Chuffer Davies

I’m really looking forward to seeing the Quint set at Wakefield. Glad you enjoyed the small details on the brakes. How far did you take the underframe detail? Regards, Frank

I’m using Delux. I’m guessing I have a cut down version. Frank

All very interesting stuff. I shall continue to follow this blog with great interest. Meanwhile I must find someone to instruct me in usingTurboCAD 3D. I’ve already mastered TurboCAD for drawing up the artwork for etched loco and coach kits in 3D but every attempt by me so far to follow tutorials regarding 3D have been a failure. I must try again because it will open up endless possibilities. Cheers, Frank

Thanks Andy that is just what I was after. One final question due to my own ignorance of the materials, can you use plastic solvents on this plastic? I’m thinking that a modeller might want to hide the ends of the metal plate across the V with cosmetic chairs. Frank

Hi Andy, I tracked down your blog set up in 2015 which was a fascinating read. Shame it (the blog that is) fizzled out because I’m guessing a lot has changed in the 3 years since. I’ve built all the track work for my next project so this has come too late for me but I can see the potential for other modellers if they feel nervous about building track work totally from components. I plan to bring the idea up with other members of the EMGS in case they are not aware of the work you have already done. Could you therefore provide a couple more close up shots of recent builds that show the best achieveable with current 3D printing please? Well done. Frank

Wow! Very impressive. You will no doubt be aware that the EMGS has just announced that it is releasing 2 EM points and plain track through the Society’s trade. Quite a bit of the discussion around this has been the need for further points and crossings to expand the range but this would seem to offer an interesting alternative. Can you explain in a little more detail how you thread the rail for the V and frog into the track base. Cheers, Frank

Hi Jeff, That is not the case as can easily be determined by comparing the default gauge versus back to back for EM and 00. Gauge: EM = 18.2mm whereas 00 = 16.5mm i.e. 1.7mm difference. BTB: EM = 16.5mm whereas 00 = 14.5mm i.e. 2mm difference. There is therefore a 0.3mm variance that can't be explained by gauge difference alone. Frank

Its not just fitting Markit wheels to ready to run models that can be a problem, I recently tried using them on a Finney 47xx kit and there was no way I could get them behind the slide bars. I have now received a set of wheels from Ultrascale and as expected as long as there is no side play in the front axle they fit successfully. Wheelsets from Markits, Ultrascale and Gibson would all lead you to believe that EM and 00 use the same wheel sets albeit at different back to backs. Whilst this is true for the wheels from these manufacturers it is not necessarily the same for the wheels supplied with proprietary models. I have converted quite a few diesel outline models for a friend's layout using the original wheelsets pulled out on their axles. What I have discovered is that there is a lot of variation in wheel profiles even within the same manufacturer's products. The critical measurement for me is the thickness of the flange. As long as the flange is 0.8mm or less then the 00 wheelsets will run successfully through EM track once the BTB is adjusted and some washers added to eliminate excessive side play. If the flanges are any thicker then the wheels will bump through the EM point work because the flanges ride up in the flangeways behind check rails. Such wheels will either need machining or replacement wheel sets purchased. Frank

This sounds really clever but I can’t get to grips with what the problem is that you are solving with these. Can you go into a bit more explanation of the problem please? Frank

one of the outstanding questions not yet answered is why the non-standard sleeper thickness? I’m guessing there is a logical answer but can’t guess what that is?Frank

Hmmm, I may regret responding to this but here goes for nothing. Please remember that the EMGS at its heart is a club even though it is registered as a business for administrative purposes. I believe we have in the order of 2000 members world wide and it will be our membership fees that will have been used to commission Peco to make the track to promote EM modelling through the Society. As such I don't think it is unreasonable for the volunteers who run the Society out of the goodness of their hearts to not yet have organised every payment facility under the Sun. I also think that payment in UKP is reasonable given the volatility of our currency currently. Why should Society members be effectively required to sponsor overseas purchases by non members? Despite my above response I promise that as a club/society they (we) are typically a friendly bunch who regularly help each other out in the pursuit of our hobby where ever you live. If you live abroad and are keen to convert to EM I'm guessing that if you ask nicely you may find that they/we may well be able to help you to get hold of the new track in ways other than just those listed on the website (but don't quote me on that because I am not authorised to speak on behalf of the Society, I am just a member). After all where there is a will there is a way as the saying goes. If, however, you are not inspired by this initiative and don't want to join us then so be it, and I wish you every success in your modelling pursuits. Respectfully, Frank

