2mm wagons and cheating!

[oily]

I'm thinking maybe I could get started with a few wagons on my newly built 2mm scale track using some N gauge RTR wagons with the 2mm SA wagon underframes. I've also just built a couple of the scale 2mm wagon chassis but would like to cheat by using a couple of Private Owner N Gauge bodies. So my question is given that a 2mm scale wagon should be about 16mm across and 32/34mm long maybe slightly more even depending on chassis length, what are the measurement of the open Dapol, Peco, Grafar etc., open wagons?

And maybe if they are too big has anyone tried to "cut and slice" them to reduce the width slightly?

Many thanks for adice and comments.

[Gingerbread]

In general size increased a little over time - for example, GWR started with outside length of about 15'6", increased this to 16' about 1880, increased outside width from 7'6" to 8' about 1905, then increased outside length again to 17'6" about 1925.

 

Have a look at the Mathieson 7-plank POWs here - they are highly regarded, and 2mm replacement wheelsets are available. Size is about 30.5mm x 15.5mm, almost identical to the 2mm Association model of the 1887 5-plank POW.

 

Peco 5-plank is a little larger - about 36.0mm x 16.7mm. Allowing for later standards (17'6" x 8'), it should be 35mm x 16mm in 2mm, or about 36mm x 16.5mm in N.

 

Personally I wouldn't regard that as excessive, though others might disagree - I think the important thing is to improve the wheels/couplings/underframe (especially wheelbase and brakegear).

 

Unfortunately I don't have any Farish or Dapol to hand.

 

David

[Guest Natalie Graham]

I think a lot might depend on what you are using them with. If they are to be surivors into the early nationalisation period running with the larger wagons of that period in 2mm scale they will probably look ok but running with accurately sized 1:152 models of early pre-grouping wagons then their overscale size will be more obvious.

 

The body of an ancient Farish Staveley wagon that happened to be on the workbench measures 37x17x10mm. But that one must be at least 35years old so whether current poroduction is the same I have no idea.

[CF MRC]

Have a look at the Mathieson 7-plank POWs here - they are highly regarded, and 2mm replacement wheelsets are available. Size is about 30.5mm x 15.5mm, almost identical to the 2mm Association model of the 1887 5-plank POW.

 

David

 

We have some of the Mathieson wagons on CF (see latest RM). They are very good indeed. Whilst 2mm replacement wheels are available, I have kept cost down by turning down the flange width and moving the wheels out on the axle a touch: this is good enough for the GN mainlines, where the benefits of Finescale wheels is less of an issue. The elevated NLR is less forgiving.

 

Tim

[richbrummitt]

I would echo the comments about the Mathieson models range. If you want something other than the liveries available robbies rolling stock will do transfers sized for these bodies - I asked him about it at the recent Abingdon exhibition. I haven't got as far as owning any of his products yet, but there are several liveries advertised on the website that are of interest to me.

[queensquare]

I would echo the comments about the Mathieson models range. If you want something other than the liveries available robbies rolling stock will do transfers sized for these bodies - I asked him about it at the recent Abingdon exhibition. I haven't got as far as owning any of his products yet, but there are several liveries advertised on the website that are of interest to me.

 

I did a review of the Mathieson wagons in the 2mm mag a while ago and they are indeed excellant. I have done quite a few using Robbies transfers, my Westbury Iron Works and Highbury wagons appear on the rear cover of that issue.

 

Jerry

[Donw]

The question is really how accurate the N scale models are. Years ago many were a bit large for 1:148 things seem better now. If they are accurate to 1:152 they will look ok behind converted N gauge locos. Fortunately wagons could vary a bit so mixing 1:148 and 1:152 shouldn't look too bad otherwise.

Don

[richbrummitt]

Please don't quote me on this but from something the owner said to me I think the Mathieson models wagons are nominally 1:150 scale to sit between the two camps!

[Phil Copleston]

I'm thinking maybe I could get started with a few wagons on my newly built 2mm scale track using some N gauge RTR wagons... So my question is given that a 2mm scale wagon should be about 16mm across and 32/34mm long... and maybe if they are too big has anyone tried to "cut and slice" them to reduce the width slightly?

 

Yes I did, Oily. Here's how (sorry for the length):

 

A few years ago I had a go at cutting down some of the better 1:148 wagon bodies to something closer to 1:152 scale with some success. To me, I can see the difference between the scales (really I can, honest), and although Peco and other manufacturers' wagon mouldings were good, the over-width and often over-length bodies irked me. So I set about them with an Xacto saw.

 

The simplest conversion was the Peco 5-plank open, reduced in width by 1.5mm by taking two cuts out lengthways inside one centre end stanchion (resulting in a single waste piece). That way you can't see the cut (honest) after a bit of careful sanding of the joint and careful MecPac-ing when reunited the two halves. The result is a wagon that now looks 'right' and sits easier next to true 2-mil stock. I then did the same simple trick on the Peco GW van, NE refrigerator van, and Farish horsebox. Whilst I was at it I also feathered the top edges of the opens and re-scribed the inside planking and door openings. Result - better proportioned and nearer to scale 2-mil wagons.

