Size Matters ?

[JohnBS]

I've just joined aswell and thinking on doing the same with the drop in wheel sets although I don't think you can get them for Dapol loco's just GF

As for the wagons I fancy having a go at quite a few kits ,my thinking is as long as I keep the 2mm ones away from the n gauge ones so they're not in the same train or on scene together I think it would be fine

Brian

Rumour has it that a very good specialist RTR wagon manufacturer produces his wagons to 1:150 scale. Perfect!!

John

[Argos]

Thanks Gentlemen,

 

I think Nick's proposed fudge is probably the answer.

The kit is very nicely cast and has gone together well so it would be a shame not to finish it.

 

and apologies to Purple primer for temporarily nicking his thread...... 

[justin1985]

This thread made me think, I don't think I've ever seen a Mk1 coach built from the Association kits posed with a Farish blue riband model of the same? I'd imagine this would be the most extreme example of the difference in scale to the eye, as it would be proportionately much more visible over a long vehicle, and of course Mk1s should look totally uniform. Does anyone have both?

 

Justin

[Izzy]

This thread made me think, I don't think I've ever seen a Mk1 coach built from the Association kits posed with a Farish blue riband model of the same? I'd imagine this would be the most extreme example of the difference in scale to the eye, as it would be proportionately much more visible over a long vehicle, and of course Mk1s should look totally uniform. Does anyone have both?

 

Justin

 

It's funny you should say that as I have both Farish Blue Riband and 2mm SA NPCC stock, Full Brakes, GUV's, and bogie/4 wheel CCT's. Making comparisons isn't easy because although overall the 2mm stuff does look smaller than the Farish N it isn't always obvious at times, but stands out at others. I have tried taking comparison photos but haven't been able to produce any that really depict the differences, and have come to the conclusion that it depends on the viewing angle and lighting whether just looking or taking shots. As you say it's a proportional thing and these days I do think the difference looks less with the newer correctly proportioned and scaled N gauge stock in contrast to the past where undersized wheels and oversized proportions exacerbated the differences.

 

Izzy

[Nig H]

This thread made me think, I don't think I've ever seen a Mk1 coach built from the Association kits posed with a Farish blue riband model of the same? I'd imagine this would be the most extreme example of the difference in scale to the eye, as it would be proportionately much more visible over a long vehicle, and of course Mk1s should look totally uniform. Does anyone have both?

 

Justin

Hi Justin,

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

Nig H

[Yorkshire Square]

How do the coaches look end to end? Do they have similar heights/profiles?

 

Or do you get this:

 

-------------------------

                               !    -----------------------------

                               !    !

                               !    !

-------------------------!    !

                               !    !--------------------------------

                               !    !                                                ?

[Izzy]

These are Full brakes side on. Farish Blue Riband v 2mmSA.

 

 

Izzy

 

[Yorkshire Square]

Thanks. That's noticeably different.

[John lewsey]

Hi Nigel those coaches are really very nice Izzy yours too

[justin1985]

Definitely a noticeable difference! But then this is about the most extreme example you're likely to see. If they were different prototypes it would look a lot more plausible, whereas when we know BR standard stock has a uniform roof height, it sticks out. If the 2mm coach was a pre-grouping coach, or even an item of freight stock, I doubt many would bat an eyelid unless you told them.

 

In fact, the height difference looks a lot like the difference between a Farish Mk1 and a new Farish Mk2a, which sits notably lower. I don't know if anyone in the Farish forum here worked out definitively where the discrepancy arises, I'm not even confident whether the Mk2a is too short, or the Mk1 too tall? The Dapol Mk3 also looks short, but I'm sure I've read more knowledgable people state that the roof profile is too shallow, creating this effect. So even within modern "high-spec" N gauge you still don't get a consistent roof line between BR standard coaches!

[Nigelcliffe]

If one looks at Izzy's photo, yes the roof lines are different, but so are the solebar lines.  

 

One needs the solebar and buffer beam to be level first, and then make the comparison. Which means dealing with the wheel centre positions, or some adjustment to bogie ride height. 

