Size Matters ?

[Nigelcliffe]

Interesting thread.  I'm not 2mm FS (yet), but recently started my first scratchbuilt loco, a J27.  It is on a heavily modified Farish 5700 chassis, but I built the body 2mm from 4mm drawings with the dimensions halved, much easier than working from N gauge drawings.....

About ten years ago, I started using drawings at 8mm/ft - either by redrawing, or by photocopier enlargement. I found that even simpler, divide by 4. 10mm/ft might also be a good size.

 

Your loco, Richard, is better looking than my first 2mm efforts. 

 

 

-  Nigel

 

[Richard Hall]

About ten years ago, I started using drawings at 8mm/ft - either by redrawing, or by photocopier enlargement. I found that even simpler, divide by 4. 10mm/ft might also be a good size.

 

Your loco, Richard, is better looking than my first 2mm efforts. 

 

 

-  Nigel

 

Thank you.  It will look a bit better with a dome and handrails. I ought to get on and finish it but seem to have got sidetracked into scratchbuilding a chassis for an LMS 2P, just for fun. The wheels at least go round...

[JohnBS]

Richard,

 

I think the chances of getting burnt at the stake are pretty slim since nearly all of the 2mm scale layouts I've seen run re-wheeled N gauge stock on them anyway.  In fact I think I'm in a minority because there is absolutely nothing ready to run that I want so all of my stuff will be true 2mm scale!  The exception is my saddle tank which is oversized, but that will be sacrificed once I have enough scratch built locos available - some time yet since I only have one other loco :-)

 

Ian

e

Ian,

Just to be perverse, all my scratch built locos are to 2mm to 1ft but run on N-gauge chassis and wheel sets. At least it kept the maths simple and, other than sometimes having to tweak the splashers slightly, I have had no problems.

If I was starting again, I would work in 2mm FS but when you have an accumulation of over twenty locos and two exhibiting layouts with N-gauge track, life is too short to rebuild the lot. See my blogspot: http://www.small-but-perfectly-formed.blogspot.co.uk and let me know what you think.

Regards,

John

[Ian Smith]

Ian,

Just to be perverse, all my scratch built locos are to 2mm to 1ft but run on N-gauge chassis and wheel sets. At least it kept the maths simple and, other than sometimes having to tweak the splashers slightly, I have had no problems.

If I was starting again, I would work in 2mm FS but when you have an accumulation of over twenty locos and two exhibiting layouts with N-gauge track, life is too short to rebuild the lot. See my blogspot: http://www.small-but-perfectly-formed.blogspot.co.uk and let me know what you think.

Regards,

John

 

John,

 

I have followed your work for many years, and found your blog a few years ago when I returned to the hobby.  Your scratch built locos and stock have always been an inspiration - I fondly remember reading your account of the 47xx in the 2mm mag in the '80's.  My only regret is that I have never seen either Ashburton or Totnes or the scratch built stock in the flesh so to speak.

 

If there was any N gauge stock that I could use on a c1906 layout I wouldn't have a problem doing so, but if I have to build it all from kits or scratch then I might as well be consistent and make it all to 2mm scale.  Obviously, I will make use of things like station fencing, people and other N gauge items that would be rather laborious or time consuming to scratch build.

 

Regards,

Ian

[John lewsey]

e

Ian,

Just to be perverse, all my scratch built locos are to 2mm to 1ft but run on N-gauge chassis and wheel sets. At least it kept the maths simple and, other than sometimes having to tweak the splashers slightly, I have had no problems.

If I was starting again, I would work in 2mm FS but when you have an accumulation of over twenty locos and two exhibiting layouts with N-gauge track, life is too short to rebuild the lot. See my blogspot: http://www.small-but-perfectly-formed.blogspot.co.uk and let me know what you think.

Regards,

John

Just looked at your blog fantastic photos.

[Chris Higgs]

Hi Justin,

 

Here are a few pics. As Izzy says, its not easy to make a comparison.

 

BR Mk1 comparison (2).JPG

 

BR Mk1 comparison (4).JPG

 

BR Mk1 comparison (5).JPG

 

The 2mm version is made from Bill Bedford etched sides.

 

Nig H

 

Lovely work (as usual ) Nigel.

