Any Question Answered

[bécasse]

1 hour ago, 65179 said:

 

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.

 

One further advantage of choosing the J39 is that the prototype was quite at home on both passenger and freight (secondary) duties, at least in parts of the former LNER system, making it potentially a very useful loco for branch or secondary route terminal or through station. They lasted quite late too.

 

[queensquare]

1 hour 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

 

 

 

I would largely agree with Nigel C. In the past I would have  said 0-6-0 tender but now, with small motors easily available, I would go for an 0-6-0T. The sensible thing would be one of the Association replacement chassis to fit a RTR body - the latter are usually available as spares.

If a complete loco then Nigel H's L&Y saddle tank is good if you can get hold of the GEM body kit. If you wanted something a bit more ambitious then anything from either Nigel H or Bob Jones Fencehouses range is good - the parts fit as should, they have comprehensive instructions and after sale support is excellent. The down side of these ranges is that, as far as I'm aware,  neither contain a simple 0-6-0.

For a beginner I would avoid David Eveleigh or Worsley works as, whilst both can be made up into really nice models,  they are more scratchaids and benefit from having a bit of experience under your belt.

As Simon G has said, it would be great to have a really good, simple 0-6-0  in the 2mm range. My vote would also be for a Midland/LMS 3F - long lived with a variety of liveries.

 

Jerry

[Argos]

6 hours ago, queensquare said:

My vote would also be for a Midland/LMS 3F

Hi Jerry just checking you don't mean 4F? I'm not aware of a 3F kit other than the oversized etchings available form N Brass, or am I missing something?

 

Reason for asking is beyond making a pedantic point, I've a long term aspiration to model something LMS era around the Buxton area, a 3F would fit quite well.

 

Ah! sorry just re-read your post! You are proposing that a 3F kit would be a good addition to the 2mm kit range,

 

I'll just go clean my glasses.........

Edited February 17, 2022 by Argos

[Crosland]

A 3F kit would be good.

[bill-lobb]

22 hours ago, queensquare said:

 

.....My vote would also be for a Midland/LMS 3F - long lived with a variety of liveries.

 

Jerry

 

My immediate reaction to this was "What variety? They were all black" That would be true for the Midland & LMS, I think. Then I thought of the joint lines. The M&GN would have had brown ones. They would have ended up in LNER colours. Black again? Too modern for me  They would make unusual models. I know little about Somerset & Dorset locos. Would they have had blue ones?

 

Bill

[queensquare]

22 minutes ago, bill-lobb said:

 

My immediate reaction to this was "What variety? They were all black" That would be true for the Midland & LMS, I think. Then I thought of the joint lines. The M&GN would have had brown ones. They would have ended up in LNER colours. Black again? Too modern for me  They would make unusual models. I know little about Somerset & Dorset locos. Would they have had blue ones?

 

Bill

 

Some, but not all, of the SDJR ones retained lined blue up to 1930. They then received hand painted LMS numbers and lettering, still in blue. Its not known how long they ran in this hybrid LMS blue livery but not long - Essery suggests perhaps a year or two. 

 

Jerry

 

[Klaus ojo]

Here is my attempt of constructing a Mike Raithby etch of a Stanier 8F in 2mm scale.

It took me a while to realize that apparently firebox and boiler are longer than necessary as the holes for the steampipes in smokebox and footplate don´t match. Assuming that this is done by purpose to be able to represent all variants of the prototype I´ve shortened the firebox at the front.  Or was this wrong?

So before I´ll continue and mess the whole thing:  Does anybody know something else I should do or must avoid?

This time I´ve tapered the front of the frame to give some sideplay to the pony truck.  I have not done the pony yet. Looks fiddly in the instructions...
Thanks in advance

Klaus

. 

 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Klaus ojo
picture below is before shortening firebox

[Chris Higgs]

2 hours ago, Klaus ojo said:

Here is my attempt of constructing a Mike Raithby etch of a Stanier 8F in 2mm scale.

