Jump to content
Pixie

Any Question Answered

Recommended Posts

The other alternative for improving running of vehicles through N gauge point work is to tighten the gauge, so that all the check / wing rails can then have tighter tolerances.  This is what Keith Armes did on Chiltern Green forty years ago.  Another way to get true universality between fine scale and N gauge standards is to have what are called swinging frog points, where the crossing nose is closed up by the wing rails giving no gap by being pivoted somewhere in the middle of the turnout.   They look hideous, but worked well enough in the fiddle yard on Chiltern Green. 

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OFFTHE RAILS said:

 

I use the excellent code 40 FiNetrax track and points for the visible areas on my model railway with code 80 ready made track and points in the hidden area.

The FiNetrax is virtually indistiguishable from 2mm association Easitrack (except in the frog clearances) and accepts all modern British 'N' RTR.

 

My locos and stock are all RTR 'N'. I don't use 2mm kits because they are made to 2mm/ft scale as opposed to British  'N' which is 2.0625mm/ft.

This means that 'N' locos and stock are nearly 9% bigger in volume than 2mm vehicles – quite noticeable when the vehicles are in a mixed train.

Ian

 

If you’re concerned that your stock is 3% undersized, I’m surprised that you aren’t concerned about your track being 5% under gauge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Izzy said:

 

As I dragged the 7.9mm figure from some dark recess back in the time I had some small involvement with 2mm wheel making I thought perhaps I should just double-check as I have been known to be wrong before..........and it doesn't seem to add up does it?

At the time the measurement arose no N wheelsets or conversion axles were available, seemed unlikely to be in the future, and I was casting around for alternative options i.e. using 2FS wheelsets at a different btb for N use, that might be feasible.

 

I have just dug out the two peco points, one live/one dead frog, that were used to test the theory ( I don't think fiNetrax was around then), and yes, 7.9mm is the figure, just. (Peco have the same checkrail clearance of 1.0mm as fiNetrax).

As you say, real touch and go stuff. 7.8mm would be better, but.......then the danger is that the wheels will fall between the rails if the gauge is even a wisker over 9.0mm, and maybe even if it isn't. So, fine for plain track at 7.9mm, but........

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.9 (BtB) + 0.3 (Flange thickness) + 1.0 (checkrail gap = 9.2 which is greater than 9mm, so at the least you risk the wheel flange hitting the frog head on. Of course that might only happen when the stock goes around a curve or something. It will prove increbily annoying if it does occcur.

 

As TIm says, you might get away with asymetric measurements,, making the checkrail gap as small as will still allow a NMRA flange to pass through. You'll have to make the wing rail gap larger to compensate.

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all. I'd love to do 2mm, and commit to it, but I am just unsure whether or not I can. I've got a Dapol 57xx with a DCC chip already installed, and I'd hate to have to lose that perfectly good mechanism just to make a new one that hopefully works. One of the back issues of the 2mm magazine has an article about converting one, but that still seems pretty involved. I do love the etched chassis and finer scale wheels of 2mm, very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the kind words about my attempt to show modellers on the N Gauge Forum that it isn't too difficult to nail together a 2mm Association etched chassis and adapt it to run on N gauge track.

 

8 hours ago, OFFTHE RAILS said:

My locos and stock are all RTR 'N'. I don't use 2mm kits because they are made to 2mm/ft scale as opposed to British  'N' which is 2.0625mm/ft.

This means that 'N' locos and stock are nearly 9% bigger in volume than 2mm vehicles – quite noticeable when the vehicles are in a mixed train.

Ian

 

I guess this is a case of horse for courses and what the individual is prepared to accept. While I'd agree that the difference in scales is probably too much for a larger items of rolling stock, such as carriages (especially if mixing within a rake), I don't have any issues myself when it comes to wagons.

 

In fact, without the 2mm kit, I wouldn't have noticed just how badly proportioned the Peco LNER Toad E was. Despite being a slightly smaller scale, the 2mm kit is slightly longer than the Peco example (a consequence of the Peco common chassis) and, in my opinion, is more detailed.

 

image.jpg.8d9374664f6bc56c67d3f2b726c4a850.jpg

 

This one was built last year while on holiday in Pickering and I've since purchased another to go along with it. I've also got ex-GER and exGCR etched Lowmacs to build (once I've found a suitable set of wheels), which judging by the etched are excellent, as well as some ex-GER and ex-GNR cattle vans - all items that I can't get from another source unless I design them myself (life's too short to try and do everything). I also like the fact I can generally get a more detailed/accurate chassis from the 2mm Association than the Peco and Parkside chassis that usually come with the NGS kits.

