Jump to content
 

To stimulate discussion, post photos and exchange ideas, and (being an open public forum) help encourage others to try S scale modelling.

What's on your S Scale Workbench?


ScottW
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
On 06/05/2020 at 18:09, Lacathedrale said:

Now both sets of pointwork are mounted ready for timbers, limewood strips from Mantua models are inbound as we speak:

KOd8CSy.jpg

 

Hi William,

Yes your right the curves on that track work look great.  Don't forget to include the shots of how your progressing with the track work as well as the wagons.  Your progress both with the kit and scratch building in S Scale is definitely food for thought, especially for somebody who is struggling with the minimum radius of 7mm!  I presume the minimum radius of S Scale is somewhere about 3' or 4'?

 

Rich

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that four foot radius is reckoned to be the minimum in S scale although some members have used smaller radii accompanied with care in selection of locomotives and rolling stock and probably a bit of judicious gauge widening. :-)

 

Jim.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thanks, Rich - @MarshLane - I've not made a huge amount of progress - my most recent scratchbuild went a bit pear shaped so I'm girding my loins to disassemble it. Once complete I'll need to stick wheels under my three wagons and so with that order to the store I would expect some movement on the track front. No rush, this is S after all :biggrin_mini:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My guidance having just put down the track on my first S Scale layout is be a little bit generous on the gauge, particularly if you are planning to use romford wheels.  The society used to supply 4 track gauges for different curves.  Green, blue, red, yellow and red, green being straight track red being the tightest curves.  I laid all my track regardless of curve using the yellow and on the tighter curves I used the red.  This may not be standard but it gave me a much better performance.  

 

My locos run on other peoples layouts, whoes owners have probably stuck to the rules (and better at laying track and building locos than me) so there is nothing wrong with Romford wheels (I they are great for S Scale)  - just the extra track clearance does prevent any tight spots when things get slightly misaligned.

 

If you look on Shapeway store someone is selling a three point S Scale track gauge.  Not sure if it is any good - I did not use it but may be of some help. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Timber said:

The society used to supply 4 track gauges for different curves.  Green, blue, red, yellow and red, green being straight track red being the tightest curves.

 

Are they still available - the Society website just lists one track gauge?

 

Rich

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
21 hours ago, flubrush said:

I think that four foot radius is reckoned to be the minimum in S scale although some members have used smaller radii accompanied with care in selection of locomotives and rolling stock and probably a bit of judicious gauge widening. :-)

 

Jim.

 

It's actually possible to run large S Scale locos around 3 feet radius curves providing you accept compromises and, in my case, don't stick to SSMRS standards for the wheels. As I want a main line layout in a small room I've had to accept many compromises and one of those is 3 feet radius curves. All my track is built slightly over gauge as referred to elsewhere in this thread.

 

Over the years I've built almost all the Alan Gibson S Scale LMS kits - Crab and Stanier 2-6-0s, 2-6-4Ts, Class 5, Jubilee and Patriot 4-6-0s and Stanier 2-8-0s. These have used both Gibson wheels (with the EM gauge profile wheels) and more recently Markits 4mm scale wheels on S Scale axles. The Markit wheels are now my preferred wheel because of the automatic quartering although again I'm prepared to accept that there might be 2 or 3 spokes too many.

 

The main compromise is that cylinders and motion support brackets have to be moved out about 1.5mm from their correct position so that the crossheads clear the front axle crankpin. All the chassis are built rigid and for tender locos are free rolling with a powered tender. The 2-6-4Ts obviously have the motor in the tender. I don't allow any side play on the leading axle, a little on the rear axle and plenty on the middle axles. The frames are built up exactly as Alan Gibson supplied them with S Scale spacers. The frames may need to be modified slightly to allow pony trucks/bogies to move freely.

 

The locos run perfectly happily at normal layout speeds around 36" radius curves on plain track and through 48" radius through points. Should I wish to they would go around the layout at a scale 50 or 60mph  without problems.

