bertiedog

The Gauge should not matter or cause any wobble, it is the pressure on the wheels from the jig, or jaws of the vice, or hand pressure, that is behind the wobble. The gauge should only be used for checks, not in place during the press. Some gauges are made to allow them to check the quartering as well, these allow the axle to sit in a groove at the right angle. In an engineering shop it is just not done to use a gauge to check things by pressing on till the gauge is gripped, it is repeatedly fitted and un-fitted till you feel resistance as it is inserted. This is usually the correct BB. Any more pressure may close the grip, but may also bend the plastic spokes, which when the gauge is removed spring back and give a slightly false BB. Also a very basic point, always check any make of wheel has no trace whatsoever of flash or sprue marks on the rear surface, it may look clean, but check with a steel rule.

They should unscrew after having them in place to push on with quartering. But anyway the quartering should be checked and adjusted after the wheels are in place, they will move under moderate force with fine Jewellers round nosed pliers. It all depends on the chassis they are to go in, drop in, with bearing blocks, as per the real thing, or horizontal split, with or without bearings, as per most commercial models, or pressed on into a chassis that has complete bearings, more common on older designs. One solution does not fit fit all.... the order of operations has to be adjusted to suit.......and may involve establishing the quartering in the press to start with, then removing the pins to continue an accurate press......then replacing the pins afterwards. However with a pin system that requires access to the back of a wheel to secure, then they have to remain in place if fitted to a solid frame. There are several makes of crankpin that will fit Gibson, my favourite would be the Markit De-Luxe type, which can fit most wheels. The Gibson design is OK, but check the spacers are concentric, there was a batch of bad ones a while ago, only slightly off centre, but enough to make fitting the rods foul the holes. This was mentioned to Gibson, and they replaced all faulty owns. By the way, if you have a press drill, a column drill press, this is perfect to press Gibson or Ultrascale on to the axles. The axle is placed in the chuck, and the axle pressed gently home in to wheel, (may need packing to allow for bulging boss). The second wheel is started on the axle taper, and the lot pressed home with a blank axle, made thinner than 1/8 by emery paper, acting as a pin punch held in the chuck. With polished axles and fine tapers the lot slide home with complete accuracy. A small piece of perspex is used to check quartering afterwards. Stephen

Also may I add if you are new to any press on wheels, not to try to use the old Hamblings wheel press for these modern plastic wheels. The Hamblings were designed to use a pilot nosed axle that was a Swiss made precision turning that acted as a guide to press the steel into a brass bush. It does quarter quite well, but does not operate as well as the GW type, unless seriously modified. Whilst the tape is a good idea for starting the push, it will then be better removed so that you can rotate the wheels as you push, evening out any off centre forces. The crankpins would have to be removed as well. Stephen

Can I say that the tapered ends of the axle should really be a bit more delicate than the ones in the photos. It does not need a lathe, but also should not need filing the ends, but be done using abrasive paper. First give the whole stock axle a polish with a very fine grit, +1500, to give a mirror finish overall. This will not reduce the diameter, but remove any imperfection. Then polish the ends with a 200 grit to a very small taper that just enters the wheel hole, use the paper stuck to lolly sticks or similar. Again finish the taper to the very highest polish. The point is to leave no way for the steel to machine the hole in the plastic, it must go through without any cutting, which leaves them permanently marked in the bore. Should the wheel go on too easily, then remove and roll the end under a very fine file to roughen a small area where the wheel sits, but leaving the taper. Rolling under a file edge "raises" the surface, and it will now fit. If the set up is final during assembly, then add a drop of Loctite to ensure it retains. Wipe or wash away any excess Loctite. Stephen

The main problems are a shortfall in numbers delivered to dealers with long lists of pre orders that could never be honoured. Quite another separate issue are the bogies and the valve gear. It is not simply a matter of transferring orders to another dealer who has received some part of his order, as at the very least I deal only with a company having a good track record etc. The now long delays returning are Heljans problem, and made worst for them by their confused communications to enquiries about the situation. It really needs a better communication between the Heljan dealers and the company to properly calculate the demand, priorities pre-orders, perhaps with deposits.

