justin1985

Take a look at Tony Simm's "Brafferton" for something quite similar to your original concept": I think there is\was quite a bit about it somewhere on RMWeb too. Certainly seemed a very successful design when I saw it running at exhibitions. If I'm not mistaken, it was sold, and now resides with another Copenhagen Fields regular who lives in Beckenham, so might even be possible to arrange a visit! Justin

That occurred to me after I'd chopped off the green and brown function wires! (doh!). Something to think about for the next hard-wired conversion, I think. I've not used a decoder with extra functions like this before, so am I right in thinking the tail lights would need to be separately on F1 and F2, so switched independently? I suspect it would also mean re-mapping all of the function codes in order to make it reasonable to access via the controller handset. I'm using a Roco Lokmaus2, so its a bit of a faff to access functions beyond 9. I was planning to just dial down the brightness of all of the lights using CV60, which would make brake lights shining mid-train less conspicuous. In general I'm really pleased with the ZIMO decoder - lovely smooth control and great sound. This and the CT ones I've used in shunters seem much better than the Digitrax wired ones I'd previously used in "DCC friendly" Farish diesels, and Bachmann own brand 6 pin decoders. Justin

Find someone who has replaced their couplings with Dapol or DG types, who will have ripped these pockets off I think I might even have one or two of this type in a bits box somewhere that I could pop in the post if you'd like? J

So this ended up as another of my projects that sat half finished in a drawer for a few months! The stumbling point was getting the body to sit down evenly and make contact reliably with the lighting contacts on the ends of the chassis. It turned out that the decoder (ZIMO MX648R, supplied by digitrains) was a bit too "lumpy" when placed on top of the motor, causing the body to pivot back and forth on it. The lump looks like it might actually be some of the square type capacitors? So the lumpy bit needed to hang off the end of the chassis lump into the cab space. However I'd already used the lowered notch in the chassis lump intended for a normal decoder for the YouChoos Minnow 5 speaker, so the decoder had to move to the opposite end and hang off into the cab space. The gotcha here was the fact that the pillars for the original PCB screws are in opposite corners of the chassis block, so stuck up under where I wanted to put the decoder. I bit the bullet and carefully cut off one of the pillars (and carefully filed it smooth and covered with Kapton tape). This meant that I had to create a new contact for the split chassis pick up for the decoder on that side of the chassis. I just drilled a hole using a 0.7mm bit and then used a cut down 14BA brass screw, simply screwed in to the soft metal to tap itself. I gave the decoder red and black wires a little square of Veroboard on the end and screwed them into the two sides of the chassis, one into the original pillar, the other using my new brass scew. both press the copper board\solder lump into paint free parts of the chassis by the screws. If I was starting again I'd put the decoder in the provided "dip", crossing over into the cab, and the speaker in the fuel tanks - which would mean milling off the extensions of the chassis that fill them. I didn't fancy dismantling absolutely everything to do this safely without getting metal filings into the mechanism or decoder once I'd already started though. I have left plenty of slack on most of the decoder cables, especially the speakers, making a bit of a cat's cradle, so I could still move things around a bit more if I ever did feel like it. This also meant I had to move the improvised Veroboard LED resistor board - on top of the motor now (with kapton tape between). After the last picture I worked out the contacts for the lighting: Contact A - red LEDs - I used yellow cable Contact B - common - blue Contact C - white\yellow LEDs - I used white cable The veroboard is now quite well hidden, between two layers of Kapton, and under a bundle of cable, so no picture. The basic layout is decoder yellow - 670R resistor - 670R resistor - one yellow, one white decoder white - 670R resistor - 670R resistor - one yellow, one white decoder blue - 2 x blue Obviously I'd use a 1.4k resistor if I had some handy! I was still left with the problem that the lighting PCB contacts weren't reliable - the whole body was now sitting too low! I'd cut 2mm off the contact PCBs that define the height, and this was clearly too much. I ended up fitting some offcuts from Evergreen strip, 0.75mm thick to the inside of the metal channels that the PCB slots into. So this gives a total drop of 1.25mm - this is the amount I'd cut off the PCBs next time around. It now seems to sit nicely and firmly at a respectable height and with reliable contacts to the LEDs. Compared with another unmodified 37, this time a renumbered Dutch 37/0 (the pictures show up how wonky the numbering is - might have to redo this!) you can see the drop quite nicely - looks just right, I'd say. Oh and the sound is pretty good too! (sorry no video yet) The final glitch is that in the fiddling with the lighting PCBs, I seem to have managed to blow the white (headlight) and red tail lights on one of the end PCBs. The yellow LEDs still work, and if I swap this PCB with the one from the other end, that works at either end, so the problem is clearly the lighting PCB itself, rather than the resistor board or the decoder etc. I asked Bachmann if I could get a replacement lighting board, but they don't have them - their best offer was a whole new body. So I've ordered some new 1206 surface mount LEDs, and I'll try replacing them myself. If no luck, then I might go back to the Bachmann offer ... J

