 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / May 2009Model Rail - Gem Kit
Nice set of pictures on chassis assembly in this months model rail. But if anyone following that for their first attempt should be warned that theres not enough emphasis on getting the frames square. Without them correct then its difficult if not impossible to make a good runner. Simple chassis jig like that supplied by comet does help. Cheers, Simon : Nice set of pictures on chassis assembly in this months model rail. But if : anyone following that for their first attempt should be warned that theres : not enough emphasis on getting the frames square. Without them correct then : its difficult if not impossible to make a good runner. Simple chassis jig : like that supplied by comet does help. Very true, the most important aspect is to get all the main axle holes in line, this is something that I'm not sure if the Comet jig (LS16 or LS17) does this correctly, the best and easiest method is to use special axle jigs [1] and the locos coupling rods. Alan Gibson (Workshop) used to sell such a set of gigs but I can't see them listed now... The most important aspect to any chassis is that the axles are in line and the same distance apart, an out of line buffer beam will look crap but it will not prevent the loco running, axles that don't match the coupling rods (and each set of rods match the other side) will mean that there is no way that the chassis will run correctly. Whilst the Comet jig seems to make a good job of aligning the frames and axle boxes it fails to make sure that the assembly matches the coupling rods IYSWIM. [1] Hope the ASCII art displays OK (fixed font?) |X|| ||X| ||X| = frames/bearings ] ------------------- [ === FAILS AXLE === < crank-pin dia. ] ------------------- [ |X|| ||X| [ = actual coupling rods  SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group. > : Nice set of pictures on chassis assembly in this months model rail. > But if [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > ] ------------------- [ > |X|| ||X| [ = actual coupling rods Suspect this is out of my experience, cos if the axles are correctly aligned at right angles to the frames and correctly positioned am not sure how coupling rods can be incorrect. Is cos am assuming all from same kit that is of siutable quality. With my latest attempt at GEM chassis had only to open out holes in coupling rods sufficiently to fit comfortably over the crankpins and that was it. CHassis with wheels and coupling rods ran as freely and smoothly as a good RTR wagon. Cheers, Simon <big snip> : Suspect this is out of my experience, cos if the axles are correctly aligned : at right angles to the frames and correctly positioned am not sure how : coupling rods can be incorrect. : Is cos am assuming all from same kit that is of siutable quality. You're assuming that all chassies match the coupling rod... I'm not saying that the Comet (or any other) system won't/can't work, just that dummy axles that use the coupling rods to align the driving wheel axles/bearings is fool proof - the only way for it to fail is if each set of coupling rods doesn't match it's opposite, if that is the case then *any* alignment jig/method will fail at the driving wheel quartering stage! SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group. > <big snip> > : > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > case then *any* alignment jig/method will fail at the driving wheel > quartering stage! Seems to me youre looking for a way to correct an error in one component by introducing an error in another. If rods that bad then as Iain Rice would say - send em back. However do admit to inserting crankpins not quite verticle into Alan Gibson wheels to give problem as you describe - if anyone has a foolproof method of doing these would be very interested as I have a second hand kit that has these wheels. I prefer Romfords as they cannot be slightly out of quartering and the crankpins are more likely to be correctly inserted. Cheers, Simon <snip> : Seems to me youre looking for a way to correct an error in one component by : introducing an error in another. If rods that bad then as Iain Rice would : say - send em back. Whhoooossssshhhhh.... :~(( SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group. > <snip> > : > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Whhoooossssshhhhh.... :~(( Must admit was afraid that would be the case. But how about giving a poor misguided beginner a bit of assistence in understanding so progress can continue. One day I might reach the exalted levels.... CHeers, Simon > > : Nice set of pictures on chassis assembly in this months model rail. > > But if [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > at right angles to the frames and correctly positioned am not sure how > coupling rods can be incorrect. How do you ensure the frames themselves are accurately aligned? To what degree of accuracy? How do you ensure the bearings are aligned and positioned correctly when you solder them into the chassis? Some form of alignment jig is essential if you are fitting sliding hornblocks that require you to cut slots in the chassis. MBQ On Feb 11, 9:18 pm, "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Jerry" <mapson.sca...@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > at right angles to the frames and correctly positioned am not sure how > coupling rods can be incorrect. How do you ensure the frames themselves are accurately aligned? To what degree of accuracy? How do you ensure the bearings are aligned and positioned correctly when you solder them into the chassis? Some form of alignment jig is essential if you are fitting sliding hornblocks that require you to cut slots in the chassis. MBQ Suspect you are over my knowledge/experience too. Havent reached the level of sliding hornblocks. Cheers, Simon : <manatbandq@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:65dca762-6b9c-4a55-83da-70bbe11b1884@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... <snip> : > Some form of alignment jig is essential if you are : > fitting sliding hornblocks that require you to cut slots : > in the chassis. : : Suspect you are over my knowledge/experience too. : Havent reached the level of sliding hornblocks. But it's as relevant to 1/8" 'top-hat' bearings and all types of chassis (even the old style castings found with some kits) as it is to sliding horns or the Flexichas system, what this way of aligning the axles does is ensure that they ARE in alignment - by using the one item that can't easily be adjusted, even a few thousandths of an inch discrepancy can cause binding of the coupling rods or more slop that the you know what up a shirt sleeve, but has to be correct - it's all to easy to build a chassis that requires so much metal to be reamed from the coupling rods that not only are they grossly sloppy on the crank pins but their structural integrity is compromised. As I pointed out before, the most critical stage in any build is making sure that both sets of coupling rods have *exactly* the same pin centres [1] and that the main axle bearings match those centres, the rest of the chassis can be quite some way out of true and the loco will still run down the track looking like a mechanical master rather than a duck... It's actually easier to adjust the fit of the chassis bearings before they are fixed (soldered) to the chassis frames/block that try to adjust the 'fit' of the coupling rods at the wheel quartering stage - many 'wheel quarting problems' are nothing what so ever to do with the wheels but the fact that the axle centres do not match the coupling rod centres! [1] o=====o-------o CORRECT o=====o-------o Compared to; o=====O-------0 WRONG! O=====o-------o SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group. > : <manatbandq@hotmail.com> wrote in message > : [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > WRONG! > O=====o-------o OK, understand better. When reach a kit that requires such considerations then will re-read the relevant sections of those wonderful books by Iain Rice, consider the purchase of a £200 jig and muddle on. But thus far GEM kits have not required any more than a simple comet jig and blind faith. However could you explain one thing to