Any Question Answered

[Lacathedrale]

Thank you all, it's given me some gumption to try again. I'll check out the area groups, too.

 

In the meantime, I'm aiming for a plain soldered PCB B6. I've got the sleepers and straight stock rail laid. I just wanted to be clear, that the 'Track' book recommends using scrap etch/etc. to join together the whole vee and wing rail assembly in the jig. Because I'm not using chairplates anywhere else on my turnout, that's not feasible is it - and I'll have to use the other option ('straight stock rail first').

 

Cheers!

[Chris Higgs]

Thanks David. Since posting this I think I'd like to give 2FS one more try. I've been having just so much trouble with it, my enthusiasm almost completely drained.

 

I guess this is a question more for the thread than anywhere else - what should I do when I'm just not very good with it comes to precision work? Should I just keep bashing away? My PCB pointwork seemed find until it was a bit tight, then a bit loose, then a bit tight somewhere else, etc. until everything was a complete mess. I built an easitrac point and it was OK, but I didn't really enjoy it, and it was 'off' the PCB point which I never got working properly, so didn't get to see it in anger. With regard to kits, I can barely hold the pieces let alone solder them in place effectively - again, is this a specific technique or just practise?

 

Sorry to come across as a bit of a downer, but I've invested a few hundred quid into some locos, parts, kits and components and feel like I've come out with less than nothing - it has been a net loss in enjoyment and enthusiasm - and I'm sure that's not an uncommon beginner thought, which is why I'm back here asking for help - but I literally do not know how to proceed.

 

I think all of the things you mention are relevant. Yes, practice is very important, the first time I built a wagon chassis I was in despair, but repetition means I put them together without a thought. Techniques and tools are also important, reading up on what others do and finding which work for you. I'm not great at all at traditonal soldering of etched kits, I always use an RSU as that is what works for me and it is like having two extra hands available. Whereas building PCB points I find very easy and natural using a normal soldering iron and electronic solder. Odd, I agree, and I don't know why.

 

If you can master buidling track (one way or another), then everything else is optional. If you cannot assemble kits, then rewheel RTR stock and enjoy running those. You really don't need to be able to build a scratchbuilt loco to get something out of 2FS.

 

Having said all of that, there are some people who just cannot manage it. As I build models in other scales too, I can tell you etched kits are easier to manage in 4mm, as they are just bigger. Perhaps that is you, only you can tell. My brother cannot work with etched kits at any scale, he has a shake in his hands that probably results from his other hobby of restoring full size coaches and cars, which involves a lot of bashing metal and wood about. So he just enjoys RTR OO models.

 

Chris

[Izzy]

Thank you all, it's given me some gumption to try again. I'll check out the area groups, too.

 

In the meantime, I'm aiming for a plain soldered PCB B6. I've got the sleepers and straight stock rail laid. I just wanted to be clear, that the 'Track' book recommends using scrap etch/etc. to join together the whole vee and wing rail assembly in the jig. Because I'm not using chairplates anywhere else on my turnout, that's not feasible is it - and I'll have to use the other option ('straight stock rail first').

 

Cheers!

 

In this case I would solder bits of wire across the V/wing rails in-between where the sleepers will sit. You can snip off any excess on the outside once laid on the sleepers, or if they really bother you and look obvious, snip them between the rails and de-solder them once the turnout is made. (individual bits will be easier to remove than one longer length needing more heat). Generally though I just solder up the V in a simple card jig to get roughly the right angle and then tack it down onto the sleepers/chairplates. Often I will make the V up straight onto the sleepers/chairplates. But then I have always made the wing rails separately, never having used jigs, often working in scales where they just didn't exist anyway.

 

Trying different ways may help you find a method that suits you and the tools you have. In truth there is no right or wrong way of doing most things, just that some are better/quicker/easier when you can use them, and everybody finds some options work for them better than others.

 

Izzy

[richbrummitt]

Thank you all, it's given me some gumption to try again. I'll check out the area groups, too.

 

In the meantime, I'm aiming for a plain soldered PCB B6. I've got the sleepers and straight stock rail laid. I just wanted to be clear, that the 'Track' book recommends using scrap etch/etc. to join together the whole vee and wing rail assembly in the jig. Because I'm not using chairplates anywhere else on my turnout, that's not feasible is it - and I'll have to use the other option ('straight stock rail first').

 

Cheers!