Exactly - no need to use the commercial kits, I think I (and others) are simply using "Finetrax" as a generic term for track to "Finer N" standards. The actual standards are defined in NMRA and NEM (US and European respectively) standards which are summarised on this random Danish site I found on Google. The NMRA RP25 standards for N gauge wheels are the best known, and ones you'll hear manufacturers claim their wheels conform to. The most critical one is the flangeway gap (FMax on that diagram) which is 0.76mm in the NMRA standard and 1mm in the NEM standard. 2mmFS flangeway is 0.5mm, compared to a true scale of 0.29mm. When I was building my bodged "finer Z" points I began with nothing but some offcuts of scrap etch carefully cut to size to act as a gauge. Obviously roller gauges etc made it easier, but its certainly possible to bodge as well. Ready made roller gauges (and wheelset back to back gauges) are available from N Brass Locos here: http://www.nbrasslocos.co.uk/fitall.html#GAUGE and as far as I'm aware the only triangular gauges for N are from FastTracks in Canada: https://www.handlaidtrack.com/rail-nmra-gauge J

Not to labour the point too much, but the actual practical difference really is minimal - 0.42mm on the gauge and a bit more on the crossings\flangeways. In all practical terms, everything else is the same between the two standards, and you can use 2mmFS plain track interchangeably with Finetrax when using N gauge wheels. And obviously you can use N gauge stock out of the box, at least as far as wheels are concerned. Pointwork clearances and wheel profiles are literally the only aspects which would differ. As I don't think you've yet built any points, and haven't had any loco wheels turned down yet, its probably actually the ideal time to change if you were going to consider it! But obviously if you're sold on the fineness of the 2mm trackwork standards and purity of combining with 2mm wheel dimensions, that is of course a technically superior route J

I'm a little bit confused by the 170s being in the N Gauge Works Report section - surely a simple re-livery of the existing model wouldn't be listed here? Does this mean there is a chassis or lighting upgrade I've missed? Or am I just getting excited over a typo\error? J

Slight devil's advocate question, and I say this as a 2mm Association member (and intermittent modeller), but have you considered using Finetrax \ "Finer" N gauge rather than 2mm for these projects? I'm sure you're aware of TomE's Ropley in N layout, which uses a combination of 2mm Easitrac components but to N gauge clearances. The Finetrax product has subsequently simplified this approach with a range of cast crossings and pre-drilled turnout bases for pegged rail chairs, which are directly equivalent to the latest generation of 2mm Association Easitrac turnout kits (and of course for custom turnouts you can do as Tom did and use the plain Easitrac strip and non-pegged chairs). I've been dabbling in both N and 2mm for years, and have come to the conclusion that while full 2mm standards are really worthwhile for steam-era modelling, the costs (both time and financial) of using full 2mm standards for diesel era layouts probably outweigh the benefits. Wheels are much more visible on steam locos, and spoked steam type wheels are simply not available as standalone parts for N gauge, so 2mm is the only viable route for kit or scratch building steam. I think Tom's layout shows how good N / 9mm gauge can look when constructed using finescale components, and used with "new generation" models. Just a thought based on my own experience with similar projects - obviously ignore if you've already considered and come to conclusion of going for pure 2mm! Justin

I don't think this is anything like the full list of new liveries etc - just a press release covering the highlights of the new tooling. Why the N class was the only steam loco to get chassis mods for sound does seem like a bit of a puzzle, perhaps something to do with configuration of space in the existing moulds perhaps, but I'd be VERY surprised if Southern green with smoke deflectors was the only release. It looks like its just highlighted because that combination wasn't included in the initial batches. Likewise I'd be pretty sure that the new class 31 chassis will be released with the different variants of the green livery. I guess we have to wait for the full new product list with all of the re-liveries etc. At the risk of getting controversial, transition era modellers have done phenomenally well in the past few years, and as you've said yourself there are several models for that era already in the works. Aside from the 158, which is a long overdue upgrade, and obviously tied to the same project in OO, all of the modern era locos on the press release are just tweaks and adaptations of the existing models. Looking to the OO announcements, it certainly looks like a reasonable pipeline of transition era things for the shrink ray! Do we think the press release there is specifically about locomotives, or are there no new toolings for any kind of rolling stock in either scale? J EDIT - Just seen Andy Y's thread with full listings here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/129823-graham-farish-2018-the-full-announcements/ Might be worth merging threads to avoid confusion?

