Chuffer Davies

Can I ask for clarification please? Do you mean cast or do you mean 3D printed in plastic? It looks in the drawing like this is all going to be printed. Thanks Frank

Hi Denbridge, I've successfully ordered the motor mounting screws I needed from Branchlines today. Many thanks for putting me straight about Branchlines still trading. Frank

Hi, does anybody know where I can buy replacement M1.6 motor mounting screws? Last time I bought any it was from Branchlines but I don’t think they are trading any more. Regards, Frank

Hi Jim, the trick is to tin the brass with your usual solder (145 deg?) first and then use low melt to solder the white metal to the tinned brass (or n/silver)… Good luck! Frank

Hi Michael, you beat me to it! Sorry Tony but whilst I accept that it is your belief that there are all sorts of construction techniques that make installation of DCC chips in frames problematic, this is not my experience in almost all situations. All my tender loco’s for Clayton use American pickup and are DCC chipped without any problems whatsoever. I do not attempt to isolate the superstructure from the live chassis either. Similarly my tank loco’s are split frame and chipped. The only immediate problem I could see with converting Roy’s loco’s might be the space issue but the latest generation of chips are small and may fit between the EM frames. The rule for installing chips in loco’s is simple, don’t allow an unshielded chip, or the wires between the motor and chip, to touch any metal part of the locomotive and all will be well. The only situation where converting a loco to DCC is difficult is where the motor’s brush housing is shorted directly to a live frame. This is true of many commercially built split frame loco’s and the early Hornby Dublo and Triang models. I doubt converting the Retford layout to DCC would be that difficult either. It is far harder to go the other way and convert a DCC layout to Analogue. The cost of chipping all the loco’s on the other hand…….. Frank

Hi Wayne, There was a definite difference between the plywood sleeper based track and the points. Probably about 0.2mm. I overcame this by gluing some thin strips of plastic card under the last three sleepers on the point bases to bring them up to the same height as the crossing. I had thought there was a similar difference between the points and the EMGS track with the Peco track being the lower. I also packed the Peco track in the same way therefore. Perhaps this was incorrect but everything seems to align okay. More fun was getting the plain track to align vertically with the points which had previously been vertically aligned to the crossing. In these circumstances I terminated the plain track with a few ply sleepers and C&L chairs so that the transition was in the plain track well before the rail joint. Fun and Games...... Given this was a 'fun' project to produce a test track, I neither stained the ply sleepers or blackened the cast frog although the track tops of the frog were indeed polished with fine grit wet and dry. I'll probably be taking this test track to exhibitions when I am next invited to demonstrate (usually loco building) so I thought it best to leave the track in its original state so that visitors can see it in its intermediate stage prior to staining and ballasting. Congratulations on an excellent product Wayne. If I'd been patient I could have saved myself the effort of building the crossing and waited for you to produce yours instead, but as I had all the materials I needed in my spares box I thought I'd crack on with building my own. I'll be interested to see how your crossing sleepers knit in with your point sleepers? It was all a bit of a bodge on my test track and probably doesn't adhere to prototype practice. Regards, Frank

After an enjoyable couple of weeks carpentry and track building I was today able to test run my new test track. The starting point was an old pine shelf that had been stored in my garage for 20 odd years doing nothing. I had been looking for an excuse to build one of Wayne's new points and a test track shelf seemed like an ideal opportunity to try one. In the end I settled on a track plan incorporating three of the British Finescale B7 points augmented with a hand built 1:7 diamond crossing constructed from C&L laser cut sleepers and 3 bolt chairs. The plain track is from the EMGS (Peco). Track centres are 50mm apart. Other than some minor challenges resolving the height differences in the 3 different track systems employed, everything else was straight forward. The points took me a leisurely hour a piece to make, the diamond crossing somewhat longer. I now have a vastly superior test track than the 2ft length of plain track I have used for the last 30 years. A minor observation for others intending to build these points, I would recommend supergluing the check rails in place otherwise there is a risk that they will slide out of position during an over zealous track cleaning session. Regards, Frank