Which type of frames are they?....all are usable with careful assembly. The spacers are accurate, but as said the frames may be bowed, any metal strip releasees tensions in the metal when cut. Take each side and a flat piece of glass and test the bow in the frame, Heat them up with a gas torch or on a cooker, it does not need red heat, it just softens them. Carefully bend the frame true on both sides, with the keyhole bearings in place, then try the frame spacers in place and it should all line up. Then get some 1/8the steel rod cut in to three, and fit in the bearings. The axles should be parallel and horizontally aligned. I would then adjust the bearings by filing the Key holes, and then when all correct solder the bearings in place, the top hat flange on the inside. The Gibson rods will need to be matched to the frame, the same three rods can be used, with the rods mounted in a drill chuck and filed to a point that can enter the rod hole. These taper ends are best done on a lathe, but you can do it with a file as long as the tip is run in a groove in a piece of wood as the filing is done. With care the taper will be true. After they have the tips done, you simply put them in the axle holes and assemble the universal rods in the tips. After the frame is true the screws in the pacers can be soldered with medium melt solder. Assuming Markits/Romford wheels, they can be fitted and with the rods in place, the chassis should roll freely. Make sure the bearings are deburred on both sides and the rods the same. If stiff in rotation, you can open up the rod bearings a small amount. If still stiff or lumpy, then revue every step to check all is square, Stephen

I have had a look for the Gravity Railway on the net, but nothing. The reference was for an old Model Engineer Magazine and an article in the Harmsworth magazine about 1895 or so. Stephen

There once was a proposal in the 1890's, for a gravity driven line from London to Brighton, and a large scale model made to prove it worked. I have not got the picture to hand, so description only. It looked like the Forth Bridge, a series of towers each one suspending a section of track, which pivoted like a swing. The single coach at the start of the run was raised upwards by a steam engine or hydraulics inside the tower. The result was forward motion till the coach reached the tower when the track swung back to level to allow the coach to run on to the next section, where the process was repeated. It was claimed to be able to raise the speed to over 200 MPH, in virtual silence. But can you imagine the complexity of the controls and switching, and the size of the towers, and the swinging bridges. It was claimed little braking would be needed as the process was reversible and the coach faced an up hill section nearing Brighton to slow it down. The thought of the coach crossing at 200 MPH a joint out of sync with it, would be horrifying......... Cost would have been astronomic for only a single track, and only one coach at a time......it never got beyond the large scale model. Stephen

Are the cylinders missing? Should be easy to make from brass sheet, soldered up. For the rods then Gibson do an adjustable set. The cross heads are made in castings, usually nickel silver, the slide bars from nickel strip, and the support made from brass sheet.

Sorry to say, but yes a bit of stuff to put away, do not throw out, you may be able to use the pieces later on another project. The best plan is to haunt Ebay and find other 18 mm wheels, you could strike lucky and get Ultrascale! Gibson push on wheels would do fine, or easiest a set of Markit/Romford, which bolt on. The gearsets are not expensive, about £7.00, you can get them by mail order from Markits 3/32 for the motor/ 1/8th bore for the axle. Aim at 40:1. Scale Link do the metric sizes with 1.8th axles. You can also use Ultrascale gear sets. but check with them about delivery, usually months for wheelsets, but they may carry the gears from stock. We have not 100% found out what motor is in the kit, it should be the metal types, but it maybe the plastic type, moulded with a gearbox on the end or without. These plastic motors are frankly junk, and replaceable with a Mitsumi can motor from ebay at about £2-3 ( sometimes for 4!) If you get a modern motor, the best plan, the worm from Markits/Scale Link must match the bore, and is usually 2mm diameter. Best to get the motor first and measure it. An advantage of the Mitsumi is it is double ended and you can add a flywheel, of which 2mm is a common size. Even if the motor is the old metal type it is an old design and draws a lot of current creating a lot of heat. So I would go for the Ebay path of replacement. With 40:1 gears that is quite powerful, but the current is far lower with the Mitsumi. They are also quiet. One thing you will have to make is a small brass cradle to hold the motor and the chassis may have to be altered to get the motor to bed down in the right position, but is normal home mechanic stuff to do. Stephen

The worms were both steel and brass, the gear brass, hobbed on "loose" hob against a cutter that drove the blank whilst cutting. This was perfectly acceptable engineering and gives good fit, but Keyser did not hold the blank accurately as the blank rotated. So they got built in wobble, made worst by drilling the axle hole afterwards. The tooth form used was correct, it's not a thread form. As it was a hobbed gear, the teeth have a curve, and when set tight there is no side play on that axle, so to get side play they machined the gear thin, and you adjusted the meshing to allow a slack fit, so never set Ks gears tightly, always a bit slack. For replacement both the gear and worm must be replaced with a Markit pair. The difference in diameter will mean resetting the angle the motor sits on the chassis, by adjusting the retaining screws with washers or packing strips. Stephen

The ratio varied, but 20:1 was widely used, and the worm fitted a 3/32 shaft, and was about 1/4 diameter, I can see a reason to replace if the wheels and axles are OK, but is is very rare. Also be warned the gear wheel was rarely concentric with the axle whole, very badly made. To remove the gear simply hammer it out, the gear supported in a vice, or press it out in the vice, it is not a tight fit. Best plan is to junk the lot, but I appreciate the cost involved, and if the wheels are the type with plastic spokes and retaining screws, they might be worth will saving. The D ended axles are troublesome all round, which is what the axles should have been! Get a new set of gears to suit your motor from Markits, 40:1, most modern motors will fit, or if your lucky the K's motor may be all right. If it is the plastic motor, then head it for the bin ASAP. I earnt my living making these kits and the mechanical parts were awful, using any of the K's bits is asking for trouble. In no way does this cover the castings which were useable. Stephen

