Out the Box Vs. Tweaked and Chopped

[Pixie]

Evening!

 

Whilst at the RMweb do at Stafford, several of us made some interesting comparrisons between stock that was out the box and items that had been tweaked, poked, proded, moded and improved. Examples such as Julia's tanker from a Peco basis and Andy's Farish conflats showed what was possible with a little elbow grease and time. So, here's a place to present them all and show them to the world. B) Direct comparisions would be cool - a before and after of sorts with a little description of what's been done.

 

To start us off, here's a slightly more generic example - a direct comparrision between RTR N gauge wheels old and new, with the 2mm Association's standard 6mm diameter 3-holes. I'll let the photos do the bulk of the talking, but if nothing else it shows how much finer things have got since the days of Lima N gauge... check out the flanges on the wheels on the far right! In the middle is the Association axle and on the left is a recent Farish attempt. The Association set is far between proportioned and areas like the 3 holes are light years ahead of the Farish set.

 

 

The wheel thickness is also far closer to scale on the Association set...!

 

 

Looking forward to seeing other examples!

 

OMS -

(Mmmm, Lily Allen).

 

Boomshanka,

 

Pix

[Gingerbread]

I think you are trying to confuse us by saying that the old Lima set and the new Farish set are both on the right...

 

David

[Pixie]

Better?

 

Pix

[Weekday Cross]

Whilst I agree that the Lima set is just a little out of scale , the Farish v Association wheel debate really needs to be put into its proper context.

 

At normal viewing angles when you look at a train on a layout, the most crucial thing to my mind is the position of the outer faces of the wheels - if that is in the right place, then the train will generally look OK.

 

Whilst the Farish tyres are wide, they do achieve the objective of getting the wheel faces to the same position, more or less, as the Association ones, on what is otherwise a narrower gauge and to a slightly larger scale. Therefore, looking at a train of wagons trundling by from normal viewing angles, the Farish wheels would look little different to the Association ones.

 

If the Farish treads were as thin as the Association ones, then the wheel faces would have to be noticeably too far towards the centre of the track in order to run through N gauge pointwork.

 

Therefore, would it be better for Farish to produce closer to scale wheels, or to keep them as they are?

 

My personal preference, given that they are designed for N gauge track, would be to keep them more or less as they are. I don't see how you could significantly improve the appearance of Farish wheels beyond what they have already achieved and still run them on N gauge track.

 

The 2mm standards for wheels are not in themselves perfect. If my memory serves me correctly, they are more like the 2mm equivalent of EM than P4. Running on exact gauge track, the wheel faces are too far out from the centre of the track. Maybe not a problem with wagons, coaches and most diesels, particularly - but with steam locos this makes coupling rods and valve gear too far out, giving an over-wide appearance to everything below the footplate.

[2mmMark]

The 2mm standards for wheels are not in themselves perfect. If my memory serves me correctly, they are more like the 2mm equivalent of EM than P4. Running on exact gauge track, the wheel faces are too far out from the centre of the track. Maybe not a problem with wagons, coaches and most diesels, particularly - but with steam locos this makes coupling rods and valve gear too far out, giving an over-wide appearance to everything below the footplate.

 

I'm not sure that's the case. I'd need to do some measurements to check but I'd expect the distance over the outside wheel faces to be to scale, with any adjustments being made inwards. If it were otherwise, there would be a lot of odd looking 2mm locos where the splashers are in the wrong place, and there are not. The Association kit for the 08 shunter & variations put the cranks & rods in the right place, compared to the recent RTR Farish model.

 

Where things do get tricky is with the flange depth, which is about 50% deeper than exact scale. This makes some prototypes difficult, such as GNR Atlantics.

 

The 2mm wheel & track standards undeniably function well, because they were worked out in combination with each other. This is the real achillies heel of N, because everything has to be compromised to be backwards compatible with very coarse track standards dating back to the early 1960s and perpertuated with Peco track.

 

Mark

[Weekday Cross]

It is a long while since I did the calculation - but as far as I remember, the flanges are inset as you suggest, but the overall tyre width brings the wheel faces outside the scale envelope.

 

Here is a photo showing a scaled-down P4 wagon wheelset for comparison. The scaling is only approximate! Even the P4 wheel is slightly overscale - the flanges are a bit too wide. Sorry about the swarf on the wheel - I should really have cleaned it off before takig the photo.