It was my fourth attempt at my first steam loco chassis that actually ran. I lost a pair of driving wheels during the component recovery from attempt two but I needed the failures to find out the minor intricacies. As someone said earlier; The time cost is more significant than materials. The latter was about £10 of waste.

[Lacathedrale]

Well, after about 1.5 hours I've got an assembled vee and wing rails. I buggered up the first time and used the filing jig to solder the vee, which meant that it didn't perfectly fit into the alignment jig - but now I've got a spare, I guess.

 

I used some small bits of brass strip, and it's only upon re-reading that I see the recommendation is to use chairplates anyway, and site them between the sleepers if you are soldering the rail straight to the sleepers themselves.  Everything fit well into the jig and soldered up nicely (after the tenth go).

Edited October 6, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[Donw]

Thank you all, it's given me some gumption to try again. I'll check out the area groups, too.

 

In the meantime, I'm aiming for a plain soldered PCB B6. I've got the sleepers and straight stock rail laid. I just wanted to be clear, that the 'Track' book recommends using scrap etch/etc. to join together the whole vee and wing rail assembly in the jig. Because I'm not using chairplates anywhere else on my turnout, that's not feasible is it - and I'll have to use the other option ('straight stock rail first').

 

Cheers!

 

Well actually you can . If you carefully place the scrap etch so the pieces will be between the timbers when placed on the turnout it will work fine. The exception is if you use interlaced timbering as the gaps will be too small. If you are going to use chair plates you need etch of the same thickness and to ensure they are placed to align with the timbers. 

Note the scrap etch may fall off as you solder the rail to the PCB that will not matter as long as it held it in place while lining it all up.

Also you can start with the crossing V on its own if you wish A couple of pieces of stiff card approx 9mm wide will help to align the V.   

 

Don

[Lacathedrale]

I used a turnout template that had the timbers laid and the straight stock rail already glued - but stupidly didn't gap the timbers before shelving it many months ago - so today's task will be to establish whether my post-hoc gapping has been sufficient. I have a few more questions if it's no trouble, but if I'm becoming a bore please feel free to tell me and I'll keep schtum

 

- Does building trackwork ever get more speedy? It was relatively enjoyable apart from some rather caustic Anglo Saxon when fitting the check rails, though it took me about 5 hours to build the point.

 

- For this point I've used a PCB sleeper as a tie bar. My plan was to drill a tiny hole for some piano wire to slip under the bar and up into it, is this the easiest way for this test piece? Is there a secret to not ripping the tie in half when drilling it? Easitrac will be slightly higher than the PCB pointwork because of the chairs,. so my thoughts are to place card under the points (which handily will raise them up for the above piano wire. Is this roughly correct?

 

- Assuming this point isn't a total write-off, then I'm going to need to build a crossover.  I understand I should build the formation as one piece, but I'm not sure how that translates to cutting and fixing rail - for example, the vee of one turnout will extend to be the curved stock rail of the other, and the exit road of it's own. Is the assumption that this is what is done (joggles and further trimming done in-situ)?

[queensquare]

I used a turnout template that had the timbers laid and the straight stock rail already glued - but stupidly didn't gap the timbers before shelving it many months ago - so today's task will be to establish whether my post-hoc gapping has been sufficient. I have a few more questions if it's no trouble, but if I'm becoming a bore please feel free to tell me and I'll keep schtum

 

- Does building trackwork ever get more speedy? It was relatively enjoyable apart from some rather caustic Anglo Saxon when fitting the check rails, though it took me about 5 hours to build the point.

 

- For this point I've used a PCB sleeper as a tie bar. My plan was to drill a tiny hole for some piano wire to slip under the bar and up into it, is this the easiest way for this test piece? Is there a secret to not ripping the tie in half when drilling it? Easitrac will be slightly higher than the PCB pointwork because of the chairs,. so my thoughts are to place card under the points (which handily will raise them up for the above piano wire. Is this roughly correct?

 

- Assuming this point isn't a total write-off, then I'm going to need to build a crossover.  I understand I should build the formation as one piece, but I'm not sure how that translates to cutting and fixing rail - for example, the vee of one turnout will extend to be the curved stock rail of the other, and the exit road of it's own. Is the assumption that this is what is done (joggles and further trimming done in-situ)?

 

That all sounds fine. If you are soldering the rail directly to the sleepers and assembling the V either in an Association jig or a little ply/card one then there really isn't any need for the little strips of brass under the rail.For building larger formations crossings etc just leave the rails longer when soldering up the V then offer it up to the drawing and mark where the other V/joggle or whatever needs to be.