This is too rich an area......worst films.....it goes far beyond the Golden Turkey awards listings, as Hollywood, and the rest of filmland have produced thousands of stinkers, the films that should never have been issued in the form that they came out in, lost money and audiences just disliked them. Some of the failures are only in retrospect, they made money at the time, and if low values, in their terms were a success. B grade Sci-Fi from the fifties mainly made money. The ones to note are the films that had big budgets, and still failed to gather in the crowds, or the really boring ones......Big failures were "Lost Horizon", the musical, " At long last love", a musical, and most 1960's UK kitchen sink dramas. A real stinker was the 1945 UK musical spectacular "London Town" with Sid Fields, it failed in almost every area. J A Rank financed a curates egg, but it did not stink in parts, but all over. The restored longer version is watchable for the acts in it, but it lacked a story and had a director who had never made musicals. Kay Kendall said it ruined a nice start to her acting career. One number is completely unexplained by the story, and in the credits another is mentioned but is not in the film at all. Even now famous films like "The Wizard of Oz" were box office failures at first, and bear the scars of last minute cost cutting in efforts to save it.

The arguments about 00 track 4mm scale, and 16.5 gauge will unfortunately still be here as long as 00 survives. It is the combination that works for UK modellers, especially RTR users, that allows for set track to scale curves, reasonable length points, and generally a good appearance within these parameters. Most modellers cannot just change gauge, it costs money and time, and skills that they may not have. The cost of such changes make DCC look cheap. You cannot just jump from 00 to P4/S4 or EM, as it involves far more than altering the wheels. The minimum diameter curves become unwieldy, you cannot make an EM or P4 loco go around 2 foot radius, and the point length doubles. The average room size in the UK is about 12x12 foot, and cripples the design of a scale loop, hence most P4 and EM are end to end. There are plenty of houses with 10x10 rooms, or even smaller rectangular rooms, like 8x12. 00 is the mass market, it allows scale curves if you want, with unmodified RTR, or the tightest set track curves. A well done 00 scale layout will look as good as P4, the only fail is when displayed along side each other, and most modellers do not display the layouts at shows. What stumped 00 was the wheels, as at first Doublo,Trix, and Tri-ang adopted in house dimensions, not following the standards that were around in the early 50's. The wide tyre and the deep flange effect was made worst by being under gauged, it showed badly. But slowly, very, slowly the situation on the wheels has changed and most RTR look far better now with the finer wheels offered. It has taken a long time for Peco to get around to producing 16.5 with scale sized sleepers ... but this is because it is a minority market, nothing to do with the UK situation. The Minority?, yes in relation to the world market for HO. Peco are major exporters of track, and if we all used HO, then the tracks they make would cover just about everybody. But the UK is unique, quite apart from HO, and making special track simply did not make economic sense to Mr Pritchard. Most people were happy with the various Streamline items, it allows a quick assembly of a very reliable track system. Peco were not anti a scale track appearance for 00, it was just unaffordable at the time, and now is being produced, albeit at a premium price, at a time when wheel standards are more settled and the better commercial locos and stock demand a better track. It still leaves an under gauged track for 4mm scale, but so what? it is a vast improvement, you cannot go much further with 4mm scale 16.5, apart from minor variants in chairs etc., a market for which exists and is fully covered by other makes. These comments relate to the track, and not to the other aspects of the various gauges that use 4mm to the foot as the basis of the scale, some far to complex to go into here. There are one or to flies in the ointment, the slow speed of introduction of points, both Peco and DCC, and Peco's admission that the bullhead system will never cover as many points as the flat bottomed version. But given it is a niche market, it is understandable, and it takes time to design in what is a new system of frog operation as well. I use the bullhead already, but use the flatbottom for points, till they are made. I have to use RTR track, retired with no time or health to spend months on P4. Peco fills the bill, it works and works fine. It still concerns me that some still attack Peco......I stood near a large 00 layout at a show, where the owner was loudly knocking Peco, he suffered constant derailments, faltering locos, and general bad running. He was going to replace the lot. At one glance the answer to his issues were all self inflicted, bad track laying, kinks in approaches to points, nailed down track, it did not show the nail, but you could see the dips around each nail.... All the joints had kinks over the fish plates, complete with a raised bump. The points had all been altered to enlarge the flangeway, as "Peco do not understand track". His operating style despite using DCC, was to run at least three times as fast as real locos, and stops and starts were just that, violent stops and rough starts. You can't help people like this......he would make the same mistakes whatever maker was involved.