 

Of course if you use "scale" wheels with narrow treads and shallow flanges then you would have a problem - it depends what S Scale means to you!!

 

Stephen

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MarshLane said:

 

  7 hours ago, Timber said:

The society used to supply 4 track gauges for different curves.  Green, blue, red, yellow and red, green being straight track red being the tightest curves.

 

Are they still available - the Society website just lists one track gauge?

 

 

The price to produce a similar set of gauges today would be a lot more than the £6 price which was set a good few years ago.  I made a few investigations when Parts Officer with no results which would have provided a reasonable price.   The ones in the stores at the moment were made by me on my CNC machine and are a quite basic bar and slot type - to fill a gap.  However,  I had an idea that might produce a gauge and had started to investigate the possibilities just before the AGM,  but got no further for other reasons. :-)  

 

Basically my idea is to produce a rolaguage type in two halves mounted on a screwed rod.  Then the gauge can be adjusted to whatever variant is required and locknutted.   The only critical part in manufacture is the width of the slot to fit the rail.   This means that stores only have to stock a basic gauge assembly which can be adjusted to suit.

 

I was never really happy with having a set of four gauges for standard gauge and the three widened gauges.   Too often you require several gauges of the same measurement when building pointwork and you would accumulate a fair number of non-essential gauges if buying in sets of four.

 

I'll have a chat with Paul Greene and see what he thinks.   We are now using quite a reliable supplier who provides our steel tyres and back-to-back gauges and who might be able to do the job.

 

Jim.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks guys for the feedback, sorry to deviate from things on a workbench!  I am toying with ideas, but am perhaps more settled with trying something in S.  I love my O gauge modelling but (I suspect) like many in S Scale, the shear space needed for a main line run means its just not feasible, and 4mm just doesn't do it for me.  I am sat here looking at a A2 Pacific in 7mm which looks lovely and runs silky smooth, thinking a couple of years down the line (excuse the pun) could I have scratch built something similar in S.  I still enjoy my 2mm Finescale modelling, but think that is going to be more of a smaller branch style layout for which I have space within one bedroom.

 

So, currently considering starting with scratch building a J50 in S - nice simple 0-6-0 tank, no complicated valve gear, no pony trucks and a fairly boxey type body.  Combined with a short 3' demo stretch of track on which to photograph the progress and prove the running qualities, should allow me to evaluate if I can do what I want.

 

 

1 hour ago, steverabone said:

It's actually possible to run large S Scale locos around 3 feet radius curves providing you accept compromises and, in my case, don't stick to SSMRS standards for the wheels.

.....

These have used both Gibson wheels (with the EM gauge profile wheels) and more recently Markits 4mm scale wheels on S Scale axles. Stephen

 

Stephen, thank you for the response. Thats an interesting view. I suspect that I could get 4' diameter curves but 3' or 3'6 (especially where its out of sight) would give some added flexibility to the design.  Just to confirm I have understood you correctly, you are using wheels where the tyres are turned to EM gauge profile, but mounted on S Scale axles to get the correct width?   If you are having to move the cylinders outwards is that because the EM gauge tyres are a thicker profile than true S Scale? Sorry, I could be missing something there....

 

 

3 hours ago, Timber said:

Dont think so but i can loan you mine.....drop a note to the society secretary and she will give you my email details.....there are not many members who live in Bedford.....

 

Sorry, don't know your first name Timber, but thank you for the very kind offer, I'll drop you a PM or get in touch when I have some track work here. I am actively thinking I need to contact the Membership Secretary this week and make a Paypal payment! 

 

 

28 minutes ago, flubrush said:

I'll have a chat with Paul Greene and see what he thinks.   We are now using quite a reliable supplier who provides our steel tyres and back-to-back gauges and who might be able to do the job.

Jim, I would certainly be interested in that proposal if you did - happy to act as a tester if nothing above the 'idiot' skill level is required!