me. I see talk of slop in the coupling rods of thousandths of an inch, yet when look at my new Bachmann Jubilee which runs like a dream it seems to have slop in the hundredths of an inch. It is - I must add - a serious question. Cheers, Simon > > : <manatba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > : [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Rice, consider the purchase of a £200 jig and muddle on. But thus far GEM > kits have not required any more than a simple comet jig and blind faith. No need to spend £200. If you have the tools, you can make your own by turning down a length of 1/8" rod, or buy the same type for a tenner or so. How many axles did your GEM kits have? Are they etched chassis? > However could you explain one thing to me. I see talk of slop in the > coupling rods of thousandths of an inch, yet when look at my new Bachmann > Jubilee which runs like a dream it seems to have slop in the hundredths of > an inch. RTR locos are mass produced and they cannot individually fettle each loco like you would with a kit. To get down to thousandths of an inch, they would need to tighten the tolerances on the whole production process, and that would push up costs. Some RTR locos are geared to drive every axle and the conn rods just come along for the ride. You can run a kit built loco with considerable slop but if you take pride in it, it will not be as satisfactory, even if it's only you who knows. MBQ On Feb 12, 11:09 pm, "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Jerry" <mapson.sca...@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote in message > > OK, understand better. When reach a kit that requires such considerations > then will re-read the relevant sections of those wonderful books by Iain > Rice, consider the purchase of a £200 jig and muddle on. But thus far GEM > kits have not required any more than a simple comet jig and blind faith. >No need to spend £200. If you have the tools, you can make your own by >turning down a length of 1/8" rod, or buy the same type for a tenner >or so. Not set up for turning, so interested in where can buy one if you have info ? >How many axles did your GEM kits have? Are they etched chassis? This is a 4-4-0 George Vth. But have done a 0-6-0 Cauliflower (but not as well as soldering technique very poor at that time). Am having problems with weight distribution as its front heavy, and trying to understand how to get the bogie arm right so bogie chassis doesnt foul main chassis - theres isnt much clearence on the prototype. > However could you explain one thing to me. I see talk of slop in the > coupling rods of thousandths of an inch, yet when look at my new Bachmann > Jubilee which runs like a dream it seems to have slop in the hundredths of > an inch. >RTR locos are mass produced and they cannot individually fettle each >loco like you would with a kit. To get down to thousandths of an inch, >they would need to tighten the tolerances on the whole production >process, and that would push up costs. Some RTR locos are geared to >drive every axle and the conn rods just come along for the ride. >You can run a kit built loco with considerable slop but if you take >pride in it, it will not be as satisfactory, even if it's only you who >knows. >MBQ I want a loco thats not available in RTR (or a variation) so will kit build. If its a good runner thats a bit sloppy from an engineering point of view then will live with that. Its all about compromise with attempting to improve skills whilst having a life with other interests within modelling. Do think some people are put off trying as they arent experts with great experience right from the start. I'm a hacker in a rush with poor dexterity and struggle with understanding engineering. Yet can assemble, paint and line a GEM kit to give a model that am happy see running on my layout. On sunday we're going to GCR at loughborogh, his nibs will see Thomas and I will see a hundred year old hunslett (unless its ex Coventry pit loco). Cheers, Simon > Not set up for turning, so interested in where can buy one if you have > info > ? To be honest I can't remember and I'm not at home at the moment. It probably came from Mainly Trains, but I moved to N gauge now and rarely look there. Looking at the Comet ones, there are actually two different issues. They sell frame assembly jigs. With most etched kits these days, its relatively easy to build a square chassis. The type of jigs I'm thinking of are to ensure accuracy and alignment of the axles within the chassis. They are 1/8" dia and come with springs that go between the chassis to hold the hornbock guides and top hat bushes in place. The ends are turned down to fit the holes in the con rods. Thus, the holes in the con rods determine the axle spacing (and using the jig this way ensures they are the same). It does depend on the con rods being a matching pair either side! > This is a 4-4-0 George Vth. But have done a 0-6-0 Cauliflower (but not as > well as soldering technique very poor at that time). > > Am having problems with weight distribution as its front heavy, and trying There are ways to transfer the weight around but I would suggest you read Iain Rice's books or Mike Sharman's Flexichas rather rthan try to explain it here. It's not too difficult. > I want a loco thats not available in RTR (or a variation) so will kit build. > If its a good runner thats a bit sloppy from an engineering point of view [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Do think some people are put off trying as they arent experts with great > experience right from the start. Indeed and that's where magazine articles can do a lot of good. But using no jig or using one of the very expensive ones doesn't really help the average modeller. Perhaps there's scope for an article about how the different types of jigs work and can be used. MBQ On Feb 13, 10:48 am, "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > Not set up for turning, so interested in where can buy one if you have > info > ? > This is a 4-4-0 George Vth. But have done a 0-6-0 Cauliflower (but not as > well as soldering technique very poor at that time). > > Am having problems with weight distribution as its front heavy, and trying >There are ways to transfer the weight around but I would suggest you >read Iain Rice's books or Mike Sharman's Flexichas rather rthan try to >explain it here. It's not too difficult. Thanks, used brain and made sure ends of bogie arm remained flat and couldnt tilt. Then set height correctly. Obvious now ! > Do think some people are put off trying as they arent experts with great > experience right from the start. >Indeed and that's where magazine articles can do a lot of good. But >using no jig or using one of the very expensive ones doesn't really >help the average modeller. Perhaps there's scope for an article about >how the different types of jigs work and can be used. >MBQ Yep, thats why started this thread. With GEM chassis and comet jig a beginner can put together a good chassis from the included instructions, from Model Rail article would struggle. Although I acknowledge the type of jig you and Jerry suggestion will be useful in a wider context. Thanks, Simon On 13/02/2009 22:39, simon said, > Yep, thats why started this thread. With GEM chassis and comet jig a > beginner can put together a good chassis from the included instructions, > from Model Rail article would struggle. ...and that's why people can be put off kit-building. The feeling is that if they can't even build a kit the way Model Rail (a beginner's magazine) tell you to, then it isn't for them. That's so wrong - when shown the right way, anyone can build a kit. Iain Rice's books have been mentioned - it was through his books and his style of writing that I realised that I can do this. Now, I don't necessarily do things his way, but the important thing was that by starting off his way I've gained the confidence to go off and do things my way. People have been kind enough to comment favourably on the models on my website, but I too started off not being able to get an 0-4-0 to run! SignaturePaul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/ > On Feb 12, 11:09 pm, "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: >> "Jerry" <mapson.sca...