SteveBedding

Shssshhhh - not so loud.... That's a dream/plan I have in the background; I've got the plans and sourced the stepper-motors & driver, but the software is is still a grey area at the moment... There are some reasonable conversions for a Proxxon MF-70 on-line and I hope to progress this little project later in the year - just don't tell SWMBO As to the drawing package, I use both AutoCAD and AutoSketch (oldish versions) since that is what I was familiar with; I tried TurboCAD but couldn't get to grips with it (probably a lack of perseverance). One day I'll try to get the hang of the 3D elements, then I'll have a go at 3D printing - that may solve the delays in the Dean Goods that may eventually be available from N Brass...

Thanks to everyone for the continued interest and encouragement, it's good to think that this is of use and provokes comment... I've not yet measured up the pannier casting in detail, but I'm working on the basis that it is slightly 'oversize' and if I can put together a design to the true dimensions, it should be (hopefully ?) straightforward to stretch the fit where necessary. One of the advantages of the CAD package is the ability to insert more than one base image into the drawing and this allows me to switch between the scale drawing of the 57xx and a scan of the spare frame; both image files have been adjusted to match the scales exactly, and the origin (0,0) defined as the centre of the leading wheel. The first task was to copy/trace the spare frames and to ensure that the axle centres, and intermediate gear positioning, were correctly registered; this was successful, and confirmed that the spacing was set for the 28T:20T second stage reduction. It was apparent that the bottom edge of the frame, whilst nicely representing the profile, was considerably low compared to the scale drawing (almost 1mm). Initially I thought of correcting this, but very quickly realised that this was a very pragmatic approach to retain the strength of the frame - I did settle for adjusting the bottom edge upwards slightly, at the same time a lowering the top edge, to give an overall frame depth of 5.5mm which is a nice manageable figure to work with. It was an iterative process working between the two images, and cross referring to some sketches and dimensions I'd taken of the completed chassis, but eventually a theoretically workable outline was achieved. The 'solution' showed that the location of the intermediate gear had rotated clockwise around the trailing wheel, and that the motor had to be relocated further towards the rear and slightly higher in the body cavity. This does raise a slight alarm-bell as it appears that the motor is now too high and will interfere with the fitting of the body casting - this where I'm optimistically looking for the 'errors' in the Farish pannier, but this is worse case, and there is still scope for adjusting the location of the intermediate gear and motor should it be needed. On the positive side, this has shown that the principles of the design work (well they should do since I'm copying someone else's!) and that I think I'm starting to understand what I'm doing... The picture below shows the outline plans for the way in which the frames, frame spacers, and footplate/buffer-beams, will be put together... ...and although this looks very neat in theory, I suspect that what actually end up being soldering together (what with all the adjustments and fettling that no doubt will be needed) will look slightly different ! I had suspected earlier that a plasticard mock-up would be needed, and this is now a certainty. Even with measuring the Farish body casting, the design will still be theoretical until I know that the realities of the sizing and spacing. Again another positive outcome of this will be that once the correct solution has been discovered, it will be a very simple matter to adapt this design for the 57xx to one that will allow for a representation of the 54xx using a modified Farish 8750 body

Thanks Andy, CAD is definitely an advantage at this stage; I say 'definitely' as although I have used CAD packages in the past, it was a long time ago and my skills/memory has atrophied over the years - so it's another 'skill' to re-learn along with everything else! I note your point on the FH motor outline, I'm actually working on the CAD drawing at the moment and wanted to recheck the NL motor outline and mountings. Keeping the FH outline was OK for the first pass, but I recognised that there were differences in detail that needed to be addressed. As you said, the worm can also be shortened from 9.5mm down to about 6.5mm, but I'll check that as the design progresses. One thing I am noticing is that there are discrepancies between the theoretical design derived from the scale drawing, and the outline/detail of Missy's frames; now I know her frames are good and work with the Farish body, so I now have a dilemma regarding the 'accuracy' of the casting. I'll continue with the theoretical design, and make a simple plasticard prototype, before the detailed chassis... ...oh well, another little task to do... I'll just get this finished and will post an update later.