 

 

A question to all you chaps, if I may, I have a fairly large quantity of what I think is Peco Code 100 metre lengths. I hate the look of the Peco track work, but it did occur that there might not be too much difference between Code 87 and Code 100 - could the latter rail be used, or would it look wrong? I am keen to get things right from the start, if I am going to do this.

 

Rich

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Anything is possible, provided you are prepared to make the necessary adjustments to accommodate your personal mixture of constraints.

 

However, that means you will possibly (if not probably) end up with stock that will run only on your layout - which is OK if that’s all you want, but one of the benefits of the defined standards is that I can take my locos and run them on other layouts, and people can run their locos on my layout. The fact that the standards are (within engineering tolerances) derived by dividing the real thing by 64 is a secondary issue.

 

It also means that you will be reversing the direction of travel in finescale, where S has frequently been a (usually unrecognised) pioneer. Even the original “coarse” standards in the UK used ⅞” gauge (scale 4’8” gauge) and BRMSB “00” wheel profiles, which were only slightly over scale profile. Think of it as a finer version of EM.

 

A properly designed small loco will go round quite tight bends, just as the prototype does, and frequently below what the prototype can do as we are able to permit (proportionally more sideplay). But a bigger loco will have more difficulty if you wish to keep things to scale dimensions - I use Charles Wynne’s definition from 1919 for my interpretation of “finescale”: to within a scale inch of the prototype. A 30” radius curve is nom-Robles for a small 0-6-0, but for a bruiser like a J50, I would probably go for something a bit bigger. A chain is 66’, or just over 1’ when reduced to S. Most models will go round a curve of a radius equal to the minimum chains - 1 of the prototype expressed in feet. They may not look good doing so, but that is your own opinion. You may also get bufferlock, which is a fact of physics.

There is also the issue of increased drag on sharper curves, especially with inside-bearing six wheel coaches. I suppose one could fit 2mm bore ball races: in S, there is so little to spend your money on that the extra cost is a trifling matter.

 

I am not trying to put anyone off. Far from it. Stephen Rabone has found a way which works for him, and he is having a lot of fun in a small space which I find very inspiring, but he cannot run his locos/stock elsewhere, and he was lucky in that Alan Gibson produced a small range of kits, etchings and castings which align with his own particular interests.

 

But, if you want interchangeability, there is - unlike other scales - just the single set of standards to adhere to. That’s the whole point of them.

And if you want a large main line layout, you still need a lot of space, money and time to build it all.

 

2 hours ago, MarshLane said:

A question to all you chaps, if I may, I have a fairly large quantity of what I think is Peco Code 100 metre lengths. I hate the look of the Peco track work, but it did occur that there might not be too much difference between Code 87 and Code 100 - could the latter rail be used, or would it look wrong? I am keen to get things right from the start, if I am going to do this.

 

Code 100 has been used by many modellers, but usually the bullhead profile, original sold as “scale” rail for 4mm scale. East Lynn & Nunnstanton uses old SSMRS chairs and Slaters’ code 95 BH rail. Lydham Heath uses code 75 rail in C&L chairs, as did Llanfair in all its various forms. For my North American outline stock, I have purchased some Atlas’s code 83 FB flex track, for the rail as it has a wider head than other brands and is closer to scale in that respect. Peck code 100 FB has a similar width of head.


Of course, if you are going to use over-scale wheel tyres and widen the gauge, etc, and don’t want to run your trains on anyone else’s layout, then the difference in rail height might not bother you anyway and this is then a moot point.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, MarshLane said:

Stephen, thank you for the response. Thats an interesting view. I suspect that I could get 4' diameter curves but 3' or 3'6 (especially where its out of sight) would give some added flexibility to the design.  Just to confirm I have understood you correctly, you are using wheels where the tyres are turned to EM gauge profile, but mounted on S Scale axles to get the correct width?   If you are having to move the cylinders outwards is that because the EM gauge tyres are a thicker profile than true S Scale? Sorry, I could be missing something there....