The fatal flaw in the jet plan in the US was the state of the track, fine in some areas, but only suitable for freight speeds on most of the system. There was also the noise issue!!

Not worth the bother for most users, however if large areas or very long grass is involved then an ion unit is better. But as I found in investigating the various units, it's not the power, but the design of the head, and the users skill that makes the difference. The best head I can find is to have the electrode inside the cup, with a pattern of holes in a disc of plastic designed to suit the grass used. No metal grid is needed for the grass to go through, it is charged inside the reserve cup. The voltage does make a difference but only for large area work. If the cup has the plastic front, or a commercial one like Peco, then a funnel in reverse is a good idea as the front, as it concentrates the grass for detailing longer grass. The flyswatter circuits work well as standard, no need to boost them, although you can if you want. If into O gauge, then use the ion unit as it handles longer fibres. The big surprise is that the static bottles also work well! and are better at fine detailing around buildings. The advantage of a cup with holes is no chance of shocks, unlike the tea strainer types, which are limited due to the one size of mesh, which a cup type has no problem with, as you make your own screen in minutes. The best advice is to never rush the static grass, go slowly, working it up, not in a rush, where you might as well just use the flock as it was used, by throwing the stuff straight on. By the way, at 2mm length it barely makes a difference whether static is used or just strewing it by hand. Stephen.

An excellent unit. but a bit of overkill for the motorised lifting bridge you mentioned, I have used one of the tiny gear head motors, driving a cam to give a realistic slow start and finish, with the chains not actually lifting anything, merely the weight of the bridge keeping the chains tight. The motor on the one referred to will suit a turntable, as although 6 RPM, thats at full voltage, and at reduced power slower running is easy to get, or simply add pulleys etc. Stephen

It is not being used except as a test power supply, and is repaired. The ones for the layout are from China, but UK supplier, with paperwork, and opening up one are a different class of construction, and are flow soldered, generous isolation on the boards,and have the power in at one end and DC the other end, not in one bunch of connectors. All much better made, with higher rating, and should handle the 12 volt Cob strip lights. The colour balance is excellent, warm white, for illuminating the whole layout with shadowless lighting, and one strip only for photography, to allow shadows. Pleasant to get stable lighting balance for working on painting scenery and buildings. The bits that are junked are the fuses! Stephen.

The problem is not new or confined to modern carriers, it has been this way since Victorian times, and the problems are poor addressing, no return addresses, poor packaging, unsuitable packages etc., Add in some dishonest staff and you will have brew of troubles. In the photographic trade in the 1970's there were hundreds of cameras going missing after being sent from shops to the Russian camera importer Technical and Optical Equipment LTD, trading as TOE (ltd) The problem was the postmen knew from the name that it contained cameras, and the return addresses were generally Camera shops that traded with camera names. The troubles subsided with our company as all mention of cameras were removed from the address or return address, and stopped when the postman in London was caught . He had hundreds of missing items in his flat. The final touch was he only had all the faulty ones, and found he could not sell them! Stephen.

Also dates mentioned by another supplier, so looks firmer.....

Report from Hattons, Available in late Nov / Dec......2013 announced and 2017 delivered....but worth the wait.

It's all repaired now, new caps, cleaned the board, and tests OK. The caps in it were unbranded, which is odd. I wonder if the work from one makers is farmed out to cottage industry, like the Japanese used to do. One design, many makers who source components themselves perhaps. Just got is some replacements , cheap types, slim line version, and they work fine,(and are flow soldered). It's just a nuisance it is such a lottery as to quality, especially as safety is involved. Stephen

Virgin have added Talking Pictures to the Cable Channels now, excellent content.

On the model the snap term was used to mean the pin coming out, which if cured by the new makers will leave a perfectly running loco. On the Lyd and the other L&B the reason the flycrank does not have it's end over the axle centre, as it really should, was space. The lower part of the jockey bar has been dispensed with as such and reduces the length to get clearance over the ground. So the anchor bar pivot on the flycrank has to be shortened by the same amount to keep the motion a circle. So despite being an anchor bar, it does move as laid out on the M&W But it does not move as much as Heljan portray. I assembled the gear last night on the 3.5 inch gauge version I have to view the thing rotating, and why the bar moves. I think I will leave the orders in place, as Heljan still say by email that some more supplies are coming through from the first batches, then there will be a gap till 2018 and resumption of deliveries.

I can't quite figure out why the real thing has the anchor point in motion, same with the Peco loco, it is there to turn an elliptical motion into a circle, rather like a pantograph, so it must mean that sometimes the proportions of the valve motion need the anchor pivot to move. I suspect it is the very tight space there was that forced a re design by M&W