The announcement seems to have caused at least a ripple of excitement. You can find out more and join in the discussion on the following RM Web blog: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/139084-emgs-commissions-peco-for-rtr-em-gauge-bullhead-trackturnouts/page-1 There is also an announcement about this on the EMGS web site: http://www.emgs.org/ I wouldn't over analyse this. I think it is likely that the Society just wants to help its existing membership and to encourage new EM modellers, some of whom may then go on to become members. Regards, Frank

According to the EM Society website the track will be available to both members & non members alike from the trade stand at EMGS Exhibitions (Bracknell in May and Manchester in September). I would be concerned about retailing this track through the general trade without offering advice and guidance to inexperienced modellers on how best to convert proprietary stock. The demonstration stands at EMGS events will no doubt be geared up to provide such advice. The whole thing could back fire badly if inexperienced modellers become frustrated because they have invested in the track but then expensive stock is compromised because they can't get EM to work due to lack of appropriate skills and support. The EMGS Manual has extensive guidance on how to convert many of the proprietary models, is issued to all new members at no additional charge (I believe), and is regularly updated for members as new proprietary locomotives are released. Being realistic I also suspect that the EMGS has been required to commit financially to this initiative and therefore it would feel appropriate that they should have the opportunity to recoup some of their investment through control of sales. You never know, the price the Society charges might even prove be more attractive than that from a typical retail outlet if we use other products sold through he Society as a guide. As an active EM modeller of over 30 years I have never regretted converting from 00 to EM but I couldn't have done it successfully, or at least would have struggled, without the support of those with previous experience who could show me how. The EMGS was instrumental in getting me the support I needed and I encourage those of you who might be nervous about taking the plunge to either visit an EMGS event and/or seek out support from your local EMGS area group a list of which can be found on the EMGS Web Site http://www.emgs.org/. Happy Modelling, Frank

When Bill (the current chairman of the EMGS and fellow Shipley MRS member) told me last week to check the EMGS web site today because I might read something of interest, I never guessed it would be anything like this! I am delighted to hear this announcement. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying I would have been delighted had I not, a year ago, spent two gruelling months building 50+ soldered (yes you've guessed it) B6 points for the fiddle yard on Clayton . I could have built a couple of loco's instead With regards how this will effect C&L I am not so sure that it will significantly as this (the Peco offering) is still generic trackwork by fine scale standards. 60ft panels became standard in later years but initially steel works could not produce 60ft rail lengths and almost every company had its own standard/s. The track work on Clayton has been built to GN standards and comprises 3 bolt chairs, 45ft track panels on the main line and 20ft track panels in the yard. The sleeper spacing is therefore bespoke to these panel lengths. Whilst I would have welcomed the availability of the Peco point work for our fiddleyard I would still have proceeded to hand build track using C&L track components on the scenic section of our layout even if the Peco EM track work had been available at the time, especially as most of the points required were C7's rather than B6's. Having said all that, well done EMGS and well done Peco. And for the rest of you prospective EM gauge modellers - 'come on in the waters lovely'! Frank

Andy, What did you use for the plastic universal joints? I’m also experimenting with putting the motor in the tender of a J7 and have some sleeving from my spares box for this model but I don’t know what material it actually is so can’t order more tubing over the net for future models. Frank

I’m not aware of a Graham Farish King although I’m sure you (Jamie) could be correct, but my father had the broken parts of a GF Black Five which did indeed have the motor in the tender driving the loco wheels via a drive shaft through the cab. The motor was a most peculiar beast which I think may have been able to run on AC because it had an electro magnet rather than the usual permanent magnet. It was a three rail model which my father used to run on his Hornby Dublo 3 rail system which was my introduction to model railways. Thanks for the memory trigger. Frank

