Chuffer Davies

Hi, thanks for the suggestion and in particular thank you for explaining your thinking behind it. Possibly this was Harlequin’s thinking also. One of my problems with RM Web is that there is a lot of really interesting content but it is often fragmented and it takes me a lot of effort to find it. In fact I tend to just stumble across content that I subsequently subscribe to such as this topic. That having been said I have decided to follow your advice and set up a new topic (Chuffer’s Workbench) to cover all my projects and I will post all future progress on my Mogul conversion there but for continuity I will continue to post links to my Mogul posts here. Regards, Frank

Whilst I have several on going projects the one I am most involved with at the moment is a new locomotive for Hungerford. Dapol have recently launched a new model of the Great Western 63xx Mogul the superstructure of which is to a very high standard. I am planning to design replacement chassis for both locomotive and tender utilising my Motor in Tender drive system. The main criticisms concerning this model have been associated with the look of the slide bars and crossheads as well as various issues with its performance including a lack of traction. With the exception of the traction issue I can ignore all the others items because of my stated intention to replace the chassis and I will attempt to overcome the traction problems by utilising my motor-in-tender system. I have already posted a couple of entries on this topic elsewhere on RM Web but have decided to consolidate these and any new entries on this subject here. The first two posts can be found via the following links: The following is a picture of my motor-in-tender drive system as used in my GN models. This system is being modified for the Mogul because the GW 3500 gallon tender has less clearance and so the motor needs to be dropped a few milimetres in order to fit within the area of the water tank. I will describe this system in more detail in due course under a separate entry. I hope you will find this of interest and please ask questions. Regards, Frank

I am a member of the Shipley Model Railway Society and for the last several years I have been with a group of members building a new exhibition layout - Clayton - in EM gauge. This layout is being documented elsewhere on RM Web The layout is currently locked up in the club rooms which are themselves on the top floor of a Bradford sports centre to which currently we have no access because the Sports Hall itself is shut. If truth be told even if we had access I would not feel safe attending until I have been vacinated. This has not completely stopped progress and some of us have been busying ourselves building rolling stock of which we will require a lot, all of which will be kit or scratch built because there are little or no proprietary models suitable for running on Clayton. Clayton is a station on the Queensbury Line which linked the towns of Bradford, Halifax and Keighley. We have set our model around 1930 by which time the line was operated by the LNER but the traction on the line was still very much ex-GN locomotives that had long since been consigned to secondary duties. Athough most of my railway modelling is therefore focused on stock for Clayton, my background is very much Great Western and I am a joint owner of the Hungerford Exhibition layout (https://www.shipleymrs.co.uk/hungerford) for which I have been responsible for most of the locomotives. From time to time I still get the urge to build something new for Hungerford but it is not appropriate to post my Great Western modelling on the Clayton topic and this new blog will be where I will post such antics in the future. In addition, and in order to fill gaps in the rolling stock required to be built for Clayton for which no kit exists, it has been necessary for me to learn how to design etched metal kits. To date I have designed two Howlden coach kits to compliment those already available in the D&S range, and I have just started the design of my 5th locomotive kit for the LNER J2. The locomotive kits for Clayton are gradually being made available through London Road Models, my first two - the LNER Q1 and Q2 locomotives are already available, and I have a J7 and a J1 in the pipe line. This blog is where I will be happy to discuss my approach to etched kit design if anyone wants to ask me questions about the process. Our model of Clayton has been built on gradients of 1:50 and 1:100 to accurately reproduce those of the prototype and because of this it has been necessary to be creative in the design of the drive systems for our locomotives in order that they have half a chance of hauling prototype length trains up the gradients. I have therefore designed a drive system that allows me to install the motor in the tender leaving the firebox space for extra ballast. This system has taken an amount of perfecting but I now have a design that is easily reproduced and seems to work both smoothly and reliably and is still relatively easy to install. I will pleased to assist anyone wishing to try out this kind of drive system. FInally in this introduction I would like to explain that I have a particular interest in chassis design. As a teenager I was fortunate in that Mike Sharman was a friend of my fathers and he taught me his Flexichas apprach to chassis construction. I have been a convert ever since. I remain a proponent of compensated chassis construction although in more recent years I have also used the Continuous Springy Beam (CSB) system and use the two systems as I see fit often combining the two approaches in a single model. I also prefer to avoid installing pick ups on my chassis and adopt the American current collection system for tender engines or split chassis construction for tank engines. I would like to use this blog to promote these techniques and to assist any modellers who might want to experiment with any or all of these. Regards, Frank Davies