Rail soldered directly to sleeperes doesn't look as good as using chairplates but is a lot quicker and easier and with careful painting can still look fine and I often still do it. As you suggest a bit of thin card to ensure the rail top is level is fine.  I tell the story of the 'expert' who stood at the front of Highbury pontificating on how marvelous the trackwork looked and that just soldering rail to the sleepers was sloppy and didn't look good. Once I'd finished letting him dig his hole he asked how I'd done the track - rail direct to sleepers - he quietly slunk away!!

 

Five hours is about right for a point with no chair plates etc.

 

I never gap the sleepers until after I've built and tested (by hand) the pointwork.

 

Moving sleeper for a tie bar is also fine, many will tell you that it puts too much strain on the solder joint which will break but code 40 rail is so flexible its not a problem. Highbury/Foxcote has done about 20 years continuous use and shows with hardly any problems. I also use a little hole for the operating wire to go through - either in the middle or one end depending on circumstances. I solder a little washer around the hole to strengthen it making two small insulating gaps either side. Tucking Mill and Bath have tie bars made from some thin fibreglass pcb which is much stronger than the paxolin but Highbury has modified Association sleepers.

 

Finally, as Rich and others have said, don't be put off by a few setbacks. I demonstrate at a lot of shows and am always flattered by the nice comments about my models but as I always point out, I only take the stuff I'm happy with - there have been plenty of dogs over the years that never see the light of day!!

 

Jerry 

[Donw]

Like most things in life practice makes it easier and quicker.  Using card to pack up a turnout to match other track is fine. If you are worried about the card softening during ballasting a coat of shellac/knotting or just PVA  will make it less able to absorb moisture. If you feel you need extra clearance for the wire  make a slight groove in the baseboard ( or track subbase ifyou are using cork or something).

 

The chance of the PCB splitting can be lessened by keeping the hole fairly small, ensuring it is central, and not putting too much pressure on it when drilling. It also helps to make the insulation gaps carefully going too deep can create a weak spot.  I am not sure what sort of PCB the association supplies these days fibreglass based PCB is usually stronger. Should the tiebar break it shouldn't be too hard to replace it.

 

When building a crossover  whether to create the crossing with long tails or to put a joint between the two is a matter of what suits you. Using long tails does help to get a nice flow with no kinks, but you will have to cut both rails between the two turnouts for electrical isolation. 

I am not sure what railway you are modelling most railways used a set in the curved stock rail and on facing points a joggle in the straight rail.  The set which is a bend in the stock rail to match the planning angle of the blade works well in the curved stock rail. whith our stock rail it cna be done in situ using two pairs of pliers. A joggle can also be done in situ I use a bit of association etch which has a narrow slot between two pieces slipped over the rail and squeezed with pliers seems to work fine.

 

Don

 

edit I was writing this as Jerry posted his. I like the idea of the strengthening washer must try that 

Edited October 7, 2018 by Donw

[Caley Jim]

I totally agree with everything Jerry has said. Track making does get quicker with experience as your skill level improves. Dog's? Yes.,e alk have a drawer full of them!

 

Jim

[Chris Higgs]

- Does building trackwork ever get more speedy? It was relatively enjoyable apart from some rather caustic Anglo Saxon when fitting the check rails, though it took me about 5 hours to build the point.

 

 

I once timed myself and it took me 90 minutes to build a PCB turnout with no chairplates and using the Association jig. A lot of that was spent cutting all the sleepers to length. So I worked out it was quicker to do that in batches with the sleepers then available to put into the jig. So yes, once you are well practised and building them in batch it should go quicker.

 

I did file the blades on a grinding machine which made that much quicker, although again you have to be experienced to not end up with mangled metal using one of those. You can produce these in batches as well. As you could with the vees.

 

Chris

Edited October 7, 2018 by Chris Higgs

[Ian Smeeton]

Likewise, I agree with all of the above.

 

In building PSJ, (see sig), after I scrapped the first efforts, I set about the fiddle yard. 30 sets of B6 points, and you can see the progression from the early to the later ones.

 

I found it quite therapeutic, sitting with the wireless or some music, filing a load of rail, and then assembling crossings.

 

A couple of hours filing rail, followed a day or two later making a batch of 6 or 8 crossing assemblies., and then laying out timbers, gapping and then constructing the turnouts.

 

Small bites rather tan going at it like a bull at a gate.

 

After not making points for a month or two, when it came to the next section, I had forgotten the tricks, and had to relearn them.