The J2's CAD file is with PPD and I expect the version 1 metal back with me any day now. ;-) Meanwhile that nice Mr Redrup has provided me with all the necessary castings and a tender to complete the build - if I've got the design correct that is? I have also prepared artwork for a J52, one of those built by Neilson & Co with wooden buffer beam extensions front and back and leaf springs above the wheels rather than the usual underslung springs. In researching I discovered that the J52's frames were identical to those designed by Stirling for the J7 which I've previously modelled. I have been able to reuse a considerable amount of the J7's artwork saving me significant time and effort. It would appear that the GW were not unique in exploiting standardisation. The artwork for the J52 is three weeks behind that of the J2 and so it will be a while before I can expect the metal back from PPD. I think I've got enough to keep me going for a while yet. Frank

Hi Clem, I agree with regards your motor and gearbox combination but it’s setting up the hornguides to match the coupling rods accurately which ultimately determines whether the chassis limps or glides along the track. You appear to be a passed master at setting them up. I got back into the club rooms yesterday for the first time in 62 weeks, it all felt a bit of a time warp. Everything was just where it had been left last time we worked on the layout albeit now under an amount of dust. So yesterday I spent most of the day having a clean around and reminding myself where I’d got up to with testing the wiring. As to LSGC it shares the same floor space in the club room as Clayton so is currently stored along with Hungerford in a side room. I hope the council won’t feel the need to shut the building again now that this blessed Indian variant is starting to take hold on Bradford.

As always your loco’s run as smooth as silk. Impressive..

The fourth locomotive to be completed is the J1. I found this far harder to design than either the Q2 or the J7 because of the curved footplate. A key challenge was working out mathematically the length of the footplate so that it ended up the correct length once the curves had been formed in it. I'm pleased to say I got this particular feature right first time, but unfortunately that wasn't true of some of the other components and it eventually took three visits to the etchers to get everything right. This model has the same basic features as the Q2 and J7's but without any attempt to represent the valve gear. The fifth and final model to go through final assembly is my attempt at converting the Bachman GN Atlantic to EM using a replacement chassis of my own design. I am really impressed by Bachman's rendition of the prototype. On this occasion I decided that attempting to design the chassis for CSB suspension was a step too far for me and so the loco's chassis has been designed for compensation. The motor is in the traditional location wholly within the firebox. I have packed as much additional ballast into the model as possible. Since completing the final assembly of these models I have gone on to design two more complete kits: a J2 and a J52. Both are now away at the etchers. I hope that the J2 will eventually be offered to John Redrup for inclusion in the London Road Models catalogue. The J52 by contrast came about by accident. I had already acquired a commercial kit for a J52 but was then advised by colleague that the kit had some dimensional errors and required some replacement parts for the tank and the cab side sheets to correct the anomalies. So work started on drawing up the required components and this then led me to start thinking more deeply about how I wanted to assemble the superstructure so that I could have access to the inside of the cab for painting and subsequent installation of glazing and loco crew once painting was complete. By the time I'd determined how many other parts needed modifying to achieve allow the cab to be removed from the footplate I decided the best way forward was to draw up artwork for the entire superstructure. I then looked more closely at the chassis supplied with the kit. There were two immediate problems with the kit chassis as supplied. No provision had been provided for either suspension of compensation. The leaf springs were underslung but the sub type of the J52 I wanted to model had the leaf springs above the axles and on view above the wheel splashers. Yet again I came to the conclusion that it would be as easy to design a complete replacement chassis with CSB suspension built into the design, articulated coupling rods and correctly positioned leaf springs. At that point I made a significant and happy discovery. The frames of the J52 I'm modelling are identical to those of the J7 with the exception of the back of the frames because on the J52 they are extended to support the bunker. I was therefore able to copy the CAD artwork previously prepared for the J7 and make a few minor modifications. Job done! Whilst I await delivery of the J2 and J52 metal from PPD I am filling my time with building a new test track shelf incorporating three B7 points made from the new British FInescale kits. These kits incorporate 3D printed bases complete with chairs, a N/Silver casting for the frog and machined point blades. Having previously hand built points from C&L components these are a delight to build and make a superb end product that compares favourably with the C&L components. Sadly the 3D printing process is unable to produce chairs with representation of the wooden keys but on a positive note the various specialist chairs found on a point are faithfully reproduced. Assembly requires the rail to be cut to length and threaded through the chairs in the track base. The cast frog is superglued in place and its precise positioning is controlled by integrated cast pegs that locate in holes printed into the track base. I have hand built a 1:7 diamond crossing from C&L components to incorporate into the test track but had I been willing to wait a couple more months there will be a kit for the crossing coming out as well. More to follow once I have finished laying the track and wiring it all up. That just about brings you all up to date with my endeavours for now, I will post some more updates as and when I get to grips with the J2.