 

Looking again I notice how much the white topped tables stand out on your example, and are just as I remember them in real life (although perhaps not quite that white!). I will now have to open up my Bachmann examples to paint the tables.

 

Chris

[Richard Hall]

When I find myself doing something like this, I start to wonder whether I might be better off in 2mm FS...

 

H section chassis (two pieces of brass soldered back to back), two stage gearing, ancient Farish wheels turned down to RP25 or thereabouts using a Black and Decker power drill and a file (seriously). It runs better than it deserves to, but the axle slots are fractionally out so the rods are binding slightly.  I have a fix for that but it's fiddly.  This is in danger of getting off-topic, but I thought people might find it interesting.  It did occur to me to wonder whether a bit more file work might give me 2mm FS wheelsets for a Poole Farish chassis, but the tyre width is the problem.  They'd probably work, but would look a bit naff compared to the pretty little 2mm Assoc ones.

 

Maybe I'll just set up my own standard - 1:148, 9.42 mm gauge, RP25 wheels on code 40 track, with slightly wider check rail clearances than the 2mm Assoc standard.  Regauging most modern RTR stuff looks not too hard, a lot easier than rewheeling something like a 2MT anyway. This could be fun...

 

 

 

[Chris Higgs]

When I find myself doing something like this, I start to wonder whether I might be better off in 2mm FS...

 

H section chassis (two pieces of brass soldered back to back), two stage gearing, ancient Farish wheels turned down to RP25 or thereabouts using a Black and Decker power drill and a file (seriously). It runs better than it deserves to, but the axle slots are fractionally out so the rods are binding slightly.  I have a fix for that but it's fiddly.  This is in danger of getting off-topic, but I thought people might find it interesting.  It did occur to me to wonder whether a bit more file work might give me 2mm FS wheelsets for a Poole Farish chassis, but the tyre width is the problem.  They'd probably work, but would look a bit naff compared to the pretty little 2mm Assoc ones.

 

Maybe I'll just set up my own standard - 1:148, 9.42 mm gauge, RP25 wheels on code 40 track, with slightly wider check rail clearances than the 2mm Assoc standard.  Regauging most modern RTR stuff looks not too hard, a lot easier than rewheeling something like a 2MT anyway. This could be fun...

 

 

Well, you said it. People are already running RP25 on 9.42mm Easitrac plain track (it works fine and does not need the BtoB adjusting), and presumably doing some kind of fudge at the pointwork. Or perhaps using this: http://www.britishfinescale.com/

 

But you still have to get hold of the loco wheels. Not sure if Bachmann sell them as spares, or perhaps you can rely on people like me who are converting Farish locos to 2FS and have the original wheels left over. These will surely be much easier than working on ancient examples which are never really gong to look any good.

 

My experience with Poole-era Farish is that for most they look rubbish and run rubbish, except the most recent.

 

Chris

[Richard Hall]

Well, you said it. People are already running RP25 on 9.42mm Easitrac plain track (it works fine and does not need the BtoB adjusting), and presumably doing some kind of fudge at the pointwork. Or perhaps using this: http://www.britishfinescale.com/

 

But you still have to get hold of the loco wheels. Not sure if Bachmann sell them as spares, or perhaps you can rely on people like me who are converting Farish locos to 2FS and have the original wheels left over. These will surely be much easier than working on ancient examples which are never really gong to look any good.

 

My experience with Poole-era Farish is that for most they look rubbish and run rubbish, except the most recent.

 

Chris

 

The Poole mechanisms suffered from sloppy assembly and the motors are huge, but with fettling they can be made to run very sweetly indeed, and if nothing else they provide a source of wheels and gears for "N".  Why not go the whole hog and do 2mm FS? For me it's a question of what I want to spend my modelling time doing.  I think that the astonishing quality of modern RTR is a game-changer.  If I was modelling something for which there is little or no commercial support (pre Grouping, say) then the decision would be easier - if you have to make everything yourself it might as well be in 2mm.  But I don't personally want to be scratch or kit building BR 12 ton vent vans and Lowfits in 2mm, when I can pay a tenner and buy something that is far nicer than I could achieve myself, just 4% bigger. I can't think of a single wagon I need that isn't available to current (i.e. beautiful) RTR standard. I'd rather put the effort into interesting Borders steam engines like D34s and G5s which are unlikely to be available RTR in my lifetime.  However, I don't like the "narrow gauge" look of 9mm - it may be only 0.42mm difference but I can see it. OK, 1:148 should really be 9.7mm gauge, but no-one does track gauges for that, and in any case that .28mm will be handy on outside cylinder locos.