Pete, don't be afraid to come out of the closet... There is nothing shameful or furtive about having the pannier, indeed it could be considered remedial therapy for an otherwise unhealthy fascination with blue diesels... I'm sure that the doctor would prescribe a full conversion to steam, ideally pre-1947/8, but a dose of nationalised steam may suffice in the long term! in the mean time, keep taking the tablets...

David Thanks for the observation; you are quite correct in that there is some more fine tuning needed of the positioning of the motor and intermediate gear - this was only a first pass to see the 'art of the possible'. Having got to this point, I wanted to draw up Missy's frames and match them up against my initial positioning to see where the discrepancies were (this is a work in progress but I hope to get it complete on Sunday...) Looking at the earlier picture of the completed chassis, it appears that the 'front' of the motor starts almost at the end of the leading splasher which would imply that the motor needs to move about 3-4mm towards the rear, also, as you suggested, the motor could be raised about 1mm higher, but I need to measure the available height in the Farish casting (and see if there is any scope for 'thinning' the top) before this can be confirmed. As to the 'daylight under the boiler', this was rather a misleading aspiration, as this picture of an 8750 shows... ... the only 'daylight' is just visible between the leading and driving wheels, but the insides of the frames are more easily visible and I think this is a more achievable aspiration

The track laying is progressing, albeit at a snails pace, and now I’ve reached a position where I have got to get the mill out and make some more sleeper strips for the board joints. The thought of the ‘production line’ to make the next batch of points is daunting; two was challenging enough but 9 in quick succession…! A diversion is required! I have always been very impressed with Missy’s 57xx; not only does it look superb with the way in which the basic Farish body has been detailed, but it runs particularly well. As I’ve always said, I’m not above plagiarising/steeling any good ideas, and was very grateful when she lent me the loco, and a spare set of frames to reverse engineer. There are some very good articles and resources available through the Association which explain the construction of split-frame chassis and the way in which gear ratios and drive trains can be calculated; but designing from first principles is made a lot easier if a tangible ‘end-state’ can be seen. It's the little details such as replacing the moulded handrails on the Farish casting with proper wire ones, the use of proper 'toolboxes', and the detailed pipework forward of the cab, that make this a model worthy of copying; additionally, the design replaces the clunky footplate cast with the body to a much finer one that is a part of the chassis. The photo below shows how neatly the motor, gear train, and decoder all fit together into a very compact space. The frames themselves are simply cut from 0.6mm double-sided PCB, but are nicely detailed to reflect/simulate the profile of the actual prototype and its 'springing' of the wheels. The first consideration is what top-speed/how fast does the loco want to go? This sets the parameters for the choice of motor and the gear reduction ratio; additionally, I want to see ‘daylight’ under the boiler, so this impacts the size and shape of the chosen motor. In real terms, the choice of motor is actually quite straightforward as this has been done may times in the past; the motor of usual choice is the Faulhaber 0816 coreless 6v motor. This small motor physically fits easily within the confines of the Farish body and is sufficiently powerful for a small shunting engine. Whilst this is an excellent piece of engineering, its downside is the price; at around £50 (Including shipping etc) it is somewhat pricey for a first experiment, so an alternative needs to be found. The Nigel Lawton range of small coreless motors immediately spring to mind and the 10 Volt 8mm x 16mm Midi Motor (DCC compatible) appeared to fit the bill exactly. It has the same physical dimensions and the no-load speed is 97% (16,000rpm vs 16,500rpm) of that of the Faulhaber. Further it has a higher input voltage (10v against 6v) so should be resilient to ‘ham-fisted’ over-driving… With the motor chosen and its no-load speed known, the gear reduction needs to be calculated to achieve the desired top speed of the loco. The locos will be required to pull a small branch line passenger service, a mixed goods service of up to a dozen wagons, and to act as a station pilot – therefore not a lot of ‘high speed’ use, but precise control for shunting is required. This caused some concern as I was unable to find a definitive top speed for the 57xx/8750, so some pragmatic subjective assessment was required (OK, I guessed! ) and a reasonable figure in the range of 45mph-50mph was decided on. There is a set of formulae that can be applied to calculate the necessary gear reduction which use the motor speed, scale, wheel diameter and rpm. These are not particularly complex, but since someone has already done the hard work, why reinvent the wheel (so to speak…); there is a very simple to use Scale Speed Calculator developed by the Wealden Area Group of the Association that does all the hard work for you NOTE: One key point here is that whilst the speed of the motors is usually given as a ‘No-load’ speed, these calculations should use an ‘under-load’ speed to compensate for losses/friction in the drive-chain; this is normally taken as: Under-load Speed = 75% of No-load Speed. Using the Speed Calculator utility, with a motor speed of 12,000 rpm (75% of 16,000), a wheel diameter of 9mm (drive wheels of a 57xx are 4’7.5â€), and target speed of 45mph to 50mph… …the necessary gear reduction will fall in the range of 39:1 and 43:1. This is now where some thinking is required. Missy’s design calls for a 2-stage reduction, which I think is quite a common approach and an example is given in the “Suggested dimensions for loco chassis construction†on the Association web site. In fact the example shows a 30:1 worm drive from the motor, followed by a 28:20 reduction to the wheels; 30:1 x 28:20 gives 30 x 1.4, which equals a 42:1 reduction – Oh what a surprise, that’s almost exactly what is wanted… Just as a thought, there is a 21T gear in the Association 100DP range, and if this is substituted for the 20T, this gives a reduction of 30:1 x 28:21 = 30 x 1.3333 = 40:1 reduction which is again within the target range. The decision is to use the 42:1 reduction (30:1 worm and 28:20) for the 57xx/8750 chassis as this is closest to the 45mph top speed. Something that wasn’t obvious from this approach (and fortunately not an issue this time) is to make sure that the choice of the final gear actually fits the drive wheel. In this case the outside diameter of the 28T 100dp gear is 7.62mm which is less than that of the drive wheel (9mm) – if a smaller wheel was used, or a larger gear needed, this could be a problem and should be considered. This is one of those things that in hindsight is glaringly obvious but easily overlooked – thanks to the Association VAG for pointing this pitfall out. With the motor and gear train decided, it becomes a simple (?) task to apply the correctly sized components onto a scale drawing of the 57xx/8750… … the critical dimensions here are the meshing distances between the 28T and 20T gears (6.1mm) and the 30:1 worm (5.46mm). The position of the wheels is obviously fixed, but the actual location of the motor, and intermediate gear is adjustable (within the confines of the body) so long as the critical meshing dimensions are maintained. Well, that’s the concept and a run through from first principles. At this point I’ll go back to precisely measuring Missy’s frames and see if I’m on the right track!

