Jump to content

Any Question Answered


Pixie
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Jayk said:

   Ended up having to get the N Gauge class 25/1 as apparently the 2mm 25/0 etching film has gone missing. So I'm currently doing the mental 3D jigsaw of what goes where and how best to go about the order of parts. I've figured out most of it but am stuck on the 6 parts outlined in red below. If they look like anything please jump in!

 

IMG20220118144931_LI.jpg.5315a20a0df1f9c8fb1ffc7a40d4e11d.jpg

 

   The two center-top I think are bogie mounts but the fold back portion not having a matching hole leaves me unsure. The other four pieces I'm just stumped on, if no other ideas present themselves I'm considering using the two larger panels as blanks behind the bodyside foot / hand holds. The thinner one and the L-shaped one I can't even see where they might be used.

 

-Jayk

Jay,

The top middle parts look like side-to-end strengthening pieces. Those type of parts are common across all of the WW coaches that I’ve come across. The hole is for a chassis to body mounting bolt (certainly on the coaches). No idea what the other bits are for.

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Ian I think the centre parts are the support structure for the cabs. I expect there to be more half-etched lines on the other side. The holes line up with those in the floor, the side tabs attach the body sides, while the front folds up, and folds again other way at the top for the front cab door and shaping the whole front. I’ve found this out in the past with such as the 309 EMU etches by making them up and doing a jigsaw puzzle! So basically you can make up the body and outer chassis/footplate area and then bolt them together if you wish rather than solder the whole lot. A bit like the current Farish 24/25. Hm, not sure about that myself. Look nice etchings anyway.

 

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jayk said:

  

   The two center-top I think are bogie mounts but the fold back portion not having a matching hole leaves me unsure. The other four pieces I'm just stumped on, if no other ideas present themselves I'm considering using the two larger panels as blanks behind the bodyside foot / hand holds. The thinner one and the L-shaped one I can't even see where they might be used.

 

-Jayk

Hi Jayk,

 

this looks similar to his coach etches, which are built in a similar way to the Comet Models 4mm kits. Instructions for those can be downloaded from:

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/carriage/bctcw/

 

The two pieces center-top look like brackets to join the ends to the sides. The hole is for a bolt to fix the body to the underframe.

I don't know about the other bits though.

 

(Edit - missed the previous responses so no new information here)

 

Neil

 

Edited by nabber
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jayk said:

   Ended up having to get the N Gauge class 25/1 as apparently the 2mm 25/0 etching film has gone missing. So I'm currently doing the mental 3D jigsaw of what goes where and how best to go about the order of parts. I've figured out most of it but am stuck on the 6 parts outlined in red below. If they look like anything please jump in!

 

 

 

   The two center-top I think are bogie mounts but the fold back portion not having a matching hole leaves me unsure. The other four pieces I'm just stumped on, if no other ideas present themselves I'm considering using the two larger panels as blanks behind the bodyside foot / hand holds. The thinner one and the L-shaped one I can't even see where they might be used.

 

-Jayk

Hi,

 

Allen Doherty is happy to answer any questions you may have and its better than guessing wrong and messing things up.

 

Nigel Hunt

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ian Smith @Izzy @nabber 
 

   Oh wow. Ok, I completely got those two items wrong. There is, indeed, an additional etched line on the reverse side of those pieces. It is across the rounded protrusion, so it looks like it folds up 90 degrees at the front and then the rounded part folds 90 degrees back down parallel with the rounded part on the lower section with the hole in. So yes, it makes much more sense that these are cab fronts. The other items remain unknown but the L shaped piece could be additional roof detail - having trouble finding shots of the correct roof. Currently working my way through the prototype thread on here.

   Had been starting to plan how I wanted to attach the body to the chassis and whether I wanted to separate the floor piece from the body section at all. This certainly makes things easier. I think.

 

   Thank you all. Including the link for the Comet instructions.

 

 

@Nig H

 

   Thank you, I might have emailed but having read the website and knowing he's already stretched I was trying to avoid bothering him further. Especially as effort is made to point out that these are not kits but merely aids for scratch building.