 

Looking at the 2mm Assoc chassis building components I'm not sure they lend themselves to my kitchen table approach - fine if you have a set of accurately etched frames as a starting point, but I'd end up building the locos that are available rather than the ones I want.  (Shortlist: J21, J27, J35, J36, D30, D34, G5, K1, and BR Standard 2MT and 3MT once I get really brave.) So I'm intrigued by the idea of "coarse scale" 9.42mm gauge and fancy giving it a go. What's the worst that can happen?

 

Richard

[Donw]

 

Looking at the 2mm Assoc chassis building components I'm not sure they lend themselves to my kitchen table approach - fine if you have a set of accurately etched frames as a starting point, but I'd end up building the locos that are available rather than the ones I want.  (Shortlist: J21, J27, J35, J36, D30, D34, G5, K1, and BR Standard 2MT and 3MT once I get really brave.) So I'm intrigued by the idea of "coarse scale" 9.42mm gauge and fancy giving it a go. What's the worst that can happen?

 

Richard

 

Go for it if that is what appeals. You haven't mentioned pointwork. The 2mm Easitrac components or the pcb sleepers and rail will allow you to make track to whatever standard you want. The main problem is sorting out gauges. The track gauge will be fine except where the wing rails are. I reckon if you can find a suitable size strip to gauge the check rails and the wing rails  and use the three point association gauge it would be workable. Otherwise you need to turn up some gauges (or persuade someone else to do that for you).

I would point out that people were using association wheels to build all sorts of locos long before the etched chassis became available. These are a great help as the are both accurate and timesaving. But I can see the time saving by using rtr wagons etc may be much greater.

I for one would be interested to see your results on here.

Don

[Richard Hall]

Go for it if that is what appeals. You haven't mentioned pointwork. The 2mm Easitrac components or the pcb sleepers and rail will allow you to make track to whatever standard you want. The main problem is sorting out gauges. The track gauge will be fine except where the wing rails are. I reckon if you can find a suitable size strip to gauge the check rails and the wing rails  and use the three point association gauge it would be workable. Otherwise you need to turn up some gauges (or persuade someone else to do that for you).

I would point out that people were using association wheels to build all sorts of locos long before the etched chassis became available. These are a great help as the are both accurate and timesaving. But I can see the time saving by using rtr wagons etc may be much greater.

I for one would be interested to see your results on here.

Don

At the moment I'm thinking of Easitrac plain track, and soldered PCB pointwork using the Finetrax wing and check rail clearances, but to 9.42 gauge rather than 9, obviously.  My planned layout is an N gauge rehash of Ian Futers' "Longwitton", continuous 2' curve through the entire visible area, so all my pointwork will have to be hand-built anyway.  I tried cutting away the milled base on a Finetrax turnout to curve it and it fell to bits Combination of 2mm Assoc track gauges and a feeler gauge borrowed from my workshop should sort it.

 

I'm not trying to criticise 2mm Assoc standards or products in any way. 2mm is a thing of great beauty.  I actually tried 2mm FS a good few years ago and fell at the first hurdle - building an etched N/S chassis that actually ran.  I still have some of the bits.  I'm more patient now than I was back then and could probably make it work, but I'm less sure about scratchbuilding a chassis using the 2mm Assoc constructional standard.  I don't think I can cut or drill brass accurately enough with the primitive tools I have.

[Chris Higgs]

 

>I would point out that people were using association wheels to build all sorts of locos long before the etched chassis became available. These are a great help as the are both >accurate and timesaving. But I can see the time saving by using rtr wagons etc may be much greater.

 

Yes, but there really is no issue with just rewheeling RTR wagons to 2FS, and it takes no time at all. Don't worry about the size difference, coaches apart (which is where this thread began) you will be pushed to notice scale differences in wagons, they were all sizes and shapes anyway. I personally would never really countenance building scratch built steam engines in N using commmercial wheels, even if you can find some with see-through spokes, the balance weights are likely to be wrong. I have some Beaver ones somewhwere from years backs, they truely are horrid.