It took me a while to realize that apparently firebox and boiler are longer than necessary as the holes for the steampipes in smokebox and footplate don´t match. Assuming that this is done by purpose to be able to represent all variants of the prototype I´ve shortened the firebox at the front.  Or was this wrong?

So before I´ll continue and mess the whole thing:  Does anybody know something else I should do or must avoid?

This time I´ve tapered the front of the frame to give some sideplay to the pony truck.  I have not done the pony yet. Looks fiddly in the instructions...
Thanks in advance

Klaus

. 

 

Maybe its an optical illusion, but the bottom of the boiler needs to be horizontal i.e. parallel to the footplate.

 

https://www.alamy.com/lms-stanier-2-8-0-type-8f-no8510-c1948-image210369631.html

 

Chris

https://www.alamy.com/lms-stanier-2-8-0-type-8f-no8510-c1948-image210369631.html

 

[65179]

2 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

Maybe its an optical illusion, but the bottom of the boiler needs to be horizontal i.e. parallel to the footplate.

 

https://www.alamy.com/lms-stanier-2-8-0-type-8f-no8510-c1948-image210369631.html

 

Chris

https://www.alamy.com/lms-stanier-2-8-0-type-8f-no8510-c1948-image210369631.html

 

 

The boiler on the Raithby 8F is a  straightforward truncated cone Chris rather than having the offset that the real one does. As a result you can't get the horizontal bottom of the boiler.

 

Simon

[Nig H]

16 hours ago, Klaus ojo said:

Here is my attempt of constructing a Mike Raithby etch of a Stanier 8F in 2mm scale.

It took me a while to realize that apparently firebox and boiler are longer than necessary as the holes for the steampipes in smokebox and footplate don´t match. Assuming that this is done by purpose to be able to represent all variants of the prototype I´ve shortened the firebox at the front.  Or was this wrong?

So before I´ll continue and mess the whole thing:  Does anybody know something else I should do or must avoid?

This time I´ve tapered the front of the frame to give some sideplay to the pony truck.  I have not done the pony yet. Looks fiddly in the instructions...
Thanks in advance

Klaus

. 

 

 

 

Hi Klaus,

 

I suspect the smokebox wrapper is on the wrong way round. If you can re-fit it then the holes should line up. Sorry, just noticed you've fitted the smokebox wrapper both ways. The first pics show the wrapper on the right way round, I think. Not sure why the holes don't line up. I don't remember it being a problem on mine. I'll have a look at them to see if they are in line.

 

Here is a pic of one of mine. I can't see any sign of moving either of the steam pipe holes.

 

 

It might be worth while double-checking the boiler, firebox and cab are dead tight against each other.

 

Regards,

 

Nigel Hunt

Edited February 21, 2022 by Nig H
update

[Klaus ojo]

Thank you Nigel, 

for this picture and thank you Simon for your help  via PM!

Yes, first I made the smokebox wrong despite of all checking. Sorry for having uploaded this photo, I did not remember that. I now have  exchanged it by a suitable photo for comparison.

Possibly my footplate as a whole is too far astern but too late to change this now. I think that the holes in the smokebox and  the middle of cylinders are +/- right now. Hopefully all your pictures  will prevent further trouble. Encouraging to see how it could be done.  Thanks!

 

Chris, 

I wanted to use the etch from the kit as this is my first tapered boiler. I´ll try a right one next  time but won´t tear it apart now. 

 

cheers 

Klaus

Edited February 21, 2022 by Klaus ojo
"photo exchanged"

[Velocemitch]

Question on the 3D motor mounts the shop sells.

how do people usually fix these to the chassis?

I am thinking of simply glueing the mount to the motor, but I’m not happy to glue the mount to the chassis too, so need a screwed fixing with adjustment.

 

The four projecting rods underneath look like they may take a 10 BA nut, but they will be very close to the inside of the frames if I use them. My mount will be sat right down on the top of the frames, so the nuts will be between them.

[Chris Higgs]

On 20/02/2022 at 20:54, 65179 said:

 

The boiler on the Raithby 8F is a  straightforward truncated cone Chris rather than having the offset that the real one does. As a result you can't get the horizontal bottom of the boiler.

