PeteDavey

Regarding the conversion of a Steam Loco to 2mmfs, is such a service available commercially? Or does anyone on here offer this service for a fee? I'm currently building track for a rather ambitious (for me) layout which involves a helix each end and would rather like to test gradients with both a small tank such as an 0-6-0 and a tender loco before I get too far in and find its not viable. Having never converted anything that doesn't involve drop in replacement axles before I thought my efforts may be better spent getting some track for a Loco to run on before fettling with Locos (walk before I can run so to speak). Pete

Can anyone point me in the direction of the parts required to convert a Dapol 0-6-0 Pannier Tank to 2fs please? I have searched the association shop and have found the part numbers mean very little to me. Is this an ideal Steam outline Loco to start with or can anyone recommend an easier alternative circa 1940-50 that's readily available and already DCC compatible that would be ideal as a first steam conversion? Pete

For anyone who is interested, a gentleman from the 2mmfs Association kindly made these for me, and subsequently made a batch whilst he was at it. They are a very reasonable price, if you are interested in them let me know and I will PM you his contact details. PS, I'm not playing middle man here, and am not advertising for gain, I just know what a pain they were for me to finally have made so if I can help a fellow modeller I will. Pete

Thank you Mark, I hadn't considered using a smaller tapping drill, I was going to use ptfe, but rather like that idea, especially if combined with slow setting araldite.

Thank you Izzy, I suspected it may be troublesome. And thanks Nick, I will take a look at the finetrax point work, I just want to be able to "play trains" occasionally whilst the bigger picture unfolds if that makes sense?

I plan on using easitrac throughout but thought this might be a great opportunity to get my copper clad skills upto scratch and gives me a little more operational interest by having a siding. I'm just not sure if 2mm check rail gaps will cut it with standard rtr n gauge wheels so was hoping someone may have past experience. Ultimately my current layout will be stripped for parts and binned in the next couple of years as it was only ever started to learn from so my modellers licence on this one is pretty much unlimited.

Apologies in advance if this is in the wrong spot. I have come to the conclusion that converting locos to 2mm fine scale is a time consuming matter, so bearing in mind my current project is intended as a learning curve from the offset I thought why not put a simply branch line through station to one side with hand built line and siding to standard n gauge rail width (9mm). My question is, if I was to do this can I simply shorten a 2mm association brass roller gauge by 0.2mm (by parting in half, running a tap up the middle and re assembling on stud locked to nuts on the outside) or would the check rail gaps be incompatible with modern n gauge rtr wheels? If I can make this work I can still run my locos whilst the fleet undergoes conversion. Hopefully by the time the "master layout" is ready to commence, which will be when I have acquired the necessary skills to do it justice my entire fleet will be converted.

Has anyone successfully finescaled a Dapol Pannier 57XX? If so is it a strait forward task or is only the body left as an original part?

Thank you Izzy, I feel some testing is in order! Last couple of silly questions for a while, I promise! 1) Is there a diesel which is notoriously difficult on anything but perfect track work which I can convert to 2mm for the benefit of testing? 2) Does a association concrete PCB sleeper match the height of easitrac or do I need to use a chair such as the versaline variety soldered in between? Hopefully my next post will be some pictures and results of a test! Pete

Thank you Don, I was thinking of using the easitrac Plastic sleepers with a pcb sleeper between each sprue of 6, with 3 pcb sleepers at the end of each 500mm piece, this would allow plenty of space to solder the excellent check rail idea that Graham has given me, so thank you too Graham. The radius is 16" on the inner track which is down only so I'm hoping the additional friction would be overcome by gravity. I may do a mock up and try it with a finescaled diesel and coaches and see what happens

Thank you Jim. I'm guessing if the easitrac has a soldered PCB sleeper at each end of a 500mm length, and the soldering done whilst the track is pinned over a template then it would essentially become 'set track' which if carefully laid could have an expansion gap set with feeler gauges and wouldn't need fish plates?

I'm currently embarking on a rather ambitious (and perhaps over complicated) 3 level fictitious layout that will incorporate 2 heli (helix's). I'm using easitrac concrete sleepers and code 40 flat bottom rail for the plain line and currently building the points using the tried and trusted pcb/solder method. I have a couple of questions regarding the track laying on the heli. I'm tempted to try to build the plain line in one continuous length using 10m coils of code 40 rail to avoid unessessary joints in the rail in difficult to reach places, however I fear this may prove impractical with potential damage being caused to the track during the laying process. My question are as follows: 1) If I was to build as planned, does easitrac have sufficient 'give' to allow for expansion when laid in a continuous coil with distortion or would I need to allow for expansion gaps? 2) If I was to lay the track in 500mm sections would I need to rely on aligning the rails by careful tweaking as is the norm in scenic areas or are functional fish plates available for code 40 flat bottom rail? 3) I have already built the layout in peco code 80 but was dissatisfied with the toy train looking track so it was taken to the local recycling centre with no more than a few lessons learnt on gradients, baseboard building etc with no scenery ever being laid. So my final question is this; The harshest gradient I have on the layout is a hidden 1:60 on a 16" radius which the Diesels I plan on running could pull 40 wagons or 12 coaches up without incident. Would this still be the case with 2mm or will I have a problem because the tolerances are finer? Sorry for the long post but wanted to get some opinions before layout number 2 is resigned to the bin. Any help, advice will be gratefully received as always. Pete

It's not a problem, the plan is to try yours too! Just let me know when they are available. I want to experiment with the flangeways to get modern N Gauge stock to run smoothly before committing it to a layout. If I am unsuccessful then I will go 2mmfs, this is a last resort as my modelling interests are with the layout, not stock or loco fettling. Each to their own I guess

I have now found someone who has very kindly agreed to make the above roller gauges and crossing nose gauges. The roller gauges are being machined with a 0.85mm check rail clearance. It is now my intention to build a turnout using the above gauges and the same to 2mmfs standards to make an informed decision on which way to go. I have had to place an order for 20 of each for both the roller gauges and crossing nose gauges so will have some surplus to requirements. PM me if anyone is interested. Pete

Is it possible to use a radius as tight as 13.5" in 2mm Finescale? I need to run hidden track to this radius as my maximum baseboard width prevents going larger. I have no intention of running steam on this layout, mainly DMU's and EMU's and perhaps diesel hauled coaches. Is it possible to make this work by gauge widening perhaps? What's the tightest radius you have ever used without problems? Pete