 

To my eye, the difference between P4 and 2FS is proportionately almost as great as the difference between 2FS and Bachmann/Farish N.

 

 

2mm wheel and track standards go back to 1960, so it would be unfair to read too much into their efforts to reproduce the real railway in miniature. CNC lathes had not yet been invented. I believe they originally settled for 9.5mm gauge, which would have made things even more inaccurate.

 

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that 2FS should become the 2mm equivalent of P4. I see good reasons to keep things as they are.

 

My original comment was really due to what I felt was an unfair comparison of N gauge wheels with 2FS. N gauge is clearly here to stay, just like OO in 4mm scale. Only a small minority is ever likely to switch to fine scale. The rest deserve respect, even if they don't agree with our fine scale minds. The old farish wheels could fairly be criticised for having unnecessarily deep flanges. I suspect that current N gauge wheels are just about as good as it is likely to get. Any finer and their suitability for N gauge track would deteriorate.

[-missy-]

Hello Guys.

 

Can we try and keep this on topic please and not turn into a bun fight about wheel standards. Its ground that has been visited many times before and everyone has thier own opinions on the subject.

 

Thank you.

 

Missy

[-missy-]

Hello.

 

As Pixie said in the OP one of the good examples I have is my tank wagons so I have taken a couple of pictures showing the comparison between the original PECO tank wagon and my conversion...

 

 

 

Fotunately the 2mmSA produce a chassis etch (2-384) which replaces pretty much everything apart the tank itself. The wagon has also spoked wheels fitted which to me, makes the wagon look far less chunky so is a worthwhile conversion.

 

Missy

[queensquare]

It is a long while since I did the calculation - but as far as I remember, the flanges are inset as you suggest, but the overall tyre width brings the wheel faces outside the scale envelope.

 

Here is a photo showing a scaled-down P4 wagon wheelset for comparison. The scaling is only approximate! Even the P4 wheel is slightly overscale - the flanges are a bit too wide. Sorry about the swarf on the wheel - I should really have cleaned it off before takig the photo.

 

To my eye, the difference between P4 and 2FS is proportionately almost as great as the difference between 2FS and Bachmann/Farish

 

2mm wheel and track standards go back to 1960, so it would be unfair to read too much into their efforts to reproduce the real railway in miniature. CNC lathes had not yet been invented. I believe they originally settled for 9.5mm gauge, which would have made things even more inaccurate.

 

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that 2FS should become the 2mm equivalent of P4. I see good reasons to keep things as they are.

 

My original comment was really due to what I felt was an unfair comparison of N gauge wheels with 2FS. N gauge is clearly here to stay, just like OO in 4mm scale. Only a small minority is ever likely to switch to fine scale. The rest deserve respect, even if they don't agree with our fine scale minds. The old farish wheels could fairly be criticised for having unnecessarily deep flanges. I suspect that current N gauge wheels are just about as good as it is likely to get. Any finer and their suitability for N gauge track would deteriorate.

 

 

Call me dum but I can't for the life of me see what point you are trying to make here. 2mm standards predate N by a number of years and the point of this thread as far as I can see is to offer up the comparison allowing the reader to make up there own mind as to whether they wish to go that extra mile. 2mm standards have been shown to work well and are visualy a great improvement on N but they involve a lot more effort. Whether that extra effort is worth it is entirely a personal choice, one is not better than the other and nor is that implied in the OP.

 

Jerry

[Chris Higgs]

I'm not sure that's the case. I'd need to do some measurements to check but I'd expect the distance over the outside wheel faces to be to scale, with any adjustments being made inwards. If it were otherwise, there would be a lot of odd looking 2mm locos where the splashers are in the wrong place, and there are not. The Association kit for the 08 shunter & variations put the cranks & rods in the right place, compared to the recent RTR Farish model.

 

Where things do get tricky is with the flange depth, which is about 50% deeper than exact scale. This makes some prototypes difficult, such as GNR Atlantics.

 

The 2mm wheel & track standards undeniably function well, because they were worked out in combination with each other. This is the real achillies heel of N, because everything has to be compromised to be backwards compatible with very coarse track standards dating back to the early 1960s and perpertuated with Peco track.