 

You are correct. Both the Alan Gibson EM profile wheels and the Markits wheels on S Scale axles are considerably thicker in profile than the thinner S Scale profile wheels. To get sufficient clearance on outside cylinder locos behind the cross heads and slidebars you do need to move them out a bit otherwise the leading axle crankpin washer will hit them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, Regularity said:

I am not trying to put anyone off. Far from it. Stephen Rabone has found a way which works for him, and he is having a lot of fun in a small space which I find very inspiring, but he cannot run his locos/stock elsewhere, and he was lucky in that Alan Gibson produced a small range of kits, etchings and castings which align with his own particular interests.

 

But, if you want interchangeability, there is - unlike other scales - just the single set of standards to adhere to. That’s the whole point of them.

And if you want a large main line layout, you still need a lot of space, money and time to build it all

 

As Regularity says I'm having a great deal of enjoyment pursuing my own goals and have accepted the fact that my stock won't run on layouts built to the finescale standards. I do, however, set the wheels so that they are gauged with the SSMRS L shaped back to back gauge. Of course many of my other locos weren't built from Alan Gibson kits - he certainly didn't produce a Deutsche Bundesbahn 2-6-2T with Walscaherts (Heusinger) valve gear!!! Perhaps I better not mention those German diesels with tram bogies regauged to S Scale.

 

Also mentioned in this thread are issues to do with buffer locking on sharp curves. These can be overcome by using something like Sprat and Winkle couplings with a wire bar soldered across the buffers or the method I've standardised on using the NEM type plug in tension lock couplings.

 

Of course I'm the first to admit that scale wheels, gentle curves and three link or screw couplings look much better....

Stephen

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, Regularity said:

 

12 hours ago, MarshLane said:

A question to all you chaps, if I may, I have a fairly large quantity of what I think is Peco Code 100 metre lengths. I hate the look of the Peco track work, but it did occur that there might not be too much difference between Code 87 and Code 100 - could the latter rail be used, or would it look wrong? I am keen to get things right from the start, if I am going to do this.

 

Rich

 

For various reasons I used Peco code 100 on my Deutsche Bundesbahn branch line. At the time I built the track I'd had a lot of trouble with nerve damage to my right hand and I wanted to avoid the amount of heavy filing needed to produce the point blades and stock rails when using code 100 rail. In Germany all rail is flat bottomed and code 100 looks about right for S Scale German track. I modified existing Peco pointwork as shown in this section of my layout blog. Whilst it worked alright and running is good I wouldn't do it again. Click on the link below.

Stephen

 

http://www.steverabone.com/sscalewebsite/new_german_s_scale_layout.html

Edited by steverabone
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 25/07/2020 at 19:32, MarshLane said:

 

Hi William,

Yes your right the curves on that track work look great.  Don't forget to include the shots of how your progressing with the track work as well as the wagons.  Your progress both with the kit and scratch building in S Scale is definitely food for thought, especially for somebody who is struggling with the minimum radius of 7mm!  I presume the minimum radius of S Scale is somewhere about 3' or 4'?

 

Rich

 

I really like the way the track flows on this project. Keep posting your progress.

 

Stephen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the wheels on the SSMRS parts shelves are to the 4mm EM standard.  Those will be the wheels manufactured by Alan Gibson Workshops - WW1, WW2, WW3, CW1 and the Gibson locomotive wheel range.   I suspect that this might have been a deal that the late Robin Fielding had to come to with Colin Seymour to guarantee continuation of wheel supply when Alan Gibson retired and sold the business on.   The Slaters wagon wheels,  the CW2 coach wheels (original Alan Gibson) and the steel tyres to go with the brass loco wheel centres are all to SSMRS standard.  The AGW wheels are also a bit undersize so watch out if you use them to design anything since Slater's wheels might not fit.

 

Colin Seymour actually includes our S scale wagon wheels in his 4mm AGW range,   listed as 3' 7"  diameter wheels. :-)

 

Jim.

