Valentin Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Hello, I'm new to 2mm Railway Modelling. I used to model in N gauge (continental) but, looking for a new challenge, three months ago I became a member of 2mm Scale Association. Listen to the more experienced modellers advice I decided that my first 2mm model should be a conversion, to have it quick. I chose BR Class 24 (D5013, green, late crest) because this engine (or at least D5012) hauled goods train in Southeastern Region (Faversham) and I intend to build my first 2mm layout around Faversham Goods Yard (actually, I've already started). I posted some photos here. And here is the beginning of my layout, an extended Inglenook shunting puzzle (4' x 1'): The baseboard: The Templot plan (many thanks to Keith) stuck on the baseboard using 3M Spray Mount: And the first laid track (PCB sleepers), which has been built 'in situ' though I'll build the point work off-site: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted June 27, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 27, 2011 You have made a good start there, shall look forward to seeing this progress. Having the head shunt forming part of the inglenook is clever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekday Cross Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 As your baseboard is only 1ft wide, you might seriously consider building the pointwork on site. You are likely to get smoother curves an get everything to line up etc that way Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valentin Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 Thank you Kris! @Weekday Cross: I was thinking very seriously to build the points on site but I learnt it's easier off-site. Now that you're telling me that I shouldn't have big problems because the size of my baseboard I'm going to build the first point 'in situ' and, if it's too difficult, I'll move off-site. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor H Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Agree with Weekday Cross, I always build my pointwork in situ with no problems. Apart from not having to worry about transferring it to the board, the flow of the trackwork always seems so much more pleasing to the eye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
backofanenvelope Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Hi Valentin, Looks good and the Templot plan has a nice flow to it but I am just a bit curious as to why your not using Easitrac for non point work? Looking forward to seeing your progress Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valentin Posted June 28, 2011 Author Share Posted June 28, 2011 ... but I am just a bit curious as to why your not using Easitrac for non point work? ... Hello Tom, I was thinking to use Easitrac for ordinary tracks and PCB slippers for points but I was put off by the difference in height between them. And another reason: I like soldering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-missy- Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Hello Valentin. Thats lovely neat work there, its comming along really well. Its great to see another 2mmFS layout on RMWeb. And another reason: I like soldering. You should have no trouble with 2mmFS then, you will fit in just fine....! Missy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richbrummitt Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I was thinking to use Easitrac for ordinary tracks and PCB slippers for points but I was put off by the difference in height between them. There is no difference if you use chairplates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valentin Posted June 29, 2011 Author Share Posted June 29, 2011 There is no difference if you use chairplates. I'm too unexperienced in track building to use them on my first layout. But definitely I'll use more advanced techniques for my next layout (I dream to a 2mm FS DBSR layout). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted June 29, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 29, 2011 A very nice sized project in the making here - I look forward to see more Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valentin Posted June 29, 2011 Author Share Posted June 29, 2011 Please don't ask me why I chose this original way to feed the rails with power but I was soooo keen to see my recently converted BR Class 24 running, even if only for a few inches, and not having too many materials at hand... If anyone has better options and / or pictures, I will be more than happy to learn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekday Cross Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 The basic principles look pretty sound to me! The only "improvement" I could suggest would be to use different coloured wires for the positive and negative feeds to the track - it makes fault finding easier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
backofanenvelope Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 And another reason: I like soldering. Well done Valentin..! so do I, I find it rather relaxing.. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valentin Posted July 23, 2011 Author Share Posted July 23, 2011 Hello, My first point; I started to build it off-site, just to see if I can build one. It is not finished yet (no tie-bar). Up to this stage, I'm happy with the result but I'm more than happy to hear other opinions. I have "tested" it with my Class 24 because I have no other FS rolling stock or wheels... By the way, what wheels should I get to convert a Graham Farish wagon (377-025 - 5 plank steel floor wagon "Hopton-Wood Stone Firms")? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
backofanenvelope Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Hi Valentin Looks way better than my first effort well done. Keep going and it gets easier as many will testify.. Its really satisfying when it works?! Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valentin Posted November 20, 2011 Author Share Posted November 20, 2011 My layout's progress is small but I'm not in rush as my first goal is to learn as much as I can about 2mm FS. I really enjoy building tracks and points using PCB slippers and I can say I've improved my technique quite much. I used different ways to build the track: using the jig, in-situ and half-half. Some of the rails were laid in 60 ft (120 mm) lengths and for some of them I've been using the whole length. The quickest and easiest way for me was to use the jig but this is not always possible as very often I needed to build curved track; so half of a length should be build in-situ. In this case I've learned that is very easy to solder 3 or 4 slippers at a time using blobs of solder (Carr's 145) - my wife helped a lot in cutting them - and tweezers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted November 21, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 21, 2011 You can use a jig to do double lengths. Using a long length of rail fill the jig with sleepers and fix the rail then move the rail and sleepers along to allow another load of sleepers to be put in the jig and fixed. Place onto the layout then fix he second rail. This makes it easier to get smooth curves. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted November 21, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 21, 2011 Whilst the easitrac range is indeed a rather fine addition to this scale...there is still something nice and rewarding about building your own PCB trackwork - looks good! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanLister Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Hi Valentin. Good to see someone else starting out in 2mm on here. So much to learn, but you've made a really good job of it so far, by the look of it. One beginner's lesson from me: when it gets to 3 a.m. and you still can't get something to go right, give up and go to bed. It'll be easier the following morning........... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valentin Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 It looks like my skills improve . I have even started a blog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valentin Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 For simplicity, is it correct to build the turnout laying the timbers like in the picture below? (certainly doing the gaps before) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Modeller Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Point timbers were expensive compared to those for plain track. Railways would try and use as few as possible, within reason. To be "prototypical", I would treat all the pointwork as normal points and add normal sleepers inbetween to fill the gaps. On the diagonal road in your image, I would place the sleepers in the gaps between adjacent sleepers, rather than as they are printed out on your plan. This is a very generalised explanation. Often, in non-standard situations, or where sleepers had been replaced, even big main line companies would bodge it a bit. It would certainly be easier for you to just put long point sleepers across the whole formation. As it is your railway, the choice is yours! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Natalie Graham Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 It would certainly be easier for you to just put long point sleepers across the whole formation. As it is your railway, the choice is yours! There's no reason you couldn't build the points that way and then cut the timbers once they are built. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valentin Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 Thank you for your input. Anyway, it didn't look quite right to me so I put all the timbers trying to follow the plan as much as possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.