"...Wishing life wouldn't be so dull..." - this certainly isn't dull (OK well the colour might be ) but the detail and the lessons in construction are most fascinating. It could be said to present a most captivating Visage... Keep the updates flowing, and I fully agree with your choices of inspirational music

Mikkel, looks great and continues to be inspirational! What colour is the 'red' that you've used? I was aware that GW wagons were this colour before they standardised on the grey', but they also reverted to a 'reddish-brown' in 1942 as an austerity measure. This looks just right for my purposed as well. Keep it coming

I fully agree with Andy on this, I've used the Versaline chair plates (or 10thou brass strip for the 'longer' chairs) and although I wasn't always 'quick' with the iron, I always kept the roller gauges on either side of the bit being soldered. Additional benefit here was that it made very sure that the rails being soldered were kept in gauge.

What a picture that conjures! I can just imagine some finescale purists having kittens over that idea, but I can see just how it would work.. However, the thought of close association of my fingers and thumbs to a 'hefty hammer' may just change the vernacular use of the "F" in 2FS On the up side, the swear box may suddenly cover one of the promised Dapol Halls (SWMBO note hint... ...you wanted birthday suggestions )

Thanks Kris - such a blindingly obvious & simple solution! There's me looking for ways to mill out strips 9.42mm when I've got a large piece of 0.4mm PCB - I'll just cut off a strip and use it as a shim! Cheers