Edited by flubrush
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The other thing with track is the height of the rail from the sleeper top: using code 100 puts the rail head at a scale 6.4" above the sleeper top. The rail itself would be 5.7" high, and the extra helps with the subterfuge when soldering rail to PCB. If you used small flat head brad pins, like Peter Denny on Buckingham in EM, then the overall height is about right and an impression of the chair can be made with a blob of solder, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, EM gauge wheels require 15 thou off the back, or something like that?

 

As mentioned above, there's not much progress on that side of things - shortly after that was complete I had something of a crisis of conscience - I had literally kits, track, stock, etc. in EVERY SINGLE scale from 2mm/ft to 10mm/ft - including all three 4mm gauges! I decided to consolidate the whole lot down to 'just' 2mmFS and S -but it really put a damper on any enthusiasm while the dust settled. 

 

I'm blessed to have my own office (10' x 7') and a workshop (8' x 8') but still finding it hard to figure out a layout in either space. I guess it's that old chesnut of 'oh, if only I had another 9 inches...'

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, Lacathedrale said:

EM gauge wheels require 15 thou off the back, or something like that

Only if you want almost flangeless wheels!

3 thou is sufficient, and you may get away with half of that.

 

My first S scale wagon used MayGib EM 8 spoke "coach" wheels, with the axles cut in half and inserted into a 2mm bore tube, using the SSMRS B2B gauge. It ran fine but looked awful, and was long ago consigned to the dustbin of history!

 

Your space is plenty big enough, providing you don't too much in the space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, steverabone said:

 

You are correct. Both the Alan Gibson EM profile wheels and the Markits wheels on S Scale axles are considerably thicker in profile than the thinner S Scale profile wheels. To get sufficient clearance on outside cylinder locos behind the cross heads and slidebars you do need to move them out a bit otherwise the leading axle crankpin washer will hit them.

Gibson 00/EM profile wheels are 2.4mm thick, this is exactly the thickness of a GW driving wheel in 1:64 scale so how thick are the S scale wheels you mention? - I don't see the problem here. Markits are a bit thicker and have a fixed back to back measurement but I don't know how long their S scale axles are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
53 minutes ago, steverabone said:

 

You are correct. Both the Alan Gibson EM profile wheels and the Markits wheels on S Scale axles are considerably thicker in profile than the thinner S Scale profile wheels. To get sufficient clearance on outside cylinder locos behind the cross heads and slidebars you do need to move them out a bit otherwise the leading axle crankpin washer will hit them.

 

I do hope you will please forgive me if this muddys the waters still further, but back in the day I produced a couple of S locos using Alan Gibson P4 wheels where no Gibson S ones were available. I did this on the basis that the P4 profile is about 20% overscale, and S is around/nearly 20% larger than 4mm. They are slightly undernourished width wise but the locos ran okay and from recent comments it appears they still do. It's another get by/stop gap option that you might like to consider where there are no other alternatives.

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I am only talking about the tyre here (boss thickness varies with the type of wheel) but Gibson P4 wheels are 2.2mm thick and therefore too narrow for 1:64. I'm still struggling to understand the problem here, most of my S scale experience is in NZ 3'6" gauge but Gibson wheels work perfectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to my space, I think you're right @Regularity, I've recently accepted the requirement for rationalisation of a proposed 2mmFS plan from an 'around the room' U shape into a single ended shelf layout and I think any S-scale layout really needs to meet those same requrements, i.e. ≤ 10' total, with maximum size of any two boards ≤ 8'.  I'd sketch a goods shunting layout some time back based on a Rice plan, which is where those track template boards originate:

 

image.png.cdcd73c6aa26143b833bbaad3690415f.png

 

Top right is a sector plate when the layout is 'displayed', otherwise operation is essentially an inglenook, fitting on one side of my workshop or under/over the 2mmFS layout.

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

here is what is on the bench.....a saddle tank I am building based on B&M number 18.   Saddle lifts off so that the motor can sit inside the boiler....made one once before but reworking with a 3D print.

IMG_1945.jpg

IMG_1946.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...