 

Emboldened with this initial success, I next tried a more ambitious 'cut and slice' job on a Peco 1946 LMS steel mineral, this time cutting it twice along its length, just flush inboard of the sides to avoid damaging the end-door detail. Once the solvent had dried hard after 48-hours, I then reduced it in length (Peco had stretched it to fit their 10' 6" chassis, then standard). A slice either side of the of the centre door strappings did the trick here, and it now fits on the correct 9' 0" chassis.

 

Even bolder, I attacked an old Farish 7-plank open with two longitudinal cuts and five cross cuts, again to make it fit a 9' 0" chassis. Each time waiting for the glue to set hard between each series of length or width cuts before proceeding, to preserve structural strength in the wagon body and to help control my own cutting accuracy. This time I managed to keep all the old paint and nice "NE" lettering intact on this Farish wagon. To make the central door cut in the middle, I carefully sliced off the door banger plate and when all was done, glued it back on again. It's very hard to spot any of the cuts on this wagon. Yep, I was getting better at this caper!

 

I then went on to convert a lot of other likely wagons and vans using the same saw 'n glue technique, which incidentally is all done by eye (no mitre block) and very carefully. I worked out early on that each saw cut took out just over half a mil of plastic, so I could arrange a suitable number of cuts to reduce the length/width by the desired amount. If more were needed then I'd make two cuts and remove a waste portion, but a single cut between glued surfaces was better as the joint would naturally match and the cut magically disappear!

 

My pièce de résistance using this method was probably my 'scaling' of an old Minitrix LMS steel pressed-door 16-ton mineral, which had been horribly stretched, widened and heightened (why, I don't know) by the original tool maker, but I could see (like a sculptor of old) that within its distorted body mouldings their lurked the potential for a really nice model of an unusual prototype. So, with much confidence (mostly born of ignorance of the effort that was to come!), again I set about it with my trust Xacto, making in all twelve (yes, 12) cuts to reduce it in all three dimensions. It now looks like the real thing and is an unusual asset to my collection of '2mm' wagons, not a piece of otherwise discarded junk at the bottom of my 'spares' box.

 

Crazy? Probably. Worth it? Yes! And also as an exercise in honing my sawing and hand-eye co-ordination skills (and confidence), well worth the effort. And making silk purses out of pigs ears was fun too! Converting and scaling the complimentary Peco 10' 6" and 9' 0" wagon chassis is perhaps a story for another time...

 

So, moral of this tale? Have a go - it's only a bit of plastic. Either it can go horribly wrong (in which case bin it and move on), or discover that you had a few more skills than you first thought, and boost your modelling confidence along the way. Anyone for a slice...?

 

Please don't quote me on this but...

 

Ummm... I just did! (sorry, he he)

 

Phil

[richbrummitt]

I then did the same simple trick on the Peco GW van

 

A nice 'something different' here is to use the sides from the van with the doors and ends from the NGS Mink C kit. With the same judicious planning to the cuts the length can be brought down to the 16'0" of the earlier prototype you'd be aiming for. I got pretty close to the dimensions of the 2mmSA resin mink bodies.

[BernardTPM]

If (and sometimes a big 'if') the N gauge wagon is actually proper 1:148, then the average width difference should only be around 1/2mm (assuming the wagon is around 8 foot wide over body - 8 x the extra 1/16th = 1/2) but most of those tooled in the 1970s (and sometimes later) were wider than scale, even at the larger scale. I would guess that the Mathieson wagons are correctly to scale (1:150 or 1:148) and, being earlier stock are somewhat under 8ft wide anyway. The latest Bachmann/Farish wagons seem to be correct to scale width too, the snag for N gauge workers being that they look narrow compared to the earlier stuff, including most kits! Length is another issue - Peco used to only do two lengths and stretched or compressed where wagons were 'non-standard' so, for example, the GWR 10ft w.b. box van and 45t tank wagon are both the correct length for their respective chassis while the 7 plank open gains a foot and the Palvan looses around 9 feet (!!). Luckily the Peco kits are available as unpainted kits, they are still quite cheap and much of the moulded detail is quite nice - modifying and detailing them can be rewarding. Incidentally, the old Lima 16t welded mineral had it's length very simply stretched by having an extra 1mm in each side panel. Take that extra out from either side of the doors and magically the two little top lip strengthening gussets actually end up symmetrical as they should be! Shame about the width though...

[Nig H]

On a slightly related topic of cheating with wagons can I ask, plastic wagons and even etched wagons seem incredibly light in weight, is it thought a good idea to add a little weight?

I'm also aware of the NMRA formula for adding weight but in 2mm fine scale this works out for say a Siphon or coach to be quite a piece of lead! Does anyone have a recommendation based on actual experience?

 

I've got loads of plastic bodied mineral wagons running on etched chassis. They run fine without weight and I would not recommend adding any weight to your wagons. I have a couple of wagons scratchbuilt from plasticard, with whitemetal axleboxes and etched brake gear. I think these could do with a little weight, maybe disguised as a load of some sort. For information, my mineral wagons weigh about 4g each. Hope this helps.