@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Hi Simon, - your loco needs it's axles in line. (ie parallel to the rails) - your loco needs it's axles parallel to each other. (across the loco. - bearings need to be the right size for the axles. - coupling rod bearings need to be at the same spacing as the axles. - wheels need to be concentric. - crank pins need to be parallel with the axle. - crank throw needs to be consistant between wheels. - quartering needs to be consistant. - wheels need to be at rightangles to the axle. Romfords cover the last 5 points, but didn't a long time back. I try to drill connecting rods and chassis sides in one go and then open out the axleboxes. Using a milling machine gets them in line and parallel, but I've done them with a Black and Decker in a cheap B&D drill stand using a clamped on wall (bit of brass and cheap G clamps) to get them parallel. Before I discovered reamers I used good quality drill bits and didn't have any problems. The stepped axles sound like a good idea for setting up a chassis - been meaning to turn some up for the last 20 years! Never had a jig - I just use some parallel bars (ok, some brass bars) placed on a heavy mirror (as close as I get to a surface plate) I use some 1/8" drill rod through the axle holes and sitting on the bars on the mirror. That gets them at the right height and in line. Use some graph paper on the mirror to make sure the chassis frames are 90 degrees. (ie axles are at right angles to the track) I don't believe I can do any better or that I need to do any better. It wrks for me from 2-4-0s to 2-12-0s. Greg.P. >> I try to drill connecting rods and chassis sides in one go and then open > out the axleboxes. Was thinking about that this afternoon after Jerry's explanations. Got to cut out frames anyway so obvious now to use connecting rods to determine axle centres. May be an idea to start holes through connecting rods ? May use computer to get a drawing of frames with axle holes to ensure they are centred. have concentric circles at axle holes as guide to reaming - need all help can get. > Use some graph paper on the mirror to make sure the chassis frames are 90 > degrees. (ie axles are at right angles to the track) That is where the comet jig is useful. put big round bits fair distance apart with a romford screwdriver through the axle that is nearest the spacer currently being soldered in place. Move screwdriver to next axle and solder. > I don't believe I can do any better or that I need to do any better. > It wrks for me from 2-4-0s to 2-12-0s. > > Greg.P. Thanks. Simon >>> I try to drill connecting rods and chassis sides in one go and then >>> open >> out the axleboxes. > Was thinking about that this afternoon after Jerry's explanations. Got to > cut out frames anyway so obvious now to use connecting rods to determine > axle centres. May be an idea to start holes through connecting rods ? Well, I start with the connecting rod hole spacing (scale measurement) and then try to arrange frames and rod blanks in a stack and drill them all at once. Then I open out the frame holes to axle or bearing size. (Ok, I'm getting awfully pedantic) :-) The "trick" is always to think ahead lots about the following requirements so that the bodging bits are made accurate by what went before. (things like having to solder inside the tender body after you've sealed it up :-) My best one was designing cylinders that screwed on through the inside of the frame where the solid combined frame spacer/ smoke box saddle was screwed in from the outside. The cylinders covered the screw heads on the outside of the frame. (Duhh!) > May use computer to get a drawing of frames with axle holes to ensure > they > are centred. have concentric circles at axle holes as guide to reaming - > need all help can get. I think you're just about understanding what it's all about. >> Use some graph paper on the mirror to make sure the chassis frames are >> 90 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > currently being soldered in place. Move screwdriver to next axle and > solder. That's where I use the drill rod! >> I don't believe I can do any better or that I need to do any better. >> It wrks for me from 2-4-0s to 2-12-0s. Greg.P. > The "trick" is always to think ahead lots about the following requirements > so that the bodging bits are made accurate by what went before. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Greg.P. Daft - you want to talk about daft things - heres a least embarrassing ... I used to think about fixing body to chassis as the last task when every thing else complete. Got caught out when cut screw for bogie too short. Spent lot of time working out how to use shortened screw or replace it without damaging paintwork (yep really was last thing). Then after all the delicate handling the chimney fell off - oh thats a usefull hole just revealed. Cheers, Simon >> The "trick" is always to think ahead lots about the following >> requirements [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Haven't exactly done that one, but I bought screw cutting attachment for my lathe to solve the problem of losing screws and having to order new ones from the other side of the world. (Dear Customer, that part is not currently available from our spares department) Greg.P. <snip> : Daft - you want to talk about daft things - heres a least embarrassing ... : I used to think about fixing body to chassis as the last task when every [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : delicate handling the chimney fell off - oh thats a usefull hole just : revealed. The above and building the body and then trying to build/bodge the chassis to fit the existing body are probably the two most common errors made by inexperienced modellers... But never mind, as long as one never make the same mistake again one is learning! :~) SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group. > <snip> > : [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > But never mind, as long as one never make the same mistake again one > is learning! :~) Yep, found wobbling whitemetal bodies cause shorts and wheels rubbibg against the body. Both deadly for good running. This is the first time ensured got them fitting together properly and can be seperated many times without problems - ie not using suggested self tapping screw. Another trick in the looking ahead method is to check wheels dont rub against body before adding cab roof - at that point theres a clear view inside. Cheers, Simon <big snip> : OK, understand better. When reach a kit that requires such considerations : then will re-read the relevant sections of those wonderful books by Iain : Rice, consider the purchase of a £200 jig and muddle on. More like a £2 jig (and that is with a hansom mark-up)!... Quite literally, these jigs are just 1/8" bar, longer than a normal axle with the ends turned down to match the crank pin bearing dia. But thus far GEM : kits have not required any more than a simple comet jig and blind faith. So far you have been in luck! : However could you explain one thing to me. I see talk of slop in the : coupling rods of thousandths of an inch, yet when look at my new Bachmann : Jubilee which runs like a dream it seems to have slop in the hundredths of : an inch. : It is - I must add - a serious question. Mass production tolerances I guess, there really is no need for that sort of slop - from engineering point of view. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group. > <big snip> > More like a £2 jig (and that is with a hansom mark-up)!... > Quite literally, these jigs are just 1/8" bar, longer than a normal > axle with the ends turned down to match the crank pin bearing dia. Interesting, do you have info on where can get one ? Thanks, Simon : > <big snip> : > More like a £2 jig (and that is with a hansom mark-up)!... : > Quite literally, these jigs are just 1/8" bar, longer than a normal : > axle with the ends turned down to match the crank pin bearing dia. : : Interesting, do you have info on where can get one ? As I said, 'Alan Gibson (workshop)' used to do them and might well still do, the problem is that the business changed hands a year or so back meaning that not everything is back in production yet or that everything that is back in production is listed yet - email them (or even phone them, at a reasonable time...) and ask, if they don't still do them they will probably know who does. http://www.alangibsonworkshop.com/ Picking up on what you said in your reply to MBQ, if you are serious about improving your skills have you though about joining the EM Gauge Society - many people who have no intention of adopting EM gauge join just for the technical tips and the like, and AIUI they are not elitist like the P4 lot can sometimes be! http://www.emgs.org/ SignatureRegards, Jerry. Location - United Kingdom. In the first instance please reply to group, sorry, Emails to the reply-to address are deleted unread. > : > <big snip> > : > More like a £2 jig (and that is with a hansom mark-up)!... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > http://www.emgs.org/ Thanks for that, will look out for one before start jidenco kit - probably saved a lot of grief. Not really a joiner but may do in this case. Cheers, Simon <snip> : > Picking up on what you said in your reply to MBQ, if you are serious : > about improving your skills have you though about joining the EM Gauge [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : > : Thanks for that, will look out for one before start jidenco kit - probably Gulp! I knew a few experienced kit builders who shied away form those (could be different these days)... : saved a lot of grief. Not really a joiner but may do in this case. Well worth joining the EMGS even if only for the manual/data sheets that come as part of your membership, and this is why the first years membership is higher, to cover the cost of supplying all the data sheets so far published. Also, going back to your mention of loco weight distribution, you might like to take a gander that the following URL ! :~) http://www.clag.org.uk/41-0rev.html Actually there is a lot of good info and tips from what I can seen on the main site. http://www.clag.org.uk/ SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group. > <snip> > : > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > the main site. > http://www.clag.org.uk/ OK will reconsider the em group. But theres a heck of a lot of info on that site :-) Thanks, Simon On 13/02/2009 22:41, simon said, > Thanks for that, will look out for one before start jidenco kit - probably > saved a lot of grief. Not really a joiner but may do in this case. Nooooo!!!!!! Jidenco have a hell of a lot to answer for in putting newbies off kit-building! The problem is that they're cheap so attract people who aren't sure of their abilities, then when the kit doesn't go together they assume it must be them and not the kit. Seriously, you ought to stay away from those until you have more experience building kits where the parts actually fit together. Jidenco (Falcon Brass) kits do have their place, but the approach needs to be more along the lines of using the parts in the kit to help build a model of a specific loco, rather then building the kit. There's a subtle difference. And yes, join the EMGS, even if you don't intend modelling in EM or P4. If you don't want to, you don't have to be an active member, but what you get for your membership is well worth it. SignaturePaul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/ <snip> : Seriously, you ought to stay away from those until you have more : experience building kits where the parts actually fit together. Jidenco : (Falcon Brass) kits do have their place, but the approach needs to be : more along the lines of using the parts in the kit to help build a model : of a specific loco, rather then building the kit. There's a subtle : difference. Indeed, they should be classed as a scratch-builders aid, not as *kits* in the sense that most would think of kits, Jidenco are a couple of steps higher than sheets brass IMO... A lot of work is needed, a lot of fettling and fitting. It's just a pity that Alan Gibson etched loco kits are off the market ATM as they were well designed, well etched and one could buy all (less motor) the other components required from the same stable so you will know that everything is compatible. I once built (and this will show how long ago it was, to those in the know) a Perseverance chassis kit for the Airfix/Mainline N2, lovely kit, when together nicely until I tried to install my nice set of Maygib wheels - the frames just would not fit between the wheel sets! - at first I though that I had been a silly-billy and used the EM frame spacers (building it to P4) by mistake, no I had used the P4 spacers, then I though that I have somehow messed up on fitting the wheels to the axles, no they were correct - chatted to a couple of people but they couldn't shine any light on the problem. I finally phoned the (then) owner of Perseverance kits who was quite happy to explain that the kit had been designed around Sharman wheels and that it was quite possible that my wheels would/could not fit [1], so he told me to send my wheels to him and that he would send me a set of Sharman wheels by return, and if anyone remembers the price/quality difference back then you will know that I was quite happy with the suggestion! [1] the design of the centre axle boss was quite different due to how the wheels were retained on the axles SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group. > On 13/02/2009 22:41, simon said, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > you don't want to, you don't have to be an active member, but what you get > for your membership is well worth it. Yes thank you both - yourself and Jerry - I had already read about Jidenco and this is one of the old ones not a replacement Falcon one. Know my limits and have read most of Iain Rice;s books - marvelous indeed. Have specially ordered and read his Etched loco construction which had me constantly switching between no thanks and yep go for it. however main point is that it will be a long term project that will be finished when it is finished. Intend to have a go, do something else then have another go. Professionals do avoid them cos for them time is money, whereas if have to keep stopping, go back redo or constantly make some part afresh then doesnt matter. Tender has been built and looks ok, rest of kit appears complete except the frames are missing, so there is the first task. Got all instructions and drawings Yep think it was cheap at £60, esp as includes complete set of Alan Gibson driving wheels as well as enough tender/bogie wheels for a few locos. Cheers, Simon [ re Jidenco kits ] <snip> : Professionals do avoid them cos for them time is money, Not sure about that, 'professionals' (whoever they are?...) kit builders could well use them as a source of scratch building parts - as such they could well save themselves time. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group. > On 13/02/2009 22:41, simon said, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people who aren't sure of their abilities, then when the kit doesn't go > together they assume it must be them and not the kit. The worst kit I ever bought was a Crownline "complete kit". It consisted of a loco chassis designed to go under (the loco body of) a tender drive RTR loco, a loco body kit that seemed to have started life as a replacement resin firebox/boiler and detauling kit for said RTR loco, a whitemetal body kit for the motorised tender, and a tender chassis. Like most "complete kits" it didn't come with wheels, gears or motors. OK, that's usual, if not ideal for some, but the rag tag assortment of sub-kits had been put together with absolutely no though as to how it *could* be motorized. Rant over. MBQ : Like most "complete kits" it didn't come with wheels, : gears or motors. OK, that's usual, if not ideal for some, It is rarely ideal to inclued such items and certainly not were wheels and gears are concerned. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group.. On 18/02/2009 08:30, manatbandq@hotmail.com said, > Like most "complete kits" it didn't come with wheels, gears > or motors. OK, that's usual, if not ideal for some, On the lower end of the kit market what ought to be offered is something like a "completion pack" to complete these 'complete' kits. There's at least one advertiser in RM that apparently *only* sells kits complete with wheels etc, which simply means that many people will go elsewhere. Even if I modelled in OO I wouldn't use Romford wheels... SignaturePaul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/ > On 18/02/2009 08:30, manatbandq@hotmail.com said, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with wheels etc, which simply means that many people will go elsewhere. > Even if I modelled in OO I wouldn't use Romford wheels... I live in New Zealand - by the time I order and receive a kit and find out what bits are required to complete, order and receive those, the best part of a year has gone by. <sigh> Greg.P. >> On 18/02/2009 08:30, manatbandq@hotmail.com said, >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Greg.P. Most kits I've looked at have a recommended combination of wheels, gears etc but as you imply you dont get that info until you have the kit. Used to be a problem but now happy with that as Andrew at Branchlines sorted me out with simplest combination of gears/motor. Also by ordering kit in 4 parts it avoids the £100+ entry on the card statement - very useful for those of us not in control of finances. Cheers, Simon : >> On 18/02/2009 08:30, manatbandq@hotmail.com said, : >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] : Most kits I've looked at have a recommended combination of wheels, gears etc : but as you imply you dont get that info until you have the kit. Most half decent traders who specialize in kits will either know or check what is required to complete the kit. I really can't see how Greg's 'problem' is a problem, unless he chooses to use indifferent traders (and I inclued those traders who chose to sell basic kits but not the parts to complete them [1]) or is terminally stupid not to ask the relevant questions when ordering the kit! [1] talking about vanilla flavoured OO gauge here, fine scale modellers know and accept that they may well have to order from two or more places. Used to be a : problem but now happy with that as Andrew at Branchlines sorted me out with : simplest combination of gears/motor. Also by ordering kit in 4 parts it : avoids the £100+ entry on the card statement - very useful for those of us : not in control of finances. Also known as "The other half looks at the bank statements" and would have a fit if s/he knew that I was spending "How much on a model train!"... :~o SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group. "Jerry" <mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote in news:gni2f9$jld$2 @reader.motzarella.org: > Most half decent traders who specialize in kits will either know or > check what is required to complete the kit. When I buy a kit I only buy if I get everything (paint transfers, solder, glue etc excepted). I expect wheels, motor, gearbox, pick-ups - couplings I can live without. However when placing the order I tell the trader that, he'll discuss what the options are and Bob's your uncle - I get a complete kit - it's just that it may come in half a dozen packages. SignatureAll the best Chris > "Jerry" <mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote in news:gni2f9$jld$2 > @reader.motzarella.org: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the options are and Bob's your uncle - I get a complete kit - it's just > that it may come in half a dozen packages. Agree its a safe way of doing things but I prefer to use branchlines supplied gearbox and gears if I think they will fit - used to check with Andrew. Also buy the motor from there to make it a higher value order. Using same components increases chances of getting it right one day :-) Cheers, Simon > Also by ordering kit in 4 parts it avoids the £100+ entry on the card > statement - very useful for those of us not in control of finances. However you need to spend at least £100 on your credit card to ensure that if anything goes wrong (eg the retailer going bust) the credit card company is jointly liable with the retailer. Alan Signaturealan.dawes@argonet.co.uk alan.dawes@riscos.org Using an Acorn RiscPC On 11/02/2009 21:18, simon said, > Is cos am assuming all from same kit that is of siutable quality. That is a very rash assumption, especially if the coupling rods are not on the same fret as the frames (not the case in the Mainly Trains chassis in the OP). It's a fundamental principle of chassis building that bearings/hornblocks are aligned using the coupling rods. I winced when I saw Chris Leigh's article because he hasn't done that, and to compound it he's had to remove the etching cusp (what he calls a burr) in the frames to get the bearings to fit. At some point, he'll need to open out the holes in the coupling rods to suit the crankpin bushes, so that's two sets of holes that he's worked on independently, whilst hoping the centres will remain identical. I doubt they will. This is all why when building a chassis, the coupling rods are always prepared first then the axle bearings jigged to suit. In the March issue, look carefully to see how much slop there'll be on the coupling rod/crankpin. Fortunately Chris has chosen a good quality chassis to demonstrate with, but there are many chassis around where the approach shown will result in disaster. SignaturePaul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/ > On 11/02/2009 21:18, simon said, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > demonstrate with, but there are many chassis around where the approach > shown will result in disaster. Thanks for the warning, as said had no problem with alignment of coupling rods after minimum reaming with the GEM chassis. Will be aware of possible one with other kits though. Cheers, Simon > Nice set of pictures on chassis assembly in this months model rail. But if > anyone following that for their first attempt should be warned that theres > not enough emphasis on getting the frames square. Without them correct then > its difficult if not impossible to make a good runner. Simple chassis jig > like that supplied by comet does help. Part three this month devotes the whole article to fitting Romford wheels. It's evident from the pictures that the coupling rods have not been completely removed from the fret. There is some mentioning of the relative difficulty of quartering. It will be interesting to see what is said about fitting the coupling rods, and how much slack has to be introduced. One point I don't think has been mentioned is that if the rods are part of the same fret as the chassis and aligned with the side frames on the fret then there's less of an issue than if they are on a seperate fret as is often the case. One obvious howler is the statement that chassis for DCC *must* [1] use two insulated wheels. MBQ [1] my emphasis <snip> : One point I don't think has been mentioned is that : if the rods are part of the same fret as the chassis : and aligned with the side frames on the fret then : there's less of an issue than if they are on a : seperate fret as is often the case. That used to be the case, now with almost universal use of CAD software the fret can be on a different drawing (never mind fret) as long as the rods were overlaid with the C/L of the frames. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group. On 02/03/2009 09:14, Man at B&Q said, > One point I don't think has been mentioned is that if the rods are > part of the same fret as the chassis and aligned with the side frames > on the fret then there's less of an issue than if they are on a > seperate fret as is often the case. That is the case here - I think the chassis is the Mainly Trains one, and I have the exact same kit in my "to do" pile. It's perhaps fortunate that Chris Leigh has chosen this as hopefully he won't have too much of a problem with quartering... ...although if he's taken a whole article on how to fit self-quartering wheels I have to wonder! This kit only has four coupled wheels - how on earth can there be any difficulties? > One obvious howler is the statement that chassis for DCC *must* [1] > use two insulated wheels. "Two" insulated wheels? This is a 2-4-0, so I hope there are at least three insulated wheels :-) SignaturePaul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/ > > One obvious howler is the statement that chassis for DCC *must* [1] > > use two insulated wheels. > > "Two" insulated wheels? This is a 2-4-0, so I hope there are at least > three insulated wheels :-) LOL! I, of course, meant to say two insulated wheels per axle. Obviously, the owners who've already converted many live chassis locos must have just been lucky ;-) MBQ >> > One obvious howler is the statement that chassis for DCC *must* [1] >> > use two insulated wheels. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > MBQ Was wondering abouot that for a while - oh dear what have I done in using non-insulated wheels. Then applied common sense - the motor doesnt know where the power is coming from so there cannot be a problem. Was also suprised that the article seemed to only cover wheels but said very little. Think that often the measure of this sort of article is what value does it add that exceeds that contained in the instructions for the kit. On that basis the first article was useful but this one is a bit sparse. Cheers, Simon <snip> : ...although if he's taken a whole article on how to fit self-quartering : wheels I have to wonder! This kit only has four coupled wheels - how on : earth can there be any difficulties? Modelling Folk Law... > <snip> > : [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Modelling Folk Law... One could: - quarter each pair in opposite directions. - put counter weights on incorrect wheels. - use odd sized wheels. - Axles in wrong axle slots. (2-4-0 and up) - Cross thread Romford nuts. - Tighten nuts with Philips driver. - Metric threaded crankpins in BA threaded holes. - BA threaded crankpins in unthreaded holes. - glue Romford nut covers on before tightening. Greg.P. <snip> : One could: : - quarter each pair in opposite directions. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : - BA threaded crankpins in unthreaded holes. : - glue Romford nut covers on before tightening. Was that list drawn up from personal experience Greg?... Signature"You obviously couldn't get a clue if you rolled in clue musk and performed the clue mating dance in the middle of a field full of horny clues at the height of the clue mating season!" > <snip> > : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Was that list drawn up from personal experience Greg?... Like it.... But missed out the more likely :- Cut crankpins too short try to mix Romford (marklin) screw type and none screw type Buy only uninsulated seperate out flangeless from flanged as only want flanged but go home with only flangeless Try to remove crankpins from Romford wheels with pliers, not realises theyre notched for Romford screwdriver So where do you measure the diameter For pony truck only - go for 3'3" instead of 3'9" depending on which version of prototype modeling. Spend ages trying to stop wheels derailing on any curve till realise slots sized for 3'9" wheels. Cheers, Simon > So where do you measure the diameter You measure the diameter at the 17.5mm rolling contact point. (assuming you're operating 16.5mm gauge) That works out at about 1/2 of the way across the tyre towards the flange from the outer edge. Regards, Greg.P. >> So where do you measure the diameter > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Regards, > Greg.P. That explains it, not the outside, not the inside, but half way. Suppose should trial with known one. Thanks, Simon >>> So where do you measure the diameter >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Thanks, > Simon As I almost managed to say, but didn't quite manage, the diameter is measured above the nominal rail center position. >> <snip> >> : [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Cheers, > Simon See he had a gear with grub screw thread problem. reminds of another potential mistake .... run in and find gear teeth stripped. Could be defective gear or gear box not quite square - more like several 's' shapes. Mentions thrust washers on motor shaft, anyone explain what they are and do ? Notice he doesnt say how worm held in place. cheers, Simon > >> <snip> > >> : [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > ? > Notice he doesnt say how worm held in place. Thrust washers are just washers. When you use a worm and gear (as opposed to normal gears) the friction in the gear train, etc., results in a force along the axis of the armature. Most motor bearings are not designed to take this (unless they have "thrust bearings") so you use "thrust washers" to pack any gaps and prevent the armature moving too and fro. MBQ On May 1, 9:54 pm, "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > > "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message <snip> > > Mentions thrust washers on motor shaft, anyone explain what they are and do > > ? > > Notice he doesnt say how worm held in place. >Thrust washers are just washers. Not really. A washer is usually just a simple plain washer as used on a bolt and nut. washers are normally used where there is no movement and loading may need to be spread over a larger area. "Thrust washer" is a term that has come into common use but is not technically correct. Thrust washers, in this sense then, are in fact bearings or, more technically, "friction thrust bearings" for a particular load application, in this case, axially (along a shaft). The alternative is an anti-friction bearing which uses balls or rollers to reduce friction to a minimum. More efficient but also much more expensive. >When you use a worm and gear (as opposed to normal gears) the friction >in the gear train, etc., results in a force along the axis of the >armature. Most motor bearings are not designed to take this (unless >they have "thrust bearings") so you use "thrust washers" to pack any >gaps and prevent the armature moving too and fro. >MBQ Friction bearings tend to be made from bearing materials such as brass, bronze, aluminium alloys, even plastics such as delrin because of their friction, wear and lubrication characteristics. Any washer used to pack a gap is referred to as a "shim" or "shim washer". Shims are usually not allowed to act as bearings except in very cheap mechanisms. Note that any excess axial movement of a worm on its shaft can lead to hammering as the driving motor alternates direction. This hammering can lead to bearing damage or even loosening of the worm on its shaft. Any wormshaft will need to have an absolute minimum of end float, without binding, when the mechanism is at operational temperatures. Allowance for heat expansion of components needs to be allowed for when shimming wormshafts. Worms can be retained on a shaft by a number of methods. The simplest is an interference fit where the worm is simply pressed onto the shaft. Some can be retained by special glues such as Loctite(tm). Others can use grub screws though these are difficult and costly in the smaller sizes. There are other methods but these are unlikely to be found in model railway applications. Worm gearing provides a large reduction in a small space and is non reversible. These are significant advantages in model railway usage. There is however the penalty of increased friction and more arduous lubrication requirements over most other forms of gearing Finally, better quality mechanisms will be equipped with antifriction bearings. Krypsis > On May 1, 9:54 pm, "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > Krypsis Thanks for that gents, tis interesting. have read the relevant section from an Iain Rice book and in the unlikely event have understood, it seems to me that if the model rail thrust washers are fitted on the motor shaft between the motor and the worm then they are not needed ! Cos there is no contact between the motor and the worm. Apologies to the article author, he does mention the use of loctite as a top tip - mind you not sure if shouldnt have been recommended as only way unless good reason not to. Cheers, Simon > > On May 1, 9:54 pm, "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > > "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > the motor and the worm then they are not needed ! Cos there is no contact > between the motor and the worm. If there's no contact between the motor and the worm then there must be a gap and the shaft will experience forces along its axis The motor bearings are only designed for rotational movement. Hence the use of washers to fill any gap and prevent the