Morning all and thanks for the feedback; I'm glad people still find this of interest. To answer each point in turn... Ian, I used a proprietary DIY surface filler. Two reasons - 1) thought process was 'hole needs filling - therefore use filler' (mental link probably DIY related rather than modelling ), and 2) it was immediately to hand. In all honesty when I was doing it, my gut feel was that it probably was not the best approach but it I didn't think it through fully... Thanks for the tip on the 'Milliput' though, I'll look some out and have a crack at using this. Another 'absence of thought' moment was in not using a straight edge to align the sleepers. On board 3, the points were on a curve and I laid the sleepers 'by eye' onto the template on the board, and I carried this process over to the straight points here - a case of not seeing the wood for the trees, it wasn't until I stepped back and took the photos did I see that the were several misaligned sleepers. Good news is that I had a quick look and there are only about a dozen sleepers that need fettling to 'straighten' the edge. On the up side, there are only 3 points on board 1, and thankfully 2 of them are curved - I've come to the conclusion that I really don't like straights! Lastly, I'm going to use the 'half-ladder'/jig approach for one of the sidings. The siding on the north side of the loading dock (nearest the platform) retained the original flat-bottom rail inset in brick and concrete. I can't use Easitrac for this one so will revert to the traditional approach. Chris. Thanks, fire away with your question. I've come to the conclusion that when this gets out & about, I'll set viewing barriers about 8'-10' away from the layout - that should hide the details . Of more concern is the difference between what I see with the Mk1 eyeball, and what the camera tells me is really there Don, thanks for the ideas on the wood strip. Like my earlier response to Ian, I completely overlooked that approach I don't have an Easitrac track jig, and my understanding is that even that wont help in laying straight section; I know that Easitrac can be laid in 50cm lengths, but I've tried to keep section lengths to a maximum of 250mm to ensure that there were sufficient expansion joints. My thoughts are that Easitrac may be more susceptible to heat expansion/movement than 'rail on PCB' because of the nature of the rail floating in the chairs - the PCB approach may provide more 'resistance' to such movement (this is my thinking and may not be representative of others experience/knowledge). Looking back at what I'd done, I think the problem was where I finished one section of track (the breaks in the rail being placed in the middle of a sprue of 6 sleepers) I had glued down all of that last sprue before I'd got the next track section ready. I'm using the Easitrac PVA and this does dry very quickly! I'd assumed that laying a straight length of track would be simple . The learning point from this is to prepare all the sections for a length, or a run of track, before commencing the glueing! Damn! Now you see the hardships that I have to put up with... Be back soon

Well David, this ticks every box for me, and I shall follow this with great interest. It has certainly got a lot of operating potential and the stock alone will keep you busy for some time.