 

Keep on. I am just starting the electrics, and that IS frightening me.

 

Regards

 

Ian

[Lacathedrale]

Well, I built a new B6 and thought I'd plonk it onto my test-track to see how it works. Before I ripped up the whole lot however, I decided to see if I could get the original PCB point working first, and blow me if I managed to do just that. The issue I can see is that there was neither a joggle nor a set, so the wheel flanges were constantly fouling the blades causing derailments. I also fudged the exit road alignment when it joined to a piece of easitrack - almost 1mm too narrow in gauge.  Not only that, but somehow my only working 2FS loco (a drop-in coverted 37) was so filthy that I don't know how it ran at all. It boggles the mind to figure out how that happened, since the loco was NIB, and the wheels were brand new and shipped to me, got slapped into the loco and run about three times on the little plank - but such is life. Link in sig for video of it pootling acrosss (even then, the track was still dirty so needed a prod).

 

What's the best way to clean delicate 2FS trackwork in-situ? A track rubber and hose attachment on a hoover? I've been using naptha on kitchen towel so far but it's still pretty dirty.

 

Getting those tie bars set up almost killed me. Trying to solder the tip of the blade onto a PCB sleeper while not binding to the adjacent sleeper or the stock rails was very hard. Is there something I can use to make this process more straightforward? EDOT

 

How do I move from building single turnouts on my bench to placing them in a layout? I mean, obviously I need to test them - is the expectation that they are tested as being laid? or is there some way toeasily  connect up easitrack flex to all three corners and do it that way? Sorry if that's a bit of a dumb question but now I've got the fire under me

Edited October 7, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[Caley Jim]

Great to see you're now having success.

What's the best way to clean delicate 2FS trackwork in-situ? A track rubber and hose attachment on a hoover? I've been using naptha on kitchen towel so far but it's still pretty dirty.

Generally accepted as the best way are finger nail buffers , or from any good pharmacy.  They usually have 4 diferent grades on them and the finest of these leaves a nice polished surface.  Track rubbers are not a good idea as they are too coarse and leave a rough surface which can collect more dirt.   To remove paint from the railhead the best way I've found is to use an old small screwdriver (mine came from a Christmas cracker) with the tip ground to leave a 0.5 x 0.5mm projection at one end.  You can use this to scrape along the rail and it will fit through check/wing rail gaps without taking the paint off the latter rails.

 

Getting those tie bars set up almost killed me. Trying to solder the tip of the blade onto a PCB sleeper while not binding to the adjacent sleeper or the stock rails was very hard. Is there something I can use to make this process more straightforward? EDOT

I've found a thin strip of kitchen foil to be the best thing.  Pass it between the stock rail and tiebar, bring it up the inside of the rail and over the top.  Press the switch hard against it with the top level with the rail using tweezers and solder.  Open the switch and remove the foil for re-use.  I have used tissue paper in the past, but it tends to burn through if you're not careful.  Incidently, it's worth checking the gauge between the tip of the first switch you fit and the opposite stock rail and adjusting it if it is tight.  A fraction wide is not an issue.

 

 

How do I move from building single turnouts on my bench to placing them in a layout? I mean, obviously I need to test them - is the expectation that they are tested as being laid? or is there some way toeasily  connect up easitrack flex to all three corners and do it that way? Sorry if that's a bit of a dumb question but now I've got the fire under me

I built all the track for Kirkallanmuir directly in situ (see early posts in the link in my signature).  If you're building on the bench, one way to temporarily connect to Easitrac is to leave one rail of each exit a few sleepers longer than the other and have some similar short lengths of Easitrc.  You can then slip the latter onto the formation you've built to test.

 

Keep that fire burning bright!!

 

Jim

[Donw]

It is never dumb to ask a question so dont apologise.

 

I find it useful to put a bit of flexitrac on the long tails of the crossing and when adding the stock rails have them overlength and push them through the flexitrac plus another pice at the tie-bar end. I find it helps by keeping the tails in roughly the right place. This means I can test the turnout as I build it. If you want to try a loco wander leads with crocodile clips on the ends can be used. I would also suggest soldering droppers on before laying the turnout you can place it down and mark and drill the holes for the droppers before fixing it down. Then feed the wires through as you lay it.

 

As regards stopping the rail getting soldered to the next sleeper. Rizzla cigarette papers are fine they may get a little burnt but they are throwaway. You could use a pair of forceps with a rizzla between the blade and the stock rail to hold the stock rail while soldering the tie-bar to the blade release and then repeat for the other side. Alternatively there is the neat little jig and the etched plates system used with the pegged chairs I think Mick put some photos in his magazine article.