 

The real Rolls Royce of N wheels were some that were done by Mike Bryant  many years ago of the Association methods but with N profile tyres, those lucky enough to posess them keep them under lock and key and guarded by fierce dogs. I believe I have a few, but I deliberately hid them somewhere I have forgotten, so their location cannot be obtained even under torture.

 

 Chris

[Caley Jim]

............., but I'm less sure about scratchbuilding a chassis using the 2mm Assoc constructional standard.  I don't think I can cut or drill brass accurately enough with the primitive tools I have.

Don't think that you need an engineer's workshop to scratchbuild 2FS chassis.  I have nothing more sophisticated than an old Black and Decker 2 speed drill with a vertical stand and a Precision Petite minidrill, also with a vertical stand.  I've built 8 locos, at least three of which have had the original chassis replaced, two of these because they were showing signs of wear.  Careful marking out and using the coupling rods to pilot the holes in the frames are the key things to be aware of.  Latterly I drew the parts in CAD, printed them out and stuck them to the metal rather than marking on the metal.  Having said that, I will probably draw u artwork for any future chassis and get them etched.

 

Jim

[Richard Hall]

Don't think that you need an engineer's workshop to scratchbuild 2FS chassis.  I have nothing more sophisticated than an old Black and Decker 2 speed drill with a vertical stand and a Precision Petite minidrill, also with a vertical stand.  I've built 8 locos, at least three of which have had the original chassis replaced, two of these because they were showing signs of wear.  Careful marking out and using the coupling rods to pilot the holes in the frames are the key things to be aware of.  Latterly I drew the parts in CAD, printed them out and stuck them to the metal rather than marking on the metal.  Having said that, I will probably draw u artwork for any future chassis and get them etched.

 

Jim

I discovered CAD when I was trying to design my own coupler system, about which the less said the better.  It's like magic, I sent the drawing to PPD and got exquisite etches back in the post. think I'd need a lot more practice before I could do a set of frames. I really ought to get a drill stand, if nothing else. A minidrill with decent bearings would help as well. I'm doing everything with a pin vice at the moment as my minidrill just draws nice neat circles with the tip of the drill bit. It's good for stirring paint but not much else.

[CF MRC]

Richard, a major drawback of using the 9.42 gauge track with coarser scale wheels will be a lack of clearances on splashers and valve gear.

Making chassis with hand drills is entirely possible, just slower. My posts on building a P2 start here, which has a really basic chassis: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65499-whats-on-your-2mm-work-bench/page-41

I do have a very accurate vertical drill, and there is no doubt that this is more useful than a lathe.

 

Tim

[Richard Hall]

Richard, a major drawback of using the 9.42 gauge track with coarser scale wheels will be a lack of clearances on splashers and valve gear.

Making chassis with hand drills is entirely possible, just slower. My posts on building a P2 start here, which has a really basic chassis: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65499-whats-on-your-2mm-work-bench/page-41

I do have a very accurate vertical drill, and there is no doubt that this is more useful than a lathe.

 

Tim

 

Richard, a major drawback of using the 9.42 gauge track with coarser scale wheels will be a lack of clearances on splashers and valve gear.

Making chassis with hand drills is entirely possible, just slower. My posts on building a P2 start here, which has a really basic chassis: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65499-whats-on-your-2mm-work-bench/page-41

I do have a very accurate vertical drill, and there is no doubt that this is more useful than a lathe.

 

Tim

Yes, I can see the clearance problem.  Doing bodies in 1:148 rather than 1:152 will help a bit, and using an NEM based back to back will help a lot.  9.42 gauge on NEM wheels implies a back to back around 7.85mm (against 8.51 for 2mm FS) which offsets some of the extra width of the wheels. But doing some calculations it's probably not enough. I've been playing around with my track plan and can get the hidden curves up to 12" radius before I start losing too much of the scenic area or loop length in the fiddle yard.  But I have a feeling that might still be too tight for 2mm FS. I'll try to get my old 2mm chassis kit on its wheels, knock up a section of 9.42mm 12" curve in soldered PCB with gauge widening and see what happens. The chassis is for a Jinty I think, and with 8' + 8'6" wheelbase and 4'7" drivers it will go under my scratchbodged J27 body.  Now there's a coincidence.