After some fascinating and enjoyable diversions, in painting up the static steam engine, another day helping exhibit WE, and keeping up with RMW ongoing serious background research , it really was about time to get back to working on the layout. I consider board 3 to be a success in that basically it worked - power to all rails, points throw correctly when operated, and the 'test' engine negotiated the track in all directions. Now time to crack on with board 2... This was always going to be a daunting task in constructing the 9 points, six of which are nose-to-tail running parallel to the platform and feed the sidings and the milk bay... ...there are another 4 points further down the board but I somehow omitted to capture them Actually, the laying of the straight track was the hardest part (this is v4!); whilst getting each section (about 240mm long) straight, I found it very difficult to get a perfect alignment between sections - I need to find a 'TrackSetta' for 9.42mm gauge! When viewed from vertically down and from the side, it appeared OK, but with eye level just above the rails, the view along the track showed distinct kinks at the joints. I'm not a 100% happy with it, because I know that there are still imperfections at the joints, but rather than make it worse by further 'fettling' (it was a case of one step forwards-two steps back during several of the re-work attempts), I'll leave it for now. If necessary, I'll revisit this once I've tested the running characteristics. In addition to the straight track into the platform, I've laid down all of the sleepers for 7 of the 9 points; it was very worthwhile having worked out the sleeper arrangement beforehand so effectively this was a simple (if repetitive) production line - it may have been simple, but it still took 4 evenings to prepare and fix the 175 odd sleepers . Looking back at the picture, it is apparent that there is still some further tidying-up of the ends of the sleepers to smarten-up the alignment along the left hand side - these photos really are useful in highlighting those little flaws that have previously gone unnoticed! The experience gained with board 3 did show that there were considerable areas that could be improved, specifically in the endurance of the points. After a lot of deliberation (and construction failures...) I'd had an idea how I wanted to increase the use of PCB sleepers in the Easitrac points (see here); whilst this makes the point something of a hybrid, I think it will be possible to 'tweak' when being built and will in the long-term be stronger. The image below gives the typical lay-down of the sleepers, showing the placement of the PCB strips in relation to the plastic ones... ...there is one variation to the original concept in that I have added another PCB sleeper (3rd from left) to further support/shape the blades. With the sleepers in place, it was a convenient time to pre-drill the holes for the droppers, and the slot for the moving-sleeper throw wire. There is still some further thinking to be done here; following a discussion on the Association VAG, I picked up on the suggestion/guideline to aim for 2 power feeds per rail - so obvious a concept really, that I'd overlooked that 'system reliability is improved by redundancy'! The next stage is to lay the long straight rail (sectioned - either the rail or me ) to give datum for each of the common crossings; oh joy more jig work! But before I can get on with this I need to fill and smooth insulating cuts in the PCB sleepers. They've has a first pass of fine surface filler, but will need another run over to get a properly level surface; I'd like to find a better (finer) type of filler for this but I'm scratching my head as to what to get. Is there some form of fine filler (brush) paint that could be used? Again something that becomes apparent under close scrutiny is that a number of the plastic sleeper strips will need to have their edges dressed - the cut edge is not as clean as I would like. I've still got a further six milled sleeper bases to make for the join between boards 1 & 2 (there are 9 in total needed - I really will have to be damned careful with the alignment here!) and as the majority of the cuts will be on an angle, I'll increase the overall strip length from 8 sleepers to either 10 or 12. Well, that's the progress for now - nothing spectacular, but steady progress nevertheless.

Seriously, that 1F is quite fabulous... ...my hat's off to you sir!

...and what's wrong with a kebab? They always look great on Saturday nights...

Marvellous - but what more have we come to expect! I'm sure the joints will disappear easy enough with a suitable grimy appearance, and your vanity wiring remains safe (can't zoom in close enough for public shame... ) I still think some small cameos or detailing will enhance the interior (but not knowing the industry, I couldn't suggest what); are you going to light the interior? Looking forward to the next instalment...

Thanks Andrew, I don't think I've got that book, but I've got a similar picture in Tanner's The Calne Branch (pp56). This shows a 14xx 'pushing' its auto-coach out of Calne on the 11:05 am Sunday service (possibly mid 1950's), but it is pulling (in order): a 50' Siphon (either an H or outside framed G), a Siphon C, a 12T box van (Mink or equivalent?), two more Siphon C's, and lastly a 4-wheeled utility van (ex-SR CCT?). Based on earlier timetables, the Siphon C's were probably working the routes to Southampton, Cardiff, and Manchester, and (educated guess here...) the Siphon H/G (replacing the older Siphon F) on to Newcastle via Reading & Paddington.

I'm enjoying watching your layout develop and good luck to you with the planned exhibiting - I've 'assisted' at a couple so far and have found them to be great fun (I was told the secret was something to do with Red Bull & Jelly Babies - but I think somewhere along the route we may have got confused with what to do with them... ) There is a Siphon C etched kit by Scale Link; I have one and although I've not built it yet, it is very detailed. A caution though, my etch was sightly distorted so this is something to watch out for. It may have been a one-off (my fault for getting side-tracked and not flagging it up to Shirescenes) and it wont stop me form making and using it. One other thought; unless you intend to 'reverse' the running directions of your stock (particularly the loco's) I've found that with the DG couplings, it is better to only put the loop on one end. This makes the auto-uncoupling work a lot more reliably. I've also seen a comment suggesting the inclusion of the steam pipe work above the coupling can prevent the loop lifting to a fully vertical position and getting stuck against the body of the wagon/coach/etc - not tried this but it would appear to make sense. Anyway, crack on with your 'to-do' list and please keep us updated with lots of pictures Steve