 

   Looking forwards to getting to grips with this on the weekend.

 

-Jayk

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A confession and a question

 

If I mistakenly planned out a potential first 2mm layout on XtrkCad using FineNtrax components, would all the geometry be wrong, or just the length of the turnouts themselves?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dseagull said:

A confession and a question

 

If I mistakenly planned out a potential first 2mm layout on XtrkCad using FineNtrax components, would all the geometry be wrong, or just the length of the turnouts themselves?

 

 

 


The FiNetrax range I believe has the same “ready made” geometry as the 2mmSA pegged turnout kits. From memory they were developed together. 

 

The overall length might be different by a millimetre or two but nothing that couldn’t be adjusted for I think. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dseagull said:

A confession and a question

 

If I mistakenly planned out a potential first 2mm layout on XtrkCad using FineNtrax components, would all the geometry be wrong, or just the length of the turnouts themselves?

 

 

 


Even if the individual turnout geometry is the same the size/length difference will compound and then subsequent alignment will be lost. How much impact this might have would I think all depend on the track plan.

 

Bob

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

If my thinking is correct, the geometry will be the same (crossing angles and radii) but each point will be slightly longer in 2mm finescale.

 

The difference will be crossing angle x gauge difference so a 1 in 6 2mmfs point will be 2.52mm longer than it's N gauge brethren,

 

I would have thought that could be adjusted between one point and the next?

As long as the Frog/crossings are placed as your plan all should be good.

The point toes will just start a couple of mm earlier in 2mm FS.

 

Alternately if you've drawn it in CAD surely the discrepancy can be removed by scaling the whole plan up up by 4.7% (9.42/9)?

 

 

Edited by Argos
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

While some of the above is clearly thought through it may not be the case. You can build a turnout out with the same lead to either 9.42 or 9mm gauge the difference will be taken up in the curvature of the switch and closure  rails which may well be a single piece. By adjusting how the curve changes you can add or lose a few milimetres.

 

Assuming the 2mm one is slightly longer there will only be problems with a cluster of interconnected turnouts. where you may have to move things a tad. 

 

The only piece of trackwork where you cannot build a 2mm turnout on an N plan ( or EM on a 00 one) is a diamond. This is because the acute crossing angles and the gauge determine precisely the distance between the two acute crossing noses. Getting that distance wrong is a real problem in a diamond.

 

Don

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Don.

 

Since joining the 2mm association back in January 2020, I've played around with a few ideas, but not actually started anything - although as we moved house that same month and have other priorities first, I'm more than content for it to be a slow-burner whilst I deal with other domestic projects!

 

The positive I have taken from all this is that if/when built, it would live in a shed that's not yet been built - when we moved in there was a lot of jungle clearance in the garden required, and we uncovered an extra chunk of drive/garden down the side of the outhouse that both us and the estate agent had assumed was a boundary hedge! This good fortune may well allow for a bigger shed than I had initially planned - and as such, a longer layout, so dimensions aren't set in stone as yet, meaning that If I had to add length to make the plan fit, I could easily do this. 

 

image.png.873d812a11f61a03283f8cb8c9907e30.png

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Are any of the chassis from the association shop usable for a Farish HEA?

 

Short answer, no.

 

The HEA is a difficult wagon to model for various reasons.

 

The model produced by Graham Farish was one of the first wagons made in China after the sale of the company to Bachmann. It's very crude detail and lack of any underframe discharge doors doesn't help. 

 

Under the MEA the chassis doesn't look as bad. Drop in replacement wheels might work as a quick fix.

 

You could machine out the Farish chassis to accept etched W irons and use the Association whitemetal castings for the Bruninghaus spring with roller bearing. A few people, including myself, have done this with the Farish TTAs before the Stephen Harris kit was available. This gets rid of the horrible low relief suspension details of the Farish mouldings and allows the use of 12.25mm axles.

 

Sadly now out of production is the Taylor Precision Models HEA kit which used to fit a heavily modified Peco chassis. In my opinion this was a better alternative to the Farish model.