I’m struggling to get my head around this last question. The video evidence tends to relate to express engines slipping their wheels because few bothered to video goods trains pulling away. I still think the physics indicates that a smaller wheel will be more likely to lose traction because the tractive force exerted at the rim is greater than that on a larger wheel for the same cylinder pressure whilst the coefficient of friction remains the same irrespective of diameter. That assumes everything else remains the same I.e. the same number of driven axles. Remember that an 8 coupled goods loco is distributing the forces exerted through the connecting rod across 8 wheels rather than 6 as in a typical express loco and so this will reduce the tendency for a goods locomotive to slip. Of course in reality there are many variables at work including actual weight on each driven axle, the crank throw, the steam pressure as well as the wheel diameter and the number of driven axles, all of which will have an influence on the risk of wheel slip. Frank

I agree with your first paragraph but not the second. If we assume the cylinders and piston throw are the same in both examples then the tractive force available at the rim of a large wheel is less than that available on a small wheel. Imagine the mechanism as a 3ft lever pivoted at one end ( the equivalent of the wheel hub). If a force of 1 ton is exerted 1 ft from the pivot (the equivalent of a typical crank pin position) this will translate as 1/3rd ton at the 3ft end (equivalent to a 6ft diameter wheel). In contrast at 2ft from the pivot (I.e. equivalent to a 4ft wheel) the available force will be 1/2 ton. This is why smaller wheeled locomotives have greater power at the draw bar but only as long as the wheels remain in grip with the track. I therefore would deduce that without good regulator management that a small wheeled loco is more likely to slip than a large wheeled loco of the same weight (the number of axles being irrelevant as previously explained). Hope that makes sense. Frank

This is another misnomer. Grip is not influenced by diameter as this is neither a function of weight or coefficient of friction. What is happening here is that the smaller diameter of the driven wheels will increase the mechanical advantage of the pistons just as happens with a lever. Hence there will be an increase in the tractive potential but at the cost of speed. Regards, Frank

Absolutely brilliant especially given the time constraints. Something that actually reflects what the hobby is all about at last. Congratulations and wishing you success in the final. Frank

Sounds totally reasonable to me Tony, horses for courses as the saying goes. Unless of course the punter stipulates that they want their model sprung/compensated in which case they must be prepared to pay any extra that the builder chooses to charge and also accept that their preferred builder may be unwilling to build such a model. Frank

Here we go again on the 'rigid versus compensated' roundabout. It is quite apparent that we are not going to reach a consensus and nor should we need to. Those of us who have built sufficient locomotives, be it 20 or 200, to have become proficient will inevitably have arrived at a personal approach that satisfies what ever it is we personally strive for. I will always build sprung or compensated chassis because I enjoy building them that way and have never had a problem getting them to work. I don't care if it takes longer, I do not see why that should be considered a negative. My locos do not rock and roll, indeed the sprung locos make a very satisfying click as they glide through point work. I have convinced myself that with compensation/springing 3 wheels picking up on each side are sufficient to achieve reliable running others say you need pickups on every wheel and good luck to them, I may increase the number of wheels collecting electricity if they are readily available but not if it means wires between the tender and locomotive or physical pickups in contact with the wheels,. I have a personal dislike of both wires and physical pickups, split frame (for tank engines) and American pickup (for tender engines) are the methods I will stick with and I am happy to promote such approaches to those who think they would enjoy trying them. Those who are not interested then feel free to ignore any such entries by me, I wont be offended but I do get a tad upset when I'm told I'm doing it wrong. I know there are many who regularly contribute to this blog who think my approach is the Devil's spawn and is a waste of time but if I, or anyone else for that matter, chooses to 'waste their time' in this way and at the same time gain enormous pleasure and satisfaction in doing so then why shouldn't we? I will continue to offer advice and encouragement to those who wish to experiment with such techniques on this and other RM Web blogs and at specialist shows. It can be both fun and rewarding, and for a few modellers they will need to develop such skills if and when they transition to modelling in S4. Railway modelling is a broad church so can we play nicely and can we stop trying to promote our own approach by being critical of techniques that others have used with obvious success but which we personally choose not to use? I agree that we need to be careful to provide good and appropriate advice to the inexperienced, but in my opinion we do not need to develop a one size fits all approach to railway modelling, and anyway how boring would that be? Now then I will pick up on one statement you made Tony, but absolutely not as a criticism but just to pass on some relevant information resulting from experiments reported a number of years ago in the EMGS Newsletter. You suggested that a locomotive you had built with a compensated chassis slipped more than an equivalent loco with a rigid chassis. Extensive experiments were carried out to determine whether compensated and sprung locomotives were more powerful than rigid locomotives. The experiments proved that compensation/springing have zero effect on the tractive potential of models. This is because the tractive potential is a direct result of both the weight of the locomotive and the coefficient of friction between the wheels and track. Since weight and coefficient of friction are both constants the tractive potential is also a constant. If you want to increase tractive potential then get as much weight as you can on the driven axles and minimise the weight carried by bogies and pony trucks. I seem to recall that it was said that steel track and wheels are better than nickel silver because steel results in a higher coefficient of friction, not that I use steel track nor actively avoid nickel silver tyres on my wheels. Regards to all, Frank