The next models to go through final assembly have been the two J7's. This was my 3rd attempt at locomotive kit design and on this occasion I opted for cosmetic valve gear between the frames. Otherwise these models are basically the same as the Q2 in that they have M-I-T drive, American pickup and sprung chassis. As with the Q2 the J7 is destined to be added to the LRM range of kits. This model represents the GNR 1021 Series which was based on their standard goods engine design but with reduced diameter wheels (4' 8") to increase the haulage potential to cope with the steep gradients found in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The 2nd manifestation of a J7 represents its final form with a larger 4' 8" diameter boiler, the same as that found on the larger J3.

Despite my lack of posting for a while I have not been idol. The most satisfying achievement in the last few months has been the final assembly of 5 locomotives that had been with Ian Rathbone for painting. Some of these have already been displayed on Wright Writes, but for completeness I would like to present them here also. In the order that they were originally designed and built therefore: LNER Q2: I have already described how I have retro-fitted my Motor-In-Tender (M-I-T) drive system to this model. This was my first attempt at designing a complete locomotive kit as an alternate approach to scratch building which would have been the only other way to acquire a model of a Q2. This model probably represents the ultimate in terms of my preferred approach to building models. As well as the M-I-T, electrical pickup is by means of the American system, and the chassis is sprung to ensure all wheels are firmly planted for optimum current collection. The icing on the cake is the working inside valve gear that was built to fill the very obvious void under the high mounted boiler. This model is now available as a London Road Models kit.

I have at last managed to find an alternate source for the specific motor needed for my Dapol Mogul and so at long last I've been able to install the drive train. It was not all plain sailing and installation required a couple of minor modifications, but otherwise the installation has been completely successful. I am still awaiting delivery of a set of EM wheels from Ultrascale, the test model currently has a set of S4 wheels under it. Once replaced I'll be able to complete the final build and give the model a proper haulage test. One of the major challenges in creating these drive systems has been sourcing all the parts. This is the 5th loco I've now built with the M-I-T system. The first 4 used Neoprene tubing that I had bought for an experiment (from Branchlines - I think) at an Expo EM several years ago. By the fifth loco I had run out and despite spending hours on the Internet had been unable to find a new source for the soft, thick walled tubing required. Out of the blue, and I have no idea as to why this time I was successful, I have at long last found a source: Caldercraft Coupling Rubber 10 x 1.5-2.5mm x 50mm Part No: R1386 - Sussex Model Centre -SMC (sussex-model-centre.co.uk). I estimate that one packet is enough for about 30 drive trains and so I should have enough for all the loco's I'm likely to build in the future. Delivery time for wheels from Ultrascale is now quoted as being up to 6 months and so I probably have another couple of months to wait until I can at last complete this project but at least I now know I'm on the home straight.

Hi Roger, and of course there is my alternate approach which avoids pickups getting tangled with brake gear and spring hangers..... Might be worth a second look? Frank

Try this link. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/page/2219/#elControls_4299280_menu Frank

Good to see you posting again, we've missed seeing how your models are progressing Andrew. I can assure both you and the authorities that at no time have 'the Clayton lot' broken any lockdown rules. Perish the thought.....but as a result there has been no activity on the Clayton layout itself since March 5th 2020. I'm looking forward to getting back into the clubrooms (albeit socially distanced) in a couple of weeks and testing the several locomotives that have been built during lockdown. I can at last find out what the reworked Q2 with its motor in the tender can haul. Think we might need to do some track cleaning first though.... Hope to see you at club soon. Frank