"I've paid therefore I have the right to your attention" is a very crude and transactional attitude to what is still a hobby and a voluntary activity for everyone involved. Exhibitors might get paid expenses, but you still always end up out of pocket, one way or another, after a weekend at an exhibition. If nothing else, these people are giving up their time freely to be there. Of course, when someone has a question or wants to see something up close, or to chat about the prototype or whatever, the operators should do their best to help, and I always do. But it is going too far to say that it is not legitimate for them to talk amongst themselves about expenses (which almost always have to be dealt with before a certain time on the day - no come back for anything sent in later), or just chat with fellow operators who might have come from the opposite end of the country to operate. On one recent show with the layout I help operate, one of the operators had flown in from the USA (at his own cost) specially to help operate - was he not allowed to have a chat with fellow operators he hadn't seen for the past year? If people want to trot out the "I'm a paying customer" attitude, you should remember not only that the operators don't make a penny from your entry fee, but that as a fundamentally voluntary activity that usually only just covers its costs, the overall fee for a model railway show is remarkably low compared to any other organised weekend activity. If you see yourself first and foremost as a customer, and want "professional" customer service, perhaps you should consider what a model railway show would cost, and be like, with operators being paid employees at your beck and call? Its certainly not the kind of experience I'd want, on either side of the layout. Don't get me wrong, there is no excuse for rudeness or disrespect on the part of operators, and of course they should engage so far as is feasible at the particular time, but please do remember that they are volunteers, and part of the reason they give their time up will be for the social side of the show too. J

Apologies, I hadn't actually noticed these were out. They look nice enough, but I wouldn't say they're a sufficient basis for me to be confident that N coaches from this factory would be up to Bachmann's standards though.

The TPM kits are no longer widely available, but it might be worth asking Bernard via DM (he's a regular on RMWeb) whether he has any of the etches left that he could sell you. The end result is much more impressive, but very delicate and vulnerable (one of mine took a dive off the workbench - managed to straighten the damaged end out reasonably well, but definitely still noticeable that its damaged, unfortunately). Justin

I hope not! They are really a "main range" type item that should be easily available regularly "off the shelf" for new entrants to the hobby in the future etc. They're suitable for every era from pre-War to the present, and would surely be a good stable long term seller. There would be some logic in Bachmann producing them, even if they are less likely to be able to sell them in OO as well. The Pullmans were in the old Poole range, but OO would result in duplication with Hornby's high spec model - the same situation as with the Class 31. We have yet to see anything from DJM in N gauge actually appear, and Dapol's paint finish and glazing on coaches haven't tended to meet the standards that Bachmann achieve (what is with that odd matte finish that Dapol tend to deliver?). Frankly I'd be disappointed if either DJM or Dapol "bagged" these Pullmans. J

Pre MK1 Pullmans seem the most conspicuous missing item in UK N gauge. The grouping era Pullman has got to be one of the single most recognisable items of British rolling stock. On the surface the Bachmann MK1 Pullman seems an odd choice, but obviously it's because Hornby have bagged the earlier type in OO. On past performance, this would mark them out as a Dapol model. But then they've lost interest in N gauge. The logical solution would be for Hornby/Arnold to use their Brighton Belle as the basis of a model, but I get the sense they had their fingers burned by the difficulty in shifting the BR Blue versions (lots of reduced stock around for ages, even though the umber and cream ones went relatively quickly) J

During the boredom of Christmas afternoon, and after a few months of work being so hectic I haven't had the chance to even think about trains, I decided to check in and see how this project was getting along. I was quite pleased\confused to see the 321 project page on the RevolutioN site said "The Class 320 and Class 321 EMU project has reached the minimum level of interest and will go ahead. Look out for updates on our news pages. We have opened orders for the 320/321 with a deposit option." However, I then noticed this was followed by "At the end of January 2017 we will be rationalising some of the liveries on offer to reduce the options to the liveries most likely to be produced.". So clearly this particular product page on your website hasn't been updated in over a year. If I hadn't known this wasn't the case from reading RMWeb and magazine articles recently, and the trawled back down through the blog, I wouldn't have realised the project is still in jeopardy and in need of more orders! I wonder how many others might have been considering placing an order to support the project after reading the publicity, but decided "nah, its OK, the page says it has enough to go forward"? I don't think you're doing the project any favours with this kind of error - which makes me very sad indeed. I'm placing an order for a fourth unit now though! J