 

When you said "P2 with a really basic chassis" I thought you meant a J26 Those rods are spectacular.

 

Richard

[Jim T]

Sorry to resurrect an old topic but I think the coaching stock comparisons are very useful. I'm just starting on converting some Dapol Mark 3A's to form a model of the 1979 era 09:15 Euston - Glasgow. This was formed with Mark 1 full brake and kitchen buffet cars and often a Mark 2E or 2F First Open adjacent to the kitchen buffet.

 

The Dapol Mark 3A's are clearly lower than the Farish Mark 1's, and I'm pretty sure the roofline should be the same as a Mark 1. Temporarily I'll live with this (and substituting an RU for the RKB), but I'm planning on building the RKB and BG from 2mmFS kits at some future point to give a better roofline.

 

We'll have to wait and see how the Mk 2 air con stock from Farish turns out, but that's just one vehicle so if there has to be a fudge to get everything looking coherent that'd be the one to adjust.

 

Jim

[Chris Higgs]

Sorry to resurrect an old topic but I think the coaching stock comparisons are very useful. I'm just starting on converting some Dapol Mark 3A's to form a model of the 1979 era 09:15 Euston - Glasgow. This was formed with Mark 1 full brake and kitchen buffet cars and often a Mark 2E or 2F First Open adjacent to the kitchen buffet.

 

The Dapol Mark 3A's are clearly lower than the Farish Mark 1's, and I'm pretty sure the roofline should be the same as a Mark 1. Temporarily I'll live with this (and substituting an RU for the RKB), but I'm planning on building the RKB and BG from 2mmFS kits at some future point to give a better roofline.

 

We'll have to wait and see how the Mk 2 air con stock from Farish turns out, but that's just one vehicle so if there has to be a fudge to get everything looking coherent that'd be the one to adjust.

 

Jim

 

I think it would be worth working out why the Dapol and Farish coaches do not match in height. They are both supposed to be the same scale, so perhaps the Mk1s are mounted too high on their bogies, or the Mk3s too low. And check the drawings to make sure your assumption of them being the same height is correct. In real life most of us saw them from the platform and would probably not have noticed a difference in roof height.

 

Mk3s here: http://www.oxfordrail.com/76/images2/ORMK3%20LINE.jpg

 

Mk1s and Mk2s here: http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/Diagram_Book_200_for_issue.pdf

 

Could also be down to the wheel sizes.

 

I assume you are talking about the latest Farish Mk1s? The older style did have some dimensional issues

 

Chris

[Jim T]

Thanks for the links Chris.

 

The Mk 3 dims are in the diagram book too and, as I suspected, they should be slightly higher than the Mk 1s. (3810mm Mk 3 vs 3772mm Mk 1)

 

With my N gauge models stood on their flanges on a glass shelf the opposite is the case. I'll fit the relevant 2mm wheels and if the discrepancy persists I'll have a look at buffer heights first to see if it's in the bogie / bodyshell interface.

 

I don't suppose anyone knows off the top of their head what the Dapol axle lengths are? (I'll have to pick my micrometer up from my storage unit to check them otherwise before I can order the 2mm FS wheelsets).

 

Thanks again

Jim

 

 

[Stephen 28]

Thanks for the links Chris.

 

The Mk 3 dims are in the diagram book too and, as I suspected, they should be slightly higher than the Mk 1s. (3810mm Mk 3 vs 3772mm Mk 1)

 

With my N gauge models stood on their flanges on a glass shelf the opposite is the case. I'll fit the relevant 2mm wheels and if the discrepancy persists I'll have a look at buffer heights first to see if it's in the bogie / bodyshell interface.

 

I don't suppose anyone knows off the top of their head what the Dapol axle lengths are? (I'll have to pick my micrometer up from my storage unit to check them otherwise before I can order the 2mm FS wheelsets).

 

Thanks again

Jim

Measure the heights with both models stood on a length of track - this removes the (possibly) different Farish and Dapol flange depths from the equation and allows a true comparison to be made. Compare buffer heights too as these should be fairly close even if not necessarily exactly the same.