 

Mark

 

No it is indeed the case that the overall width of 2FS stock wheels is overscale, and most kits around (with splashers) have to adjust for this. Conversions of N stufff don't have to worry, as it's already been done. However it's not by much, and certainly not as much as you see on a Farish Jinty that was built for old style N Gauge standards. Its the sad result that arises from adopting a true scale track gauge but with overwidth flange treads (which in turn arises from overscale checkrail gaps).

 

Farish could reduce the width on its wheels a bit further to match the NMRA standards (and Dapol already do, their wagon wheels are noticeably thinner), but at a certain point the wheels will start falling between the tracks becasue of the sideplay inherent in N.

 

Some form of 'P2' has been considered before, but a true scale flange depth would not work (simply too small to keep on the track because of wheel dirt if nothing else). And there would probably never be enough devotees to keep it going. I once built a P2 point, and it looked great, BTW.

 

My view is that N Gauge standards and 2FS perhaps could have been done a bit differently, but the past is just that and I don't see any point in dragging over it.

 

CHris

[Flying Pig]

As the only possible response to the assertion that 2mm finescale looks better than commercial N (particularly in closeup) is "No sh*t, Sherlock", I really can't see the point of debating the matter. The thread is much better served by illustrations of its title, as Missy has posted, than by a fight with stale buns.

 

Pixie, your own Farish Class 14 would have been an excellent example to use as the improvement is very striking.

[Donw]

Track and wheel standards are only part of modelling a good part of the improvement on Missy's tanker is the paint job. However one of the real benifits of 2mfs is the improvement in the track. The fat wheels may be hidden under the bodies ( if you are looking from above) but the wide flangeways the need at points are all too visible and to me spoil N gauge layouts. Regarding the standards When I first saw a 2mfs layout at Central Hall N gauge was just about to be released P4 was some years away. The impact was stunning.

IMO the real key is the attitude of trying to achieve something a little better. You can do this in N with some great results but for may of us those wideflangeways and chunky wheels start to niggle. If anyone finds the 2mfs standards start to niggle they can adopt P2 standards I have a feeling you will be on your own and the law of diminishing returns questions whether it would be worth it.

Oh and one of the factors in pushing the gauge to the full value despite the width over wheels was the major problem of getting the gears to fit between the frames. There was not much around in the 60's

 

Don

[2mm Andy]

As Pixie mentioned at the beginning of this thread, I've been working on detailing and improving a Farish conflat wagon. I've now got to the point where I'm reasonably happy to post a photo of it posed alongside an unaltered Farish wagon;

 

 

Apart from swapping the Farish wheels for 2FS wheels, the work has included;

 

• removing N couplings (DGs still to be added)
• adding tie bar between bottoms of W-irons (scrap etch surround superglued in place)
• moulded brake levers replaced with etched nickel silver ones from my spares box
• container glued down and etched shackles/chains added (from N Brass Loco)
• wagon and container weathered (using Vallejo acrylic paints and MIG weathering powders)

 

I will shortly fix new DG couplings (these would have been added last night if one hadn't pinged across the kitchen when I was blackening the brass ) and the chassis will receive another quick dust with some more weathering powders, then a quick blast of Testors Dullcote.

 

cheers,

 

Andy

[richbrummitt]

I was initially a bit disappointed to see this thread descend quickly into an argument about wheels (not helped by the OP being off topic IMO) but it seems to have gained the direction the title suggests. Here's my 2p worth. It's a bit more than a tweak and more of several chops:

 

The V12 Mink A van on the left started life as a peco van kit (see example centre). After cutting and shutting around doors from an NGS Mink C kit and exchanging the ends from the same the body was mounted onto a 2mmSA chassis 2-361 and given a roof from n/s. Various other details have been added. The tie bars are from rod with the ends flattened rather than using the ones on the etch, and the vacuum brake pipes are from brass wire. For a further comparison the vehicle on the right is a 2mmSA resin bodied mink with an underframe from the same etch, but built with single sided DC brakes without vacuum brake.

[craigwelsh]

Are those modifying N gauge stock also running 2mm scale kits or sticking to converted 1:148 stuff?

 

Putting an etched N gauge hopper next to some 2mm etched minerals the hopper did stick out a little.

[2mm Andy]

Are those modifying N gauge stock also running 2mm scale kits or sticking to converted 1:148 stuff?

 

Putting an etched N gauge hopper next to some 2mm etched minerals the hopper did stick out a little.

 

Generally I try and keep the two separate. I know some 2mm modellers will 'cut and shut' N gauge kits to get them down to the right scale, but I don't think I could do the necessary without it looking a complete dog's breakfast!