I've been building up quite a stock of new generation Farish Class 37s, which are beautiful models. The main problem with them is the excessive body-bogie gap. I've also acquired a set of the exquisite Shawplan Extreme Etchings detailing parts for this model - finer windscreens and exceptionally fine roof grilles and fans. And I've also been getting more curious about trying DCC sound ... so this project is meant to be about doing all of these things to a Farish 37 - currently 37 239 "The Coal Merchant's Association of Scotland" (although I might consider changing it to a Construction sector loco, if I can summon the courage to try and remove the sector branding with T-Cut etc ...) Several people have documented methods of lowering the Farish 37 - some raising the bogies, some lowering the body. It seems like when it first came out people went for a very "belt and braces" approach, but as time has gone on, people have gone for lower impact changes. I've largely followed Jonas' blog for this. As I'm adding DCC sound at the same time, I've adapting the method a bit, and also took inspiration from the YouChoos DCC sound tutorial. The first step is to unsolder the lighting board connection wires. I found that once the iron was applied the wire popped out easily. I then used a solder sucker to tidy the PCB up and leave the hole open to re-use. The next job was to cut down the notch in the lighting connection PCB that seems to be the critical part in defining the height of the body. Like Jonas, I used a white paint pen to mark along the side, but then used the point of a pre-set digital calliper to scribe a line exactly 1.5mm up from the existing bottom of the notch. Then I used a fine blade in a fretting saw to cut the notch out, and tided up with a file. My logic was to start with 1.5mm and then file further to get to the "about 2mm" that others have recommended. I might actually have taken it a bit too far, and in future I'd keep it to 1.5mm. The cab interior units did definitely also hold the body up higher than I would have liked, so especially as I would need the space for DCC sound, I snapped these out. I remember seeing someone saying they had filed the bottom surfaces of these units down by 0.5mm or so to retain them, which I might consider doing in future if I move the speaker down into the underframe tanks - but for now I've left them out. The other job was snapping off the lugs on the underframe tanks (one had fallen off already) and reattaching it temporarily with bluetack. Then the ride height was looking pretty good! The bogies do just about swing freely, but are at risk of catching if the track isn't perfectly level etc - hence thinking I would not cut the boards down quite so far in future. I hadn't noticed until I posed this photo that Farish had changed the bogie moulding to use a much more discrete coupling pocket. I'll probably fit B&Bs anyway. Also, I only just noticed that the pair of 37s here are exactly the same pair Jonas has in his pictures, just the opposite one converted! Rather than chop up the existing main PCB to retain the pickups and lighting functions, as per the YouChoos DCC sound tutorial, I worked out which lighting connection was which, measured the existing resistors, and made up a new board from offcuts of veroboard. I'm yet to test this properly, so not certain the resistance is correct, but I used two 670R SMD resistors I had in stock for a signal project in series to give c.1.4k resistance. The central contact from the Farish lighting connection board is the common, so I connected a blue wire to this, and both ends connect in to one end of the resistors. I wired the other connections with yellow and white decoder wire and paired one of each on isolated sections of the veroboard. So the decoder function wires will connect blue to the other end of the resistors, and yellow and white to the two paired connections - not sure which way around - trial and error I suspect. The only other thing I've done so far is to slightly drill out a hole on two 2 x 1 offcuts of veroboard to sit on the screw in pickup connections, replacing the ones on the original PCB. Face down, with the wire feeding down through the hole to the bottom, should do the trick. On the roof grille end of the chassis (the notices only allow it to fit one way around) there is a bit of a recess under the original decoder socket, so I decided to saw off the "wings" alongside this to make a wider gap, which nicely fits a YouChoos "SugarCurve" speaker. This is the area at the right hand end covered with Kapton tape in the picture above. This crosses over into the cab space, but I don't think its that visible. The other complication is that if I wanted to fit the Shawplan roof grille, it will also sit over the speaker, and almost certainly prevent the fan blades fitting properly underneath. So, once I've established it all works, I'll think about going back a few steps and removing the smaller of the two underframe tank chassis lumps (the larger one has the main isolated split chassis joining screw) and fitting a YouChoos "Minnow 5" as per this other YouChoos tutorial I've just found. This would let me fit the roof grille, fans, and think about reinstating the cab interiors (if I can cut them down) So, next step is actually hard-wiring in the decoder - I'm waiting until I've got a good chunk of time to sit down and do this. Slightly more apprehensive about soldering in a £100 sound decoder than the usual £30 ones ... Justin