movement of the shaft. MBQ >>> On May 1, 9:54 pm, "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: >>>>> "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > MBQ In most cases I have seen, any shimming is done INSIDE the motor to prevent armature end float. Unless the motor is open frame, the shimming mechanism cannot be seen. If the armature shaft has end float, it typically means that the motor itself is either worn or, if new, of poor quality. Shimming behind the worm should be seen as compensation for poor quality mechanisms and will often result in the armature shaft being biased away from its correct position. Krypsis >> On May 1, 9:54 pm, "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: >> > > "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > Cheers, > Simon One possible reason for putting thrust bearing washers on a motor shaft is to keep the commutator aligned with the motor brushes. Another is to avoid the windings of the armature from rubbing on the end/bearing plate. Greg.P. >>> On May 1, 9:54 pm, "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: >>> > > "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > Greg.P. Exactly. Both reasons are correct. This is best done within the motor as then there is some guarantee that alignment is correct. No guarantees if said alignment is carried out by the OEM. Anyway, shims at the end of the worm can only bias the armature shaft in one direction whereas the commutator needs to be centralised on the brushes. Krypsis >On May 1, 9:54 pm, "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > "simon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > >Krypsis Good explanation - it's why the Triang motor fitted to their Singles (also AFAIR the Rocket and their TT engines) was such an excellent motor. In article <3accbaca-95ba-45d3-bb3b-829e68c46182@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, > > Mentions thrust washers on motor shaft, anyone explain what they are > > and do ? Notice he doesnt say how worm held in place. > Thrust washers are just washers. Some thrust washers are dished, curved or shaped like one circle of a spring so that they have flexibility to help cushion shocks that may be transmitted from the worm gear (worst case is a sudden reversal). eg see http://www.automotioncomponents.co.uk/pdf/P1272-curved-washers.pdf Alan Signaturealan.dawes@argonet.co.uk alan.dawes@riscos.org Using an Acorn RiscPC > In article > <3accbaca-95ba-45d3-bb3b-829e68c46182@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Alan Have reached conclusion that if theres a gap between the end of the motor and the worm then thrust washers are only required if that gap is less than the end float. Does that appear reasonable ? What is an acceptable end float on say the average mashima ? cheers, Simon >> In article >> <3accbaca-95ba-45d3-bb3b-829e68c46182@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > motor and the worm then thrust washers are only required if that gap is > less than the end float. Does that appear reasonable ? It really depends on where the thrust bearing surfaces are located. They are usually internal to the motor and, given that the motor is reversible, on BOTH ends. If the motor shaft end float is MORE than the gap between worm and motor end, then it is reasonable that said end float is reduced to a bare minimum. The worm shouldn't need to be shimmed but should be centrally located over the worm wheel. > What is an acceptable end float on say the average mashima ? Always aim for zero without binding when the motor is at operational temperature. > cheers, > Simon Krypsis >> In article >> <3accbaca-95ba-45d3-bb3b-829e68c46182@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > motor and the worm then thrust washers are only required if that gap is > less than the end float. Does that appear reasonable ? The end float is only a problem in the motor, where movement can change the position of the brushes on the commutator. End float on the gearbox input shaft shouldn't be a problem, providing there's something in there to keep the worm from digging into the gearbox housing at each end of it's movement. :-) In fact a bit of movement will allow the motor armature to turn fractionally before the drive is taken up, which might be an advantage. > What is an acceptable end float on say the average mashima ? I've never felt any need to shim a Mashima armature, but I certainly have with the likes of MW005, K's etc. The Faulhaber specs specifically state that their motors should be isolated from gearbox input shaft endfloat. If there's no problems with your motor/gearbox combinations then I suggest you don't try to fix them! Gearbox shafts alternately banging on the smokebox door and coal bunker would count as a problem! Regards, Greg.P. >>> In article >>> <3accbaca-95ba-45d3-bb3b-829e68c46182@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Regards, > Greg.P. Thanks, no there isnt and think youve confirmed theres unlikely to be. cheers, Simon > In article > <3accbaca-95ba-45d3-bb3b-829e68c46182@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Alan Zero end float on a motor shaft will prevent shocks in a far more satisfactory manner. It will also allow a much better bedding in of the brushes on the commutator as there will be no longitudinal movement. Krypsis > <snip> > : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Was that list drawn up from personal experience Greg?... Err, well, sort of, yes! Greg.P. > On 02/03/2009 09:14, Man at B&Q said, > > and I have the exact same kit in my "to do" pile. It's perhaps > fortunate that Chris Leigh has chosen this as hopefully he won't have > too much of a problem with quartering... No further mention of quartering this month, but "Test run the chassis by pushing it gently along a piece of track. There should be no tight spots." OK, there are only two coupled axles, but wouldn't this kind of article be more useful if it had a few ideas of what to do when there *are* tight spots? MBQ >> On 02/03/2009 09:14, Man at B&Q said, >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > MBQ Yep a bit thin again, not much more info than the instructions. Would be even more useful if explained what a tight spot appears like - its not obvious to a beginner. Plus the track should contain worse case curves in both directions etc... Even less obvious perhaps is how to determine what is causing the tight spot. Perhaps the author should follow up the article with an offer of a clinic, beginners send in their problems for assistance. Could fill the magazine for a few years. Cheers, Simon Nothing? Not really. Lately I've been seeing the occasional message that was posted through Google groups as blank - nothing but the header. In this case, I read the "giant model railway" post from this poster fine, but this message shows as blank - which it isn't, according to the responses. I'm using Firefox under Ubuntu Linux which may or may not be a factor. But it's always Google group postings, which lead me to believe the problem is there. I've Googled the problem and found some mention of a similar problem in 2006 or so, but nothing current. Has anyone on this group experienced similar blank message bodies? SignatureIntelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw > I'm using Firefox under Ubuntu Linux which may or may not be a factor. > But it's always Google group postings, which lead me to believe the > problem is there. If you're using Ubuntu then why don't you use your Pan newsreader? I must say I have had no problem with it in the many years I've used Ubuntu (now on Hardy). Mike in BC : > I'm using Firefox under Ubuntu Linux which may or may not be a factor. : > But it's always Google group postings, which lead me to believe the : > problem is there. : > : If you're using Ubuntu then why don't you use your Pan newsreader? Well according to his headers he is. Can't quite work out why he mentioned Firefox! SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group. > Well according to his headers he is. Can't quite work out why he > mentioned Firefox! Forgot to engage brain before putting mouth in gear :-). Yes, I'm using Pan. But as I said I don't think that's the problem. OTOH, nobody has yet responded saying they've seen the same problem. SignatureIntelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw : > Well according to his headers he is. Can't quite work out why he : > mentioned Firefox! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : Yes, I'm using Pan. But as I said I don't think that's the problem. : OTOH, nobody has yet responded saying they've seen the same problem. I'm with you on this, not that I have seen blank messages that came from a Google groups account but I do regularly see messages with garbled of missing (text threading) formatting - could PAN be stripping out badly formatted text due to the afore mentioned fault and thus displaying a blank message? > Nothing? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Has anyone on this group experienced similar blank message bodies? First one just now - but as a Firefox/Ubuntu user I've not seen this before. Just had a look on the Risc-OS machine and it's the same, so it looks like Google group issue of some sort. (Don't bother Jerry, you're still kill-filed) Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb >> Has anyone on this group experienced similar blank message bodies? > > First one just now - but as a Firefox/Ubuntu user I've not seen this > before. Just had a look on the Risc-OS machine and it's the same, so it > looks like Google group issue of some sort. Thank you! Now I have some indication it's not just me :-). I'll check with Thunderbird ubder Linux and IE under XP and see if they also show the problem SignatureIntelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw >>> Has anyone on this group experienced similar blank message bodies? >> First one just now - but as a Firefox/Ubuntu user I've not seen this >> before. Just had a look on the Risc-OS machine and it's the same, so it >> looks like Google group issue of some sort. > > Thank you! Now I have some indication it's not just me :-). OK - I checked using Thunderbird, still under Linux. It displays the aforementioned blank message just fine. But when I look at the message source I see strange "=" signs in the quoted text. They do not exist in the post being quoted, Google has added them. I don't know if that's the source of the problem, but it seems likely. Thanks for the assistance - I guess I'll just put up with it as telling Google about it is a lost cause. >>>> Has anyone on this group experienced similar blank message bodies? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the post being quoted, Google has added them. I don't know if that's >the source of the problem, but it seems likely. Those strange "=" signs are there because Google uses quoted-printable when quoting posts that are originally sent using format=flowed to allow for dynamic wrapping. So it's not a bug, as such, it's a configuration mismatch between their system and yours. That would almost certainly be the case on older systems such as RiscOS, which probably can't cope with newer standards such as QP and breaks when it encounters something it can't display. I'm surprised it's happening using Thunderbird on Linix, though, as that ought to be compatible with it. You may find that you've got something set in the options somewhere that's not compatible with QP, possibly the default character set for incoming mail and news - looking at the headers of your post, you're using utf-8 while GG posts all use ISO-8859-1. If you try using ISO-8859-1 yourself, the problem may go away. Mark -- Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk On Mar 3, 6:44 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> Has anyone on this group experienced similar blank message bodies? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > probably can't cope with newer standards such as QP and breaks when it > encounters something it can't display. Nice to know a certain person can't blame my use of Google for this ;-) Does it also explain the problems of those few people who can't/don't/ won't quote properly when a post originates from Google Groups? MBQ >On Mar 3, 6:44 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Does it also explain the problems of those few people who can't/don't/ >won't quote properly when a post originates from Google Groups? I haven't seen any software (except, possibly, older stuff that has a problem with quoted-printable in general) that would fail to quote properly when replying to a post using it. Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express, of course, don't quote properly anyway, without the use of a third-party plugin, but that's a general problem rather than being specific to some encodings - they even break when quoting posts created by their own software. Strictly speaking, Google Groups is actually more standards-compliant in this respect than software which treats news as if it were email and uses format=flowed. QP is part of the latest Usenet standards, while f=f isn't. But f=f won't break a client that doesn't understand it - to them, it will just appear to be hardwrapped rather than softwrapped, so it degrades gracefully. QP, on the other hand, will break in clients that don't understand it, with results that vary from merely containing a few odd characters to being totally unreadable. Even that isn't a problem if authors avoid 8-bit characters (such as pound signs and curly quotes) to begin with, as QP is only invoked if and when the characters can't be displayed in 7-bit ascii. Mark -- Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk > I'm surprised it's happening using Thunderbird on Linix, though, as that > ought to be compatible with it. You got it backwards. It works fine in Thunderbird, it's Pan that won't display it. I'll try your suggestion about character set. And my apologies to all for a non-rail topic - I'll stop now. SignatureIntelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw <snip> > Those strange "=" signs are there because Google uses quoted-printable > when quoting posts that are originally sent using format=flowed to > allow for dynamic wrapping. So it's not a bug, as such, it's a > configuration mismatch between their system and yours. That would > almost certainly be the case on older systems such as RiscOS Or indeed RISC OS. ;-) Still being developed, too. > which probably can't cope with newer standards such as QP and breaks when it > encounters something it can't display. The post in question appeared fine on my system [1], the only time I've ever seen posts with no text is when the news fetcher's only downloaded the headers - which only happens when the post's over a certain size or cross-posted to more than five groups. Then I can have the body fetched should I wish to. Notes:- 1. Microdigital Omega running RISC OS Select 3i4 (RISC OS 4.39). News fetcher is Newshound v1.50-32 and email/news client is Messenger Pro v5.12. SignatureJades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web. nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address! > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > fetcher is Newshound v1.50-32 and email/news client is Messenger Pro > v5.12. Nah, it's a Windows glitch -- MS uses "ANSI" character code, most other people use ASCII or Unicode. Cheers, wolf k. >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > wolf k. Keep up Wolf - it used to be the case but now windows has a multitude of codes and conversion tables. outlook has unicode available as an option. Cheers, Simon : >> <snip> : >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] : Keep up Wolf - it used to be the case but now windows has a multitude of : codes and conversion tables. outlook has unicode available as an option. Also this problem is only being caused by Google groups messages, so unless the relevant Google server is running a MS OS and/or injecting the "ANSI" character code into Usenet... My suspicion is still that it's something to do with the well known fault that causes the correct thread formatting to be corrupted. See in latest issue the body is completed. Suggests solder for those that feel confident (not me yet!) but demos using superglue. Can understand using it for bits that wont get any knocks or stress, but bit delicate for complete whitemetal loco body - anyone done that ? cheers, Simon |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.