 

Simon

 

OK, right. The etched boiler bands would not come out right. But perhaps you could roll it inside out (removing a sliver from it) and once the correct shape add boiler bands yourself, probably a good idea anyway as etched ones are inevitably too prominent.

 

As to the dimensions, my opinion is best to find a dimensioned drawing and work out if the various parts are right. Unlike Black 5s, short firebox 8Fs were a rare breed (I think only the first ten?).

 

Chris 

[Chris Higgs]

On 21/02/2022 at 19:46, Velocemitch said:

Question on the 3D motor mounts the shop sells.

how do people usually fix these to the chassis?

I am thinking of simply glueing the mount to the motor, but I’m not happy to glue the mount to the chassis too, so need a screwed fixing with adjustment.

 

The four projecting rods underneath look like they may take a 10 BA nut, but they will be very close to the inside of the frames if I use them. My mount will be sat right down on the top of the frames, so the nuts will be between them.

 

The four projecting rods are designed to match my etched chassis kits (e.g the 51XX) which have matching holes in the spacers. They probably should be removed when used elsewhere. My opinion would be to use a glue that the join of which can be easily broken, together with plastikard shims for adjustment. If you want  screwed fittings, then it will need to be to the sides, as the mount is very thin in the middle. So you could cut off the pins and drill holes at the same points for bolts.

 

Chris 

[Sithlord75]

A question about rivet detail come up on the ZAG meeting this evening/morning (delete as appropriate).  There was discussion on how best rivets were modelled - obviously trying to do scale ones is pretty much impossible, particularly on wagons etc as they'd be too small but as they are an important part of breaking up the side of a tender or wagon they are necessary to model.  The discussion included points about pressing out rivet detail v have a hole in the etch to introduce shadow, the way in which they are done using 3D printing methods and a tool to run a line of rivets in some prepared material was shown,

 

The questions are - how necessary are rivets in the modelling sense, should we count them or is a representation sufficient and finally how would you represent rivets if you had to add them?

[MrSimon]

I guess it depends on how much of a noticeable feature they are on the thing you’re modelling, I lean toward leaving them off unless it would look wrong without them. I used the Modelu printed rivet transfers to add them, but they were added as they came (so are definitely over sale and probably not spaced out in line with the prototype) but they give the look of the thing.

I wouldn’t have wanted to use them to do a rake of vehicles or a vehicle with a lot of rivets though, 

 

Hope that helps

Simon

 

 

[Velocemitch]

On 24/02/2022 at 13:25, Chris Higgs said:

 

The four projecting rods are designed to match my etched chassis kits (e.g the 51XX) which have matching holes in the spacers. They probably should be removed when used elsewhere. My opinion would be to use a glue that the join of which can be easily broken, together with plastikard shims for adjustment. If you want  screwed fittings, then it will need to be to the sides, as the mount is very thin in the middle. So you could cut off the pins and drill holes at the same points for bolts.

 

Chris 

Thanks Chris, I will look at other ways then, I think I have about 1.5mm of space between the Top of the frames and the underside of the mount. I hold be able to figure it out.

 

one other question I notice the shop are doing sleeves to adapt a 0.8mm shaft to a 1.5mm worm. Are these a close press fit or bonded? It’s just I’ve found a small brass tube in my box of bits, which seems very close to doing the job, but would need bonding to the motor shaft as it’s a little bit loose. It seems a bit daft just ordering such a small item in isolation from the shop. But if they are a perfect press on fit and more appropriate I will get one ordered.

[Ian Smith]

I’ve used the embossing method and Archers rivet decals on my Buffalo saddle tank and 517 side tank respectively. In all honesty I would tend toward the decals in future.  My first engine (an 1854 class saddle tank) has no rivet detail on the tank at all and looks naked by comparison.

If I remember I will come back to this post and add photos of the engines to illustrate, alternatively photos of all can be found in my Modbury thread (but you’d have to trawl through to find them!)

Ian

[Caley Jim]

3 hours ago, Velocemitch said:

It’s just I’ve found a small brass tube in my box of bits, which seems very close to doing the job, but would need bonding to the motor shaft as it is a bit loose. 