Hi Simon, You've made one mistake. The left most side including notch and fold should add up to the 5mm you require. I make it that you are 0.05mm short on this side i.e.the 4.65 should be 4.7mm. Regards, Frank

Hi, thank you for thinking to draw my attention to this but I was already aware and have made the necessary adjustments. Whilst I would have, under normal circumstances, ordered a frame plan of the correct prototype from the National Railway Museum’s archive, this has effectively been shut down since March so is not currently an option. I’ve had another drawing on order since March and am still awaiting it. The article in the GWRJ was the only available alternative hence I’ve used this instead. Frank

Back in November (21st - Page 61) I mentioned my intention to design a replacement Nickel Silver chassis in order to convert the Dapol Mogul to EM for running on our Hungerford exhibition layout. Since then I have been beavering away on the computer drawing up the required components in CAD and have just finished the initial design stage. As previously mentioned my preferred approach to designing model railway rolling stock is, as far as is possible, to draw up the components on top of an official drawing that has previously been imported in CAD and scaled to 4mm/foot. The following image is a screen shot of part of my work pad in CAD illustrating some of the components that have been prepared in this manner. The next stage is to arrange them into frames in preparation for sending the CAD files off to the etching company for processing. This is quite a laborious process and care must be taken to ensure that all the components are attached to the frames with small tabs. Failure to do this will result in the components dropping away to the bottom of the acid bath never to be seen again. The following is the result of this afternoon's endeavours. It'll take a few days to finish organising all the components in their frets but hopefully by the end of the week I will be ready to send the file off to the etchers. The more I have worked on this project the more impressed I have become with the quality of the model that Dapol have produced. I have just removed the bottom of the boiler wrapper from the chassis casting so that I can re-attach it once I have packed the boiler with lead. I was amazed to find that Dapol have gone to the trouble of recreating all the rivet detail around the seam where the boiler attaches to the back of the smokebox, even though this is virtually impossible to see when it is glued to the Dapol chassis block. I'm guessing it will be a couple of months before I have the metal work in my hands. Hopefully I will have managed to get sufficient of the design correct to be able to create a working chassis from the version 1 etches. There is always the risk that a fold line is missing or on the wrong face of the metal, even if all the dimensions are correct, so the first test build is always a bit of a hit or miss affair. Here's hoping! Regards, Frank

Wow, that's really interesting to hear and it all now makes sense now. I just couldn't imagine how you were going to prepare so many IM's. A year or so ago Colin Ashby gave our local area group of the EMGS a tour of his manufacturing facility and demonstrated the process of creating injection moulds. In the past Colin had been responsible for creating the moulds for many of the small kit suppliers of wagons and coaches. I just couldn't imagine how you could turn around so many traditional moulds in such a short space of time. I really must invetigate this 3D printing malarkey in more detail. It has come on in leaps and bounds in the last couple of years. Thank you for taking the time to explain this in so much detail, I really appreciate it. Frank

Hi Wayne, thanks for the pictures of the vacuum formed moulds - fascinating! Would I be correct in thinking that the sleeper bases have to be injection moulded, in which case you have a lot of moulds to engineer? Are the moulds made using traditional methods or is there a new way of doing this these days? Frank

I have to say that I would be fascinated to learn more of your manufacturing approach if you are happy to share? Frank

Do tell?