Thanks for your encouragement Dave, Looking at the photo again and comparing it to the photo's of the prototype I am now also thinking the Ivatt cab looks squat as the top of the roof should be obviously higher than the coal rail on the tender. Unfortunately I don't have any drawings of the J7 with an Ivatt cab and so I am going to have to project the height of the cab by importing a photo into CAD and I will then attempt to convert this into an isometric projection from which I can determine the correct measurement. Wish me luck.. Frank

There is a well known saying: 'measure twice and cut once', never was this more true than in the test build of the J7. I'll explain why shortly. The delay in reporting progress on the test build has been partly due to the complexity of building all the various options that I have provided for in the kit. The J7 prototype went through a number of material changes over the life time of the locomotive. The first batch of J7's (374 series) were built commencing 1883 and comprised 6' wide Stirling cabs and 4' 2 1/2" domeless boilers pitched at 7' 2". By the time the 2nd batch were built they were turned out commencing 1896 the 2nd batch (1021 series) comprised 6' 8" wide Stirling cabs and 4' 5" domed boilers pitched at 7' 3 3/4". As far as I can ascertain the external diameter of the cladding on both these boilers was the same so externally the locomotives were only differentiated by the pitch of their boilers as the early cabs of the 374 series were replaced with the wider Stirling cab. Over time those locomotives that survived acquired Ivatt cabs and some also received boilers of 4' 8" diameter similar to those carried by the J3 locomotives. All of these changes mean that there are effectively three different smokebox options, two different boiler/firebox options, and three cab options all of which have had to be test assembled. To add injury to insult accommodating the three popular 4mm gauges requires three front splasher options, 2 front spring hanger options, and six different cab interiors (floor and splasher widths). Hence it has taken a few days to build and test fit everything. On the whole most of the components have been drawn up correctly but there are two glaring errors, one of which that has been replicated across both of the boiler etches. The top of the Ivatt has an overhang that it shouldn't have and both boilers are (embarrassingly) 7mm too short. I really don't know how the boiler errors have happened as I already had the correct lengths calculated on my working drawings but somehow in translating the working drawing into components on the fret I have lost 7mm as you can see in the following picture: (N.B. I've borrowed the tender from my Q2 for the picture and have still to make a new tender for the J7) On a positive note the width of the boiler cladding is spot on for both of the boiler options covered and therefore I have had only to correct their lengths in CAD. Of course life is never simple in the world of kit design and such an increase in the size of two large components inevitably has a significant knock on impact in the number of smaller components that must be re-positioned to create the necessary space. It took about 2 hours to adjust the two boilers in CAD but about another 5 hours to reorganise the frets. The artwork will now be dispatched to the etching company and hopefully I will then be able to complete the test build of this model using the corrected components. Other news: I have nearly completed the under board wiring of the first base board. Worryingly this has taken about a month elapsed to do so I need to speed up a bit. This is however one of the most complex boards and many of the boards have significantly less wiring to worry about. I am currently thinking the whole layout could take me a year to wire unless I can delegate more of it to other members of the group so here's hoping. Regards, Frank

How did you go about sorting this? I have the same problem on a Hornby 28xx. Frank