Too right there Don! I'd like to do the whole fleet, but at some point even I have to set some bounds to the aspirations... I've already got two Siphon Fs (Ultima etches which I'll use Association bogies on) and I'm aiming for about 6 Siphon Cs for the Harris branded traffic. This should allow one for each of the major 'routes', such as, Southampton & Portsmouth, Reading & Paddington, Manchester, Carlisle & Glasgow, Newport & Cardiff, and one simply "Return to Calne" (there was also Sheffield, Bristol Temple Meads, and I thought Newcastle, but I can't find the reference for that one at the minute). A while back (see here) I cross referred the main references on The Calne Branch (Maggs' and Tanner's essential works) with Slinn's GW Siphons to try and build up a prototypical operation for the Harris traffic. I'm still not 100% happy with it as there are question marks against the Siphon F movements (the Newcastle run!) which may have been confused with the 40' Luggage vans - either way, there's enough to form a target, and if not completely accurate, it will still give operational interest. Fully agree with your comments there David. The Ultima kit does look nicely prepared, albeit a little daunting in that there is a lot of fine soldering to do (same goes for the Scale Link one); I've had mine for several months now and still haven't built up the courage to start them yet. I suppose when I've got some track to run them on, and a loco to pull them, I'll be shamed into starting the growing assortment of rolling stock....

Actually I think it was the Siphon Cs that were a staple of Harris traffic. Slinn's book on Siphons has a couple of pages on them as well as 2 photos of Siphon Cs branded for Calne sausage traffic. Scale Link produce a 2mm kit of the Siphon C. I have not tried it myself but I am planning to have a go. http://www.scalelink...aSNFV05#aSNFV05 Thanks for the comment Karhedron, reading back, I should have been clearer about the 'box wagon' (...and Siphon D should have read Siphon C - Typo ). My observation was in respect to one of the limited edition PO wagons that Burnham and District Model Railway Club had on offer (image below). You're right that from the 1930s onwards, Harris' relied heavily on the Siphon wagons, with at least 13 Siphon C (Diags O8 & O9), two Siphon F (Diag O7), and one Siphon G (TBC). I believe that there were also two 40' Passenger Brake/Luggage Vans (Diag K15) that were used in the early '30s. I have one of the Scale Link Siphon etches but I have to say I wasn't overly ecstatic when I first received it. It looks reasonable well thought through, although not an 'easy' assembly as it uses extremely thin brass. However, my biggest gripe was with a distortion in the etch (possibly when the photo mask was made) but due to domestic upheavals I didn't get round to flagging this up with Shirescenes. I still will build the kit, as a practice to see how viable it is (and see if I can mask the distortion); if it goes together OK I'll get a couple more for the layout. I'd be interested in your views on the kit when you have a crack at it.

Andy, your chassis is looking good so far and I rather like your plan to use the NL motor. I've a couple of these that I'm looking to try in a re-wheeled 57xx and it will be good to get a wider feel for their consistency, reliability, and effectiveness. Can I second Michael's request for the CAD file, like many 2mm modellers, I appear to have picked up a WW Class 02 and would like to have a go at simple chassis which would allow me to justify more practice on my mill

Rich, Good to see the mojo's back, and your proposed loading of the Macaw's sounds like a challenge to get the juices flowing again . I didn't make Watford this year but it was great to meet up at Newbury; though I'd have thought the comedy shunting of myself and Mark would have been enough to put anyone off.... Please don't leave it so long between updates Steve

Brilliantly simple - yet very effective.

For me it's quite simple; after several years of planning & deliberation (well that sounds better than procrastination), my inspiration came from Missy's Highclere, Mitziblue's Witney Euston, Queensquare's Highbury Colliery, and Mick Simpson's Wansbeck Road. All these are 2mm layouts and they convinced me that moving away from an RTR N gauge solution was not only possible, but actually in the long-term probably a lot more straightforward than feared. Since then, with many hours usefully spent browsing RMweb (again NOT procrastinating...) I have seen many outstanding layouts in various stages of construction and the development of numerous rolling stock that keeps the mojo refreshed! Long may it continue Edit: Apologies that I didn't read the instructions of naming 3 only... ; on reflection I stand by my choice of 4 as they were/are equally inspiring