Hi John, I actually discovered these and ordered two from you the other day! They arrived safely today - thanks! Justin

Still planning my first DCC sound conversion (Farish 37). Now I've figured out the wiring for the lighting, I've moved on to trying to figure out where to put the speaker. At least to begin with, I'd prefer to avoid hacking the chassis too much, so I was planning to fit it in the space occupied by one of the cab interior units. The Zimo sugar cube speaker I've got is roughly the same size as the space I've got, but it would need curving to fit the roof profile. How should I go about trying to shape the enclosure? I seem to remember advice that attempting to melt it with a soldering iron is better than trying to hack it with a file? I know that building a new enclosure from plasticard into the roof space is an option, but again I'd rather start off with a reversible solution. Thanks Justin

I've got several 321s on order, and if it would make the difference, might even be willing to stump up or another few! I would suggest that the lack of clarity over liveries has probably worked against this - there has probably been too much choice overall, and the trimming back of different options hasn't been that clear or assertive. With so many "maybes" I've held back from ordering the extra 1 or 2 I could probably be persuaded to order for this reason. Would an extra order for a Silverlink livery unit with NSE as second choice be worth it? Or should I just order and extra NSE? Would making the "wrong" choice on this make a difference to the likelihood of the whole project going forward? I'm left wondering, and so haven't added any more yet. My instinct would be - and this would work on me - that a very straightforward "these four liveries are going forward - order now or the project will be cancelled" would have a much better result than the continued vagueness. So, time to either move one or two of the "Other liveries" to the main confirmed page and kill the rest, or just kill all of the "other liveries"? I can see the logic in keeping options open, but I can't help the feeling that the resulting message is just too vague to stimulate people to commit. Justin

I ordered a length of each colour, plus extra of blue, white, and yellow for longer lighting runs, from DCC supplies. At 36p/metre it seemed cheaper even than most eBay options. Ordered Sunday, arrived Tuesday - great service!

Really looking forward to Edwardian figures - in 2mm!

Shame that the project has taken a knock back, but I've reached the same conclusion Pete - I really appreciate (need) the bodge-ability of being able to adjust soldered pointwork. I think you really need to get everything spot on first time with the Easitrac points - something I just don't seen to have the knack for Justin

I certainly agree with Ash regarding full side vinyl overlays, which have been the commercial option to date. But the rationale behind those was to be able to cover existing colouring. If it's a plain white body, suddenly we have the option of full side decals (printed on clear decal paper). Cut carefully into sections around raised detail like doors and windows, and use plenty of decal solution, and you're away - especially if done by a pro. It would certainly work for liveries like First Great Eastern. No disrespect to Adam and ERG, but decals have always been a better quality product. The original TPM kit to make a 442 Wessex Electric from Mk3s had custom Fox decals - the result was much better than vinyl versions. Justin

I'm planning to remove the factory circuit board from a Farish 37 to make room for a sound decoder, so I'll have to re-wire the lighting boards as well. I'd like to use the standard DCC colours for forward, reverse, and common when I do this Can anyone recommend a source for thin flexible wire of the type used on decoders etc? Or just the specification it will be described as so I can find on eBay or RS etc? Justin

From the perspective of an N gauge modeller, I'd say that the images of the window frames on the Oxford coach on this thread seem to suggest it is just as prominent as the one on the Dapol N gauge Mk3. To my eye, that is over-pronounced, but it didn't seem to attract much comment when they were first launched, or indeed it doesn't seem to be discussed as much of a problem to this day. As someone who travels on Mk3a's three or four times a week, I'd definitely say there is too much relief on pretty much every model I've seen in any scale, but it definitely needs SOME relief. However, with my own Dapol Mk3s, I found that spraying the glazing, from the inside, with Tamiya "smoke" translucent paint not only added the tinting that Dapol failed to include, but made the window frames seem much less prominent overall. Running a black paint pen around the outside of the raised windows on the clear moulding improved the appearance even more. I went from thinking that the entirely printed side (i.e. entirely flush) old Farish models were better, to now being a little undecided. Looking at the close up of the Intercity coach, its the glazing that strikes me as pretty shabby - you can see the sides of the moulding almost looking like a second, translucent, frame. Perhaps laser cut glazing would make more of a difference than sanding back the frames? Its the old question of boiler bands and relief isn't it? To true scale, boiler bands could often simply be represented by the thickness of a decal (at least in N), BUT the eye wants to see some relief. I wonder if the outsourced Chinese CAD\CAM procedures used by manufacturers impose minimum thicknesses for design elements like this? Justin