Well it happened to me so now I always drill a ventilation hole just to be on the safe side. This hole is always at the very back of the tube for the very reason you have mentioned Mike. In that way there is no opportunity for the piston rod to interfere with the hole. I'm staggered that such an innocent observation about something that happened to me in the past is generating so much critical observation. Well done to all those who've never fallen foul of this situation. But you have been warned.. I think I'll get back in my box. Frank

Did I say I swamped it? If the fit is close even a tiny amount of oil can make the difference. Nor am I necessarily recommending it as an approach. All that I was suggesting was that it has happened to me in the past and on the first ocassion it led to a baffling situation that I confused with a quartering issue. I thought that by sharing this, should anyone else be in the same situation they can avoid my mistake. Is that not what we try to do on WW? Frank

Hi, I’ve not used cast piston rods for many a year. Etched kits typically use n/silver or steel rod (0.8mm is my preferred diameter) hence the increased risk of a close fit in the tube. You only make the mistake once because it is a real head scratcher trying to work out why the chassis suddenly starts binding. Happy days... Frank

A close fit between the piston rod and the tube can lead to an interesting side effect if the back of the tube is closed, especially after lubrication. You can get a build up of air pressure in the tube which makes the chassis run erratically, much like a quartering issue. To avoid this I always drill a hole in the side of the tube to eliminate the risk. Frank

And if that doesn't work, and because you've said that you've had it running previously, is it possible that you have switched the left and right coupling rods? Frank

Ultrascale can provide these. They can also provide a replacement final gear for these gearboxes if you’ve lost it. Frank

According to an item on the BBC the other day you need to contact Derails to request they fulfil your order. Best of luck, Frank

Also: I’ve just checked and it is possible to insert the PCB upside down. The top is marked on the PCB so worth checking you’ve got it the correct way round. I would predict that inserting it upside down could be fairly catastrophic. Frank

Just to be clear; with DCC there is a constant voltage to the track. When your Digitrax controller says the loco’s speed is zero this is purely a code passing between the command station and the chip in the loco. If the loco does not behave as expected this is a fault in the loco’s circuitry or chip. I am starting to wonder if there is a problem in the alignment of the PCB in the socket in the loco that is causing leakage between the track feed and the motor feed? This would put the chip at significant risk of damage. Have you tried reseating the PCB? Frank

I agree. When you ‘kill the power’ how are you achieving this? Are you setting the controller to zero or are you disconnecting the wires from the track? If the controller is still connected could the controller be leaking current? If the latter then is there leakage from another power source? Have you put a voltage meter across the track? Please let us know how you get on... Frank

Hi, the slidebars are a single casting that is a press fit into the rear of the cylinder. It is possible that it was not pressed home correctly during assembly or, if the fit is loose and was knocked, it could move in the cylinder. It should be straight forward to correct any alignment issues and if the fit is loose then a spot of glue will lock it in place. Frank

Are you able/prepared to predict the likely available date, and are you taking pre-orders? Frank

But it does look pretty spectacular now that you've weathered it none the less! Most encouraging... Frank

Hi Wayne, I am following this topic with interest although sadly it is far too late for your EM track system to help me with what is probably my last layout. I have posted a link to this topic in the EM Gauge Modellers' Facebook Group which is generating a lot of interest amongst an albeit relatively small part of the overall EM community. I think this system will open the door to more aspiring EM modellers who have been hesitant to make the transition from OO because of the challenges of building their own turnouts. Its a brilliant idea and I really hope your efforts are rewarded. Would I be correct in thinking that your templates will be identical to those generated by Templot for the equivalent turnout specification in which case modellers can start planning their layouts now by printing out templates from Templot? Regards, Frank

I was watching the Hornby Magazine’s online video today and their Dapol Mogul had outside steam pipes (Early black BR livery) so they (Dapol) must already have the ability to produce them. If your existing model needs deconstructing to aid the drilling of holes in the footplate to fit outside steam pipes then this is very simple to do, you just need a small Philips screwdriver to undo 4 screws and it’ll come apart with ease. Frank