 

For cleaning the track I would suggest IPA and a suitable cloth or kitchen towel abrasive cleaning seems to cause scratches which then hold the dirt. I know people who find the rough side of a piece of hardboard works fine but it would worry me that it might catch on the rail ends at turnouts. and cleaning action is best towards an end or the crossing nose rather than from it. If the rail is clean but yellowish ( NS rail) it has oxidised but will not hurt as the oxide is conductive  

 

Don

[Rammstein2609]

Hi all

 

A question I've been contemplating recently is can you re-gauge diesel loco wheels to suit running on N gauge track once they've already been turned down and re-gauged to suit 9.42mm gauge?

 

I have several diesels sat in the stock box which don't suit the current layout I have but I'm experimenting with hand built N gauge track but with 0.85mm check gaps.  My thought was that maybe the turned down wheel backs might not work properly with 1mm check gaps but having the finer 0.85mm gaps may solve this problem and give a finer appearance.

 

The issue I'm afraid of happening is the wheel sets dropping into the gap at the crossing vee and giving the locos a bumpy ride.  I thought I'd ask the question before messing up wheel sets.

 

Thanks

 

Martin

[Chris Higgs]

Hi all

 

A question I've been contemplating recently is can you re-gauge diesel loco wheels to suit running on N gauge track once they've already been turned down and re-gauged to suit 9.42mm gauge?

 

I have several diesels sat in the stock box which don't suit the current layout I have but I'm experimenting with hand built N gauge track but with 0.85mm check gaps.  My thought was that maybe the turned down wheel backs might not work properly with 1mm check gaps but having the finer 0.85mm gaps may solve this problem and give a finer appearance.

 

The issue I'm afraid of happening is the wheel sets dropping into the gap at the crossing vee and giving the locos a bumpy ride.  I thought I'd ask the question before messing up wheel sets.

 

Thanks

 

Martin

 

There is a relationship between the wheels and the checkrail gaps that can allow the wheel flange to pass the wrong side of the frog as the check rails are not doing enough 'checking'. If you reduce the back to back to avoid this then the wheels proper may not be wide enough to remain on the rails and can fall into the gap.

 

That is more of a problem than bumping into the gaps, which in the old days at least N gauge wheels did as a matter of course anyway.

 

I think if what you are planning worked, then people would have been doing it long ago. Which probably tells you that it doesn't work.

 

Chris

Edited October 8, 2018 by Chris Higgs

[Lacathedrale]

Tinfoil and Rizla duly noted to try on the next switch blades.

 

I've got a Fence Houses J72 and an association 3F chassis kit - what's a better choice to get started with, pls?

[Chris Higgs]

Tinfoil and Rizla duly noted to try on the next switch blades.

 

I've got a Fence Houses J72 and an association 3F chassis kit - what's a better choice to get started with, pls?

 

On the basis you only need to build the chassis to get a working loco, the 3F as the body you can buy. Also the 3F is a bigger loco, so easier to weight, fit a larger motor into etc. etc.

 

But even easier as a starting point would be to buy the latest Farish Jinty and convert using Association parts. This will teach you about quartering and fitting coupling rods without worrying if the rest of the chassis is correct.

 

Chris 

[Izzy]

Hi all

 

A question I've been contemplating recently is can you re-gauge diesel loco wheels to suit running on N gauge track once they've already been turned down and re-gauged to suit 9.42mm gauge?

 

I have several diesels sat in the stock box which don't suit the current layout I have but I'm experimenting with hand built N gauge track but with 0.85mm check gaps.  My thought was that maybe the turned down wheel backs might not work properly with 1mm check gaps but having the finer 0.85mm gaps may solve this problem and give a finer appearance.

 

The issue I'm afraid of happening is the wheel sets dropping into the gap at the crossing vee and giving the locos a bumpy ride.  I thought I'd ask the question before messing up wheel sets.

 

Thanks

 

Martin

 

 

It is possible to get standard 2mm/2FS wheels to run on N gauge track i.e. track gauged to 9mm if they are set with a b-t-b of 7.9mm. This also allows them to pass through standard Peco points with their wide checks. It works, but isn't perhaps ideal, ( the dropping into the gap). And of course those using 2FS standards @ 1-160 with 9mm gauge also use them. Think it should be feasible if you can find the right b-t-b to use. About 8.1/8.2mm might work. The narrower width flanges aren't the main issue, but the combination with the narrower tread, so how far they have been reduced down from their original width - how wide the treads are -  will play a major part. Making up a length of plain track with some check rails set at various distances and seeing what arises might be the only way to judge before experimenting with a turnout.