 

From a quick faff with Photoshop, there appears to be a roof line difference with the solebars level, but not as dramatic as the original picture.

 

 

- Nigel

[Caley Jim]

I have a conundrum at the moment.

 

A while ago I bought a Graham Hughes Caley 498 tank kit off ebay.

The body was duly built and some 8mm drivers were purchased from shop 3 (the prototype has 4ft wheels).

 

The drawing was then photo-reduced to 2mm and the chassis planned out.

Here the problem arose, the chassis drawing was too short.

Ah! I the kit must be 1:148  thinks I, so I rescaled the drawings to 1:148, unfortunately the chassis was still too small.

It appears the kit is over-scale (to fit the proposed N gauge mechanism?).

To make the wheels the same scale as the body I would need 10mm drivers.

 

As a result I am unsure what to do, have a N+ loco and chassis which may make the loco obviously over-scale as against other 2mmFS kits,or a 2mm chassis (using the wheels bought) and over scale body.

Anyone else faced a similar problem?

I was on holiday when I sent my previous reply to this acknowledging that I do indeed have a 498 built from the Graham Hughes kit (he claims it's the only one he's seen!).  the model has a scratch built compensated chassis with a Sagami 10/13 motor (no longer available), 65.3:1 gearing and now has a DCX75 DCC chip sitting upright in the the cab.

 

 

According to Campbell Cornwell (Caledonian Locomotives 1882-1922) these locos were 26ft 9¾in over buffers.  The Skinley drawing (4mm~1ft) I used measures 107mm over buffers and the kit 54.9mm.  Width wise, CC quotes 8'6", Skinley measures 34mm and the model 17.3mm, so as near 2mm scale as damn it, at least in my book.

 

What drawing did you scale down and are you sure the reduction is accurate?

 

Personally i would rather work to a 4mm or 7mm drawing than to a 2mm one as it's much easier to get dimensions accurate.

 

Jim

[Nig H]

Here are more pics of my 2mm Mk1 end to end with a GF one.

 

 

 

 

Not a huge difference in my opinion. The GF one seems slightly higher at the cantrail and roof. I suppose it would be useful to measure from rail height to buffer centre, to cantrail and to the top of the roof to compare with the prototype dimensions.

 

Nig H

 

 

[Donw]

There will be a small difference between the coaches but here we are looking for it. Would it stand out as a train ran through. I don't think so. Possibly if the train is stopped right by the viewer. But to be honest I probably wouldn't notice it if the N gauge ones had the correct buffer heights. So much N gauge stuff seems to ride too high spoiling the proportion.

Mind you Edwardian era GWR coaches are all over the place perhaps Dean was all for 2mm and Churchward had a hankering for N.

Don

[Ian Morgan]

Check out the difference in buffer height here, these models are rubbish:

 

 

Ian Morgan

Hampshire

[Yorkshire Square]

I think your bogies are bigger than Izzy's, Nigel. This may account for the smaller difference in height on yours.

 

Both very nice models, Nigel's and Izzy's, BTW.

[Chris Higgs]

If one looks at Izzy's photo, yes the roof lines are different, but so are the solebar lines.  

 

One needs the solebar and buffer beam to be level first, and then make the comparison. Which means dealing with the wheel centre positions, or some adjustment to bogie ride height. 

 

From a quick faff with Photoshop, there appears to be a roof line difference with the solebars level, but not as dramatic as the original picture.

 

 

- Nigel

 

Well, you cannot expect the solebar height to be the same either. That should itself differ by 0.25mm.

 

Plus there is an issue with the height of sides. I have etched sides from myself (the ones the Association sell), Bill Bedford, Worsley Works and some ancient ones from MTK, and none quite agree on how high the side is. Which is not wholly surprising given that we don't in 2mm model the cantrail quite as it is, which is little more than a rain gutter attached to the sides.

 

I would not in any case run tthe coaches together, as the issue of  glazing methods and the subtle shape of the window corners mean they are never going to quite look unform.

