element of the revised design for the novice builder. Keep up the great work..... Frank

Hi Mark, thank you for posting and for your last statement in particular. I completely agree with your comment regarding the use of brown label flux for steel rimmed wheels. Just so I’m clear in what you describe, does the loop turn through a full 360 deg, and is the wire still aligned so it is hidden completely by the spokes? I’m just struggling to picture what you have described. Frank

I received an email question today from a fellow EM gauge member with regards how I go about shorting out plastic centred wheels when building a split frame chassis. Rather than just email him back I thought I'd post my explanation on here in case anyone else either will find this of interest or has an alternate approach worth sharing. I am assuming that the questioner already has access to split axles and knows how to align the insulated gap to avoid shorts when mounting a gearbox. My apologies in advance for the out of focus pictures. I hadn't realised the problem until after I'd completed assembling my demonstration piece. When I build tender locos I employ the so called American pickup system whereby the live chassis of the loco picks up from the nearside rail and the live chassis of the tender picks up from the offside rail. The drawbar is used to carry current from one chassis to the other but is insulated at one end to avoid a dead short between the two chassis. In these models I use etched shorting tags sourced from the EM Gauge Society's stores to short the rims of the wheels to the their axles. This has been discussed in an earlier post near the bottom of page one of this topic. The problem with these tags is that they don't like being disturbed so when used I ensure the wheel to which they have been attached remains permanently on the axle. On a split frame chassis I need to be able to remove the axles several times during construction requiring me to remove at least one of the wheels on any given axle. To facilitate this rather than use an etched tag I instead use very fine (36 swg) phosphor bronze wire sourced from Eileen's Emporium as follows: The wheel is prepared by grinding two small hollows into the rim of the wheel directly opposite each other and 90 degrees from the crank pin. I also cut a fine groove across the hub into which the wire will lay so as to allow it to lie flat against the back of the spokes. I then attach a couple of clamps to the rim of the wheel to act as heat sinks whilst still leaving access to the hollows, and solder the wire across the back of the wheel. The surplus wire and solder is removed and the back of the wheel cleaned to remove any flux residue. This is particularly important with steel rimmed wheels. Once attached the wire is cut at its centre using a scalpel blade. The axle is now inserted in the usual manner at the same time forcing the ends of the wire down into the hub of the wheel. To avoid potential problems with the soldered joint/s subsequently failing in use the right angled bend at the point the wire exits the wheel is accentuated using a small bladed screw driver. As and when the axle is removed the wire will remain embedded in the soft plastic of the wheel's hub and in my experience any subsequent insertion and removal of the axle will not dislodge the wire and electrical conductivity will not be compromised. I would stress the importance of using fine phosphor bronze wire. I have tried using other materials but have found them too brittle with a tendency to snap when then axle is first forced into the wheel. Thicker wire has a tendency to compromise the alignment of the wheel on its axle causing it to wobble. Don't be tempted to use fuse wire, you will find out why the first time you get a dead short across the chassis. If anyone else would like to share their approach to shorting out plastic centred wheels I would be interested to hear how they do it. Regards, Frank