 

Izzy

Edited October 9, 2018 by Izzy

[Lacathedrale]

On the basis you only need to build the chassis to get a working loco, the 3F as the body you can buy. Also the 3F is a bigger loco, so easier to weight, fit a larger motor into etc. etc.

 

But even easier as a starting point would be to buy the latest Farish Jinty and convert using Association parts. This will teach you about quartering and fitting coupling rods without worrying if the rest of the chassis is correct.

 

Chris

 

Hi Chris, I actually have already purchased the older Jinty - the justification being that I've already got a replacement wheelset in an EE Type 3, so I wanted to increment the 'difficulty' with a chassis - but I've also heard good things about the J72 so wasn't sure which way to go.

 

I'm toying with a layout based on Caterham which needs an ex-SER O-class. It has the same overall wheelbase - so lessons learned would certainly be valid. Maybe it could even provide a point of departure for some modification or scratchbuilding at a future date .

[DavidLong]

Hi all

 

A question I've been contemplating recently is can you re-gauge diesel loco wheels to suit running on N gauge track once they've already been turned down and re-gauged to suit 9.42mm gauge?

 

I have several diesels sat in the stock box which don't suit the current layout I have but I'm experimenting with hand built N gauge track but with 0.85mm check gaps.  My thought was that maybe the turned down wheel backs might not work properly with 1mm check gaps but having the finer 0.85mm gaps may solve this problem and give a finer appearance.

 

The issue I'm afraid of happening is the wheel sets dropping into the gap at the crossing vee and giving the locos a bumpy ride.  I thought I'd ask the question before messing up wheel sets.

 

Thanks

 

Martin

 

Hi Martin,

 

It may be worth sending a PM to Cavan Millward (RBE on RMweb) as he is building Burton-upon-Trent in what he describes as N2 and he may be using similar standards to those which you are describing. It's a fine looking layout having seen it at DEMU Showcase earlier this year.

The thread is here:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/100029-burton-on-trent-in-n2/page-1

Warning: it does have 55 pages in it to date!

 

David

[Izzy]

 

I may have it wrong but I believe Cavan uses standard profile/size N wheels with modified check rail gaps/b-t-b’s.

 

Further thoughts on this suggest that with a checkrail of 0.85mm - 0.35mm greater than 2FS - the tread width needs to be that measurement greater I.e. 1.35mm rather than 1mm to ensure wheel drop does not occur through crossings. Currently the NMRA RP25 profile uses a 1.3mm tread + 0.5mm flange and are thus 1.8mm width. The NEM uses broadly similar profiles but with a width of 2.2mm and a wider tread.

 

Izzy

[DavidLong]

I may have it wrong but I believe Cavan uses standard profile/size N wheels with modified check rail gaps/b-t-b’s.

 

Further thoughts on this suggest that with a checkrail of 0.85mm - 0.35mm greater than 2FS - the tread width needs to be that measurement greater I.e. 1.35mm rather than 1mm to ensure wheel drop does not occur through crossings. Currently the NMRA RP25 profile uses a 1.3mm tread + 0.5mm flange and are thus 1.8mm width. The NEM uses broadly similar profiles but with a width of 2.2mm and a wider tread.

 

Izzy

 

You may well be correct, Bob, but as Cav's N2 standards are buried somewhere in the many pages of his Millers Dale and Burton threads I thought it may be easier for Martin to just ask him the question direct!

 

David

[Chris Higgs]

I may have it wrong but I believe Cavan uses standard profile/size N wheels with modified check rail gaps/b-t-b’s.

 

Further thoughts on this suggest that with a checkrail of 0.85mm - 0.35mm greater than 2FS - the tread width needs to be that measurement greater I.e. 1.35mm rather than 1mm to ensure wheel drop does not occur through crossings. Currently the NMRA RP25 profile uses a 1.3mm tread + 0.5mm flange and are thus 1.8mm width. The NEM uses broadly similar profiles but with a width of 2.2mm and a wider tread.

 

Izzy

 

All of which means that if you have some turned down N gauge wheels, if only the flange width was reduced but the wide tread retained (as is often done with steam locomotive wheels), they are more likely to work than if the wheel fronts were also turned down.

 

Chris