Edited by Bryn
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In the never ending quest for information on St Albans LNWR I have managed to finally track down the Gas Works shunter - well one of them as there were three successive units.  The first (post war - no idea before the war) is a Fowler Standard 0-4-0 Diesel Mechanical works number 4200008/1947 - as it happens 4200003/1946 is preserved at the Embsay and Bolton Railway (so I'll try to get there in June to take some photos).   

 

The question is, does anyone know of a kit of these?  I'd think in 2mm it may be unlikely but possibly one of the larger scales?  In the meantime, I think the NGS Hunslet may have to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Nigel has looked into this, but I understand there are problems due to one of the gears being very close to the adjacent axles.  no doubt he will respond with more details.

 

Jim

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kylestrome said:

Hi all,

 

Has anyone had a go at 'finescaling' the N Gauge Society's Hunslet loco? Wheel replacement or turning down the wheels ...?

 

David

 

Mick Simpson has finescaled one by turning down the wheels.

 

Andy

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kylestrome said:

Has anyone had a go at 'finescaling' the N Gauge Society's Hunslet loco? Wheel replacement or turning down the wheels ...?

 

 

My current expected process is to turn off the flanges and turn down the tread, and fit a 2mm tyre to the wheel. 
As a 2mm wheel isn't as fat as an N gauge wheel, the flange is then further out. That should mean the axle doesn't have to be pulled out, so the bearings still work as intended.   
This may be offered as an Association product, but it is some months away from deciding if it is a sane process for production (waiting for the NGS final shipment to arrive from China, which should have some spare parts in it).  

 

Wheel replacement might work if you can make your own "super slim" muff for one axle.  With a super-slim muff, the process for recent Farish items such as the Jinty will work.  Or reduce the axle diameter for the inboard section after the bearing, and a new muff to fit the thinner diameter.    It is not viable for an Association shop-offered process.  

 

 

- Nigel

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I have been asked which 2mm steam loco kit is the best one for a beginner to start with. I responded that most kits had difficult bits, but some were more difficult than others because of the nature of the prototype. Anyone here got any views or suggestions?

 

Nigel Hunt

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Nig H said:

Hi,

 

I have been asked which 2mm steam loco kit is the best one for a beginner to start with. I responded that most kits had difficult bits, but some were more difficult than others because of the nature of the prototype. Anyone here got any views or suggestions?

 

Nigel Hunt

 

 

 

Assuming that we are going beyond wheel swaps and new chassis, I found the Fence Houses J39 a great one to start with. We'll designed, not too small and fiddly and no valve gear, bogies etc.

 

The 4F should arguably be the easiest because of the almost flat running plate, but the Belpaire firebox and trimming off of metal inherent in dealing with a pre-CAD design make it harder in practice. 

 

If only there was a 3F kit available to modern standards as a starter!

 

Simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Nig H said:

I have been asked which 2mm steam loco kit is the best one for a beginner to start with. I responded that most kits had difficult bits, but some were more difficult than others because of the nature of the prototype. Anyone here got any views or suggestions?

 

 

I'd say anything without valve gear (because its a pile of complication to do another day).   
Then, an 0-6-0 because its not got bogies or balancing problems.   
Then "not too small" - a Great Eastern Railway Y14 is very nice, but it is also very small.  
Then, whatever someone likes.   

 

Twenty years ago, I'd have said "tender loco because of squeezing motor in issues", but motors available cheaply today are smaller, so tank engine difficulties have largely gone away.  Side tanks might be easier to make than panniers or saddle tanks, and certainly easier to hide the motor/mechanism.

 

It might depend if someone is expecting a chassis etch, or is expecting to lay out and drill their own frames.  If the latter, then its possible that a shot-down etch from Judith Edge, or a 2mm item from Worsley Works or N-Brass, may be the easiest.    

 

 

The absolute easiest is probably still the Sentinel (MightyMo, see magazine archive for material from Mike Bryant and Mark Fielder).   I think the whitemetal body is still around.  An equivalent mechanism could be designed very easily around current components (rather than those of 30 years ago).  But that might be thought of as "not really a steam loco" in appearance. 

 

 

- Nigel

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...