As detailed on my 417 class thread, the sleeves which came with my tramfabreik motors were a loose fit, but some threadlocker which I got out of a local ironmongers secured it.

 

Jim 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Caley Jim
Spelling correction

[Jayk]

   It's got to the point where I either need to knuckle down and work on the cabs of my class 25 or I make a start on motorising it - although the problem with that would be I only have a total of 12cm of easitrac from the taster kit for any testing. So when the storm hit a couple of weeks back I grabbed the hand tools and knocked up a frame for an old shelf that was kicking around and subsequently sent an order in to Shop 1. I now still lack anything more than 12cm of track but at least I have what I need to make a start on altering that.

 

   This will be my introduction to producing track as well as, hopefully, providing a testing ground for anything I build. The space available is 23cm x 95cm (9" x 37.5") and I'm going to sequester a small strip running the full length for a simple straight using widely spaced sleepers. This will be the quick and dirty first step and at least allow me to test pickup. But, the question is, what should I put in the rest of the space? It is absolutely not intended to be a layout so there is no need to provide any sort of facilities, passenger or otherwise. I'm assuming that I'll want a reverse curve, a tight (exact radius to be decided) curve and some pointwork. The pointwork is likely more important for developing my skills more than testing any rolling stock and I'm not concerned with how complex the pointwork is. In fact, it's probably better to have at least one overly ambitious configuration in there somewhere.

 

   But what would you want, or wished you'd had, on a test track? Even if only as a skills developing exercise.

 

Thanks,

   -Jayk

[Caley Jim]

Hi Jayk.

 

My test track is if anything shorter than you propose and all it has is two lengths of track with a crossover between them.  One of the tracks ends in a curve slightly tighter than the minimum I would expect to run.  It is all laid on widely spaced pair of sleepers and is not laid with too much care so is a bit uneven.  The theory for that being that if a loco will run on there, it should run almost anywhere!   You can see a short section of it in the last video I posted on my 417 class thread.

 

Jim

[Velocemitch]

On 26/02/2022 at 18:34, Caley Jim said:

As detailed on my 417 class thread, the sleeves which came with my tramfabreik motors were a loose fit, but some threadlocker which I got out of a local ironmongers secured it.

 

Jim 

Thanks sounds like I might as well go that way then, measuring the ID of the tube it’s 0.9mm so the gap to fill is .075 mm in theory, assuming it stays central.

[Caley Jim]

26 minutes ago, Velocemitch said:

Thanks sounds like I might as well go that way then, measuring the ID of the tube it’s 0.9mm so the gap to fill is .075 mm in theory, assuming it stays central.

The Tramfabreik motor shafts measure a tiny wee bit under 1mm with my Vernier and .98mm with a micrometer.  I fitted the tube into the gear muff, then secured that on the shaft.

 

Jim

Edited February 27, 2022 by Caley Jim

[Chris Higgs]

On 26/02/2022 at 15:03, Velocemitch said:

Thanks Chris, I will look at other ways then, I think I have about 1.5mm of space between the Top of the frames and the underside of the mount. I hold be able to figure it out.

 

one other question I notice the shop are doing sleeves to adapt a 0.8mm shaft to a 1.5mm worm. Are these a close press fit or bonded? It’s just I’ve found a small brass tube in my box of bits, which seems very close to doing the job, but would need bonding to the motor shaft as it’s a little bit loose. It seems a bit daft just ordering such a small item in isolation from the shop. But if they are a perfect press on fit and more appropriate I will get one ordered.

 

Be warned, the problem if its just a bit of brass tube as it may not be concentric enough. Sleeves are (at least in theory) supposed to be.

[bécasse]

Potential lack of concentricity apart, I would want a sleeve to be a push-on fit to a 0,8mm ø motor shaft rather than a press fit. It is all too easy to bend a thin motor shaft when pressing anything on, whereas just pushing it on by hand and fixing it with Loctite shouldn't create any problems unless you are very ham-fisted.