Nicely done Clem. Very smooth as always for one of your models. Frank

Hi Tony, it is possible without all the additional plastic isolation you suggest. The key to this is building the chassis fully insulated from the track (as you often already do) by using insulated wheels all round and pickups to all wheels used to collect current. The chassis is then electrically dead save for its connection to the earthed brush on the motor. You can now take one of the feed wires from the DCC chip and connect it to the chassis to put power into the earthed brush without causing any shorts. The other feed wire from the chip goes to the other brush as normal. In the event that the chassis accidentally shorts to one or other of the rails (e.g. as a result of a derailment) Baz suggests some modern chips have built in protection to detect the end to end short and prevent it destroying the chip. Unless you know for certain which DCC chips have such protection I suggest this strategy is too high risk to be a practical way forward and such motors should be avoided for DCC fitted locomotives. Hope that makes sense. Frank

Hi Baz, you are absolutely correct in what you say but the point you are making is different to the one I and others were attempting to make. The point you make relates to the annoying situation where a short across the track power causes the DCC command station to trip out dropping power to the entire layout. Loco's that appear to be fine when running on DC may still have minor shorts that will trip the power on DCC. The point I was making was that if the power from the DCC chip is routed on one side via otherwise isolated frames to the live brush in the motor, then any short allowing track power to connect with the frames will more than likely fry the chip. Whilst I quite enjoy frying chips under normal circumstances in this particular circumstance it would be less than desirable and very costly. Regards, Frank

Technically it would work but if there was then a short anywhere on the frames then it would probably blow the chip. Somewhat risky therefore.. Frank

Hi Tony, On the whole this looks to be an excellent model, nicely made, but for me the valve gear doesn't quite convince. In particular the Combination Lever looks wrong, it is certainly too heavy but also is it too long because the Union Link is at a strange angle? Regards, Frank

Hi Tony, I suppose my concern is that as an established expert if you say that you don't fit sand pipes because they are too vulnerable, then inexperienced modellers will immediately believe that to always be the case and will be dis-incentivised to attempt fitting them. I'm therefore attempting to provide an alternate perspective just in case. The models you have illustrated above are of course stunning and in these circumstances every last detail can be seen and appreciated. I've always had a particular liking for the Schools although never had the justification for building one... We have all heard horror stories about the fragility of modern R-T-R models and how little it takes to cause fine detail to twist or drop off. Fortunately this is far less of a problem for those of us who build our own models. You raise an interesting point with regards the transportation of exhibition loco's and their risk of damage when being packed and unpacked. I transport mine in purpose built trays lined with foam rubber and have devised a method which ensures the minimum of direct handling possible. This takes the form of squares of plastic sheeting cut from bin liners onto which the loco's are stood and then they are picked up by the plastic sheet and slid into their tray. For my loco's damage in transport is rare but still more likely than when the models are running around the layout. You also mention the risk of damage during periodic wheel cleaning and I agree with you that this is a concern but do not have any answers as to how to avoid this. Does anyone have a trick they can share? Some modellers swear that they never clean their wheels but I've always felt the need to clean all wheels on every piece of rolling stock prior to any exhibition. Shunting loco's get their wheels cleaned before the show opens on the Sunday as well. Regards to all, Frank

Hi Tony, I too have considerable experience of operating large exhibition layouts but have rarely experienced problems with derailments causing damage to sand pipes. I would hope for both of us our standards are such that derailments are few and far between anyway which immediately reduces the risk, but also because the bottom of each sand pipe is tucked into the wheel so the wheel protects it in almost all circumstances. As an added precaution I always form my sand pipes from phosphor bronze wire which being significantly more springy than brass or n/silver is more capable of resisting damage and distortion. Obviously it’s a personal choice but personally I attempt to include the same level of detail below the footplate as above including wiggly pipes. I would therefore have no concerns encouraging modellers new to kit construction to include sand pipes when detailing their locomotives. Frank

Hi Sandra, I’m interested.... Keep ‘em coming. That makes two of us who’ve modelled the GW in the past and now the LNER. Frank