 

Some N gauge models are pretty close to 2mm scale, whilst others are significantly larger (and have been stretched to fit proprietary chassis as well). I find the difference in width or height is far more noticeable than length.

 

Andy

[bcnPete]

Interesting thread this Pixie...well done for starting it

 

Some great comparisons examples already and really shows what a difference the 2FS underframes can make.

 

When I have produced something worthy myself I will offer it up

 

PS - maybe one of my tweaked 37's....

[BernardTPM]

Some N gauge models are pretty close to 2mm scale, whilst others are significantly larger (and have been stretched to fit proprietary chassis as well). I find the difference in width or height is far more noticeable than length.

If they're done to scale (and the new stuff generally is), then the difference in loading gauge for a coach and loco is about 1/2mm for the width and 3/4mm for the height. Length the difference accumulates: a N Gauge Mk.1 is 4mm longer than a 2mm one.

[Donw]

Are those modifying N gauge stock also running 2mm scale kits or sticking to converted 1:148 stuff?

 

Putting an etched N gauge hopper next to some 2mm etched minerals the hopper did stick out a little.

 

In some cases there can be quite a difference in vehicle sizes e.g the GWR iron minks were a lot smaller than the wooden bodied ones that followed so things may not stand out but if two models which are supposed to be the same differ in size it could look odd. I wonder what others think.

Don

[richbrummitt]

In some cases there can be quite a difference in vehicle sizes e.g the GWR iron minks were a lot smaller than the wooden bodied ones that followed so things may not stand out but if two models which are supposed to be the same differ in size it could look odd. I wonder what others think.

Don

 

Even wagons to the same diagram could have been slightly different sizes the further back in time we look. That said I have a few Graham Farish Macaw B and also a couple of 2mm etched kits from Stephen Harris for the same style of vehicle and the former are a bit wider, taller and longer. Not much but next to each other one of them is the wrong size. I intend to never have them next to each other and then you probably won't notice.

[-missy-]

Hello.

 

I never have really been that bothered about how accurate my models are. I use quite a bit of rewheeled RTR stuff which mixes with kit built stuff.

 

The most important thing for me though is that the whole thing looks alright. As long as its proportioned right and has the right feel to it then I am happy. It's so easy to get sucked into the detail in this scale and go mad trying to achieve perfection!

 

In my opinion of course!

 

Missy.

[bcnPete]

Hello.

 

I never have really been that bothered about how accurate my models are. I use quite a bit of rewheeled RTR stuff which mixes with kit built stuff.

 

The most important thing for me though is that the whole thing looks alright. As long as its proportioned right and has the right feel to it then I am happy. It's so easy to get sucked into the detail in this scale and go mad trying to achieve perfection!

 

In my opinion of course!

 

Missy.

 

I'm with you on this one Missy

[Pixie]

Very interesting and excellent comparissions all - especially like Rich's GW vans, I'd always written the Peco van off as not being too brilliant but I'm very impressed with them.

 

Pixie, your own Farish Class 14 would have been an excellent example to use as the improvement is very striking.

 

Thanks for the reminder FP - I'd forgotten that I did so some shots comparing the two. Must dig them out!

 

I was initially a bit disappointed to see this thread descend quickly into an argument about wheels (not helped by the OP being off topic IMO)

 

Apologies for that, in hindsight it's probably not the best move starting a thread off on a complete tangent. As there is some interesting debates here concerning about using 1:142 and 1:148 stock here, how would people feel about me splitting the thread, so we can have one concerning the original topic and another contrustively comparing the two scales? Perhaps clicking the +1 if you think it's a good move?

 

Pix

[2mm Andy]

 

Apologies for that, in hindsight it's probably not the best move starting a thread off on a complete tangent. As there is some interesting debates here concerning about using 1:142 and 1:148 stock here, how would people feel about me splitting the thread, so we can have one concerning the original topic and another contrustively comparing the two scales? Perhaps clicking the +1 if you think it's a good move?

 

Pix

 

1:142?! I think (and hope) you mean 1:152 - otherwise i've been building all my models to the wrong scale!

 

Andy

[Pixie]

1:142?! I think (and hope) you mean 1:152 - otherwise i've been building all my models to the wrong scale!

 

It would explain a lot about that Brake Tender I showed you at Stafford if some had been working off 1:142.

 

Pix