 

Edited by Atso
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, while I would agree that some care can at odd times be needed to ensure that there isn’t too much size disparity between rolling stock of 1:148 (N) & 1:152 (2mm) sizes, and of course can be more noticeable with larger/longer items such as carriages, anyone who has modelled in N from back in the day (1973 for me) would tell you that there can be just as much of a challenge with ensuring RTR N stock is roughly the same scale. A bit better these days but as Atso says much has been stretched/squashed to suit rather than being accurate even to 1:148 and making any difference with 2mm that much worse. 

 

Izzy

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Atso said:

This one was built last year while on holiday in Pickering and I've since purchased another to go along with it. I've also got ex-GER and exGCR etched Lowmacs to build (once I've found a suitable set of wheels), which judging by the etched are excellent, as well as some ex-GER and ex-GNR cattle vans - all items that I can't get from another source unless I design them myself (life's too short to try and do everything). I also like the fact I can generally get a more detailed/accurate chassis from the 2mm Association than the Peco and Parkside chassis that usually come with the NGS kits.

 

Hi

 

I shortened some Parkside Dundas axles to 12.25mm and used their 5.1mm wheels to do mine.

 

Edit

Another option would be to use the 2-047 axles for RP25 wheels with the Parkside Dundas wheels. You would have to carefully open out the axle hole to approx 1.6mm in the Parkside wheels using a broach but that would be easier than turning the Parkside Dundas axles. I did this for some coach wheels when the 2mm SA ones were unavailable.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

Edited by PaulCheffus
Alternative solution
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PaulCheffus said:

Hi

 

I shortened some Parkside Dundas axles to 12.25mm and used their 5.1mm wheels to do mine.

 

Edit

Another option would be to use the 2-047 axles for RP25 wheels with the Parkside Dundas wheels. You would have to carefully open out the axle hole to approx 1.6mm in the Parkside wheels using a broach but that would be easier than turning the Parkside Dundas axles. I did this for some coach wheels when the 2mm SA ones were unavailable.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

 

Thanks Paul, I think I have some Dundas wheels somewhere so I'll give that a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Atso said:

Thanks for the kind words about my attempt to show modellers on the N Gauge Forum that it isn't too difficult to nail together a 2mm Association etched chassis and adapt it to run on N gauge track.

 

 

I guess this is a case of horse for courses and what the individual is prepared to accept. While I'd agree that the difference in scales is probably too much for a larger items of rolling stock, such as carriages (especially if mixing within a rake), I don't have any issues myself when it comes to wagons.

 

In fact, without the 2mm kit, I wouldn't have noticed just how badly proportioned the Peco LNER Toad E was. Despite being a slightly smaller scale, the 2mm kit is slightly longer than the Peco example (a consequence of the Peco common chassis) and, in my opinion, is more detailed.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_04/image.jpg.8d9374664f6bc56c67d3f2b726c4a850.jpg

 

This one was built last year while on holiday in Pickering and I've since purchased another to go along with it. I've also got ex-GER and exGCR etched Lowmacs to build (once I've found a suitable set of wheels), which judging by the etched are excellent, as well as some ex-GER and ex-GNR cattle vans - all items that I can't get from another source unless I design them myself (life's too short to try and do everything). I also like the fact I can generally get a more detailed/accurate chassis from the 2mm Association than the Peco and Parkside chassis that usually come with the NGS kits.

 

 

Have you looked at Atlas (or similar e.g. NWSL) American boxcar wheels  for the Lowmacs.? These must be around the expected 5.25mm diameter.

 

Chris

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/04/2019 at 16:30, Chris Higgs said:

 

Have you looked at Atlas (or similar e.g. NWSL) American boxcar wheels  for the Lowmacs.? These must be around the expected 5.25mm diameter.

 

Chris

 

Thanks for that Chris. I found some Parkside wheels in my spares box and managed to open out the axle holes to take the conversion axles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/04/2019 at 04:39, Chris Higgs said:

 

7.9 (BtB) + 0.3 (Flange thickness) + 1.0 (checkrail gap = 9.2 which is greater than 9mm, so at the least you risk the wheel flange hitting the frog head on. Of course that might only happen when the stock goes around a curve or something. It will prove increbily annoying if it does occcur.

 

As TIm says, you might get away with asymetric measurements,, making the checkrail gap as small as will still allow a NMRA flange to pass through. You'll have to make the wing rail gap larger to compensate.

 

Chris

I use asymmetric measurements in 00 but the other way round. I tighten up the wing rails, to reduce the length of the gap between the closure rail and the crossing, but open up the check rail gap accordingly. Works fine on normal points but not on slips or diamonds where the two requirements conflict.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.