 

Chris

[Argos]

I was on holiday when I sent my previous reply to this acknowledging that I do indeed have a 498 built from the Graham Hughes kit (he claims it's the only one he's seen!).  the model has a scratch built compensated chassis with a Sagami 10/13 motor (no longer available), 65.3:1 gearing and now has a DCX75 DCC chip sitting upright in the the cab.

 

C-R 499.JPG

 

According to Campbell Cornwell (Caledonian Locomotives 1882-1922) these locos were 26ft 9¾in over buffers.  The Skinley drawing (4mm~1ft) I used measures 107mm over buffers and the kit 54.9mm.  Width wise, CC quotes 8'6", Skinley measures 34mm and the model 17.3mm, so as near 2mm scale as damn it, at least in my book.

 

What drawing did you scale down and are you sure the reduction is accurate?

 

Personally i would rather work to a 4mm or 7mm drawing than to a 2mm one as it's much easier to get dimensions accurate.

 

Jim

 

Hi Jim,

 

Thanks for the reply,

checking the dimensions of my model again they tally with the ones you've given here.

The drawings I have are by J. Sinclair in 4mm scale although I only have soft copy and cannot remember where I got it from.

 

Looking again all seems to be in order so I can only presume I had some kind of brainfart when I was printing them out.....

There is a slight discrepancy but nothing like what I measured.    

It was a few months ago and I've misplaced the printouts I scaled to.

 

Apologies!

 

Just to prove another 498 tank exists:-

 

 

                          

[Chris Higgs]

Check out the difference in buffer height here, these models are rubbish:

 

DSC00566.JPG

 

Ian Morgan

Hampshire

 

The bogie springs here are deflected by the weight of all those pensioners (and their sandwich boxes). Not a problem for us as with jus a few exceptions 2mm modellers only ever run ECS movements.

[Chris Higgs]

Check out the difference in buffer height here, these models are rubbish:

 

DSC00566.JPG

 

Ian Morgan

Hampshire

 

yeah, and look at that window frame surround. I never saw that on any 4mm or 2mm model, it must be incorrect.

 

Chris

[nigelb]

Ah yes. Beware the 2mm Taliban!

 

David

you mean ISIS   I Said Its Scale

yeah, and look at that window frame surround. I never saw that on any 4mm or 2mm model, it must be incorrect.

 

Chris

and the over scale roof tapes

[Caley Jim]

you mean ISIS   I Said Its Scale

and the over scale roof tapes

And look at that roof.  It must be held down by a screw in the middle and it's been overtightened and distorted the roof!   No craftsmanship in these modern things!

 

Jim

[Caley Jim]

Just to prove another 498 tank exists:-               

I should have mentioned that I also narrowed the cab down to scale width as it had to be over scale to fit round the intended N-gauge mechanism.  IIRC I trimmed the bunker rear and spectacle plate. I can't recall if I had to infill the rear of the tanks (it was c40 years ago!).  I also fitted a new roof and steps as I felt the cast ones were rather heavy looking.

 

Jim

[Richard Hall]

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.  It didn't occur to me that I could use my scanner/copier to blow the drawings up to 4.14mm/ft.  Anyway it doesn't look underscale or out of proportion to my eyes, but I have been looking at the next project - an N15 (North British, not one of those Southern things) using another Farish Pannier chassis with the rear motor mounting dropped about 2mm in the chassis.  I can just get that to fit inside the boiler in 1:148 but not 1:152, so there's definitely a significant difference.

 

If I do go FS I'm tempted to go for 1:148 bodies on 2mm FS wheels and track, which is not quite right I know (4'7" gauge) but no worse than EM I guess and gives a bit more clearance for the revolving bits.  I'll probably get burnt at the stake as a heretic for saying that.

 

BTW here's the (not yet finished) J27.  As you can see my modelling skills are a long way short of 2mm FS standards but I'm trying.

 

 

Richard

[Ian Smith]

If I do go FS I'm tempted to go for 1:148 bodies on 2mm FS wheels and track, which is not quite right I know (4'7" gauge) but no worse than EM I guess and gives a bit more clearance for the revolving bits.  I'll probably get burnt at the stake as a heretic for saying that.

 

Richard

 

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