 

Nigel

[Nig H]

That interesting and useful especially knowing the weight.

I weighed a few wagons and 4gms seems about average for plastic wagons with DG coupling and scale wheels. A flat truck comes in at 3gms and the 7/8 plankers at about 5gms although my converted Mathieson's are 6gms.

A 2mm etched chassis alone weighs 3gms before adding a body although the 2mm scale plastic bodies depending on size only bring it up to 4/5gms.

A Dapol Siphon weighs 15gms after conversion although I have put a weight inside mine that brings it up to 27gms but having heard that weight is perhaps not really necessary I might remove it although it rolls on the slightest slope.

 

Weights of some of my other stuff are as follows. LMS coach built from Bill Bedford sides, plasticard floor and ends and whitemetal fittings came out at 18g. A LNER corridor second built from a Bill Bedford kit, thus mainly brass construction, was 31g and a GSWR 12 wheeler, mainly nickel silver was 35g. I try to avoid all metal etched kits if possible to keep the weight down and give my locos a chance to pull decent length rakes without straining them too much.

 

Regards,

 

Nigel

[Donw]

Unless you have gradients adding weight to your wagons should not cause too much trouble as long as they are free running. I find setting up the bearings to just give a touch of end float gives the best running and that heavier wagons seem to stick to the track whereas lightweigh ones tend to bounce off at the slightest chance. However heavy wagons behind light ones can cause problems so it is best to keep them within a limited range.

Don

[Phil Copleston]

Hi guys,

 

Interesting discussion on (4mm) 9ft w/b wagon weights are here http://www.modelrail...showtopic=13397 In that blog, 'Kiwionrails' recommends under 2 ounces for a 4mm wagon following the NMRA guide. Also in that blog, 'DanishRails' says "this doesn't matter very much, as long as you use the same standard for all cars in a train. This also makes sense from a mechanical point of view." Sounds like wise advice to me. He also suggests that the European norm, NEM302, is more relevant to our short w/b wagons.

 

Following the NMRA guide, a 2mm (being an eighth the volume of 4mm) should be about 1/4 ounce or 7gms (if I got the calcs right). Seems about right to me. A couple of my 2-mil w/metal bodied wagons on etched chassis come in at 10-12gms. Heavier than the adjusted NMRA norm but they roll beautifully with a realistic 'heft', more like the mass of the real thing. On a small shunting layout this won't be a problem and adds to the operational realism. Although on a layout with long trains heavy wagons that would be a liability for light-weight 2-mil locos.

 

So the desirable optimum could be nicely rolling well-weighted wagons hauled by sure-footed locos fitted with compensation and as much weight as you can pack in. For weight, forget lead - go for copper-tungsten! Lead has a density of 11.34g/cm3, whereas copper-tungsten is 16.75g/cm3, albeit very hard to work, Tim Watson fitted c/t to several of his locos on 'Copenhagen Fields' for that reason. Or if you can afford it - go for gold with a density of 19.30g/cm3!! (only joking) Properly ballasted wagons, complimented by well weighted locos with grip - yep, that's the solution!

 

Phil

[Crepello]

Readers of this forum may find my post 'Closing the Gap--Farish Wagons' in the N-gauge forum of some help.

[Phil Copleston]

Incidentally what's a good source then for the copper-tungsten?

 

Good point - short answer, dunno. But a quick Google for it in the UK came up with various suppliers, such as this http://www.edmplus.co/cutg-bar.html , but I expect they won't just sell you the odd foot or two!

 

Find someone who uses it and cadge the scraps, I guess. It's also used in welding and as electrical anodes or contacts, so maybe you could find some there. Tim Watson of the Model Railway Club has used it, so maybe he could advise better. If you want to learn more, look here http://en.wikipedia....Copper-tungsten

 

Incidentally, I believe copper-tungsten is VERY hard and intractable and better cast into shape than to try to work it with hand tools. Sheet lead (flashing) is comparatively lighter of course, but is easily worked and freely available in DIY stores. Now, maybe gold is starting to look like the better 'heavy' alternative and is easily worked too. Little did you realise that all that unwanted family gold you were about to trade in actually has a modelling application!

 

Phil

[2mm Andy]

But the NMRA site actually says that N gauge wagon should be 1/2 oz (just over 14gms) plus 0.15oz (4.25gms) per inch which is were I got the weight I quoted. But I agree I think it's not only too high but quite difficult to achieve 18/19gms in say a 2mm flat truck! Hence my original query over this issue.

 

Incidentally what's a good source then for the copper-tungsten?

 

I really wouldn't get too hung-up on a 'right' weight for a 2mm wagon - there are a lot of factors that come into play - maximum gradient, maximum train length, type of loco you're using, curve radius, etc. What might work for a small shunting layout like Highbury Colliery won't necessarily be the same as for a giant roundy-roundy layout like 'Fence Houses'. Best to have a play and see what works for you.

 

Regarding copper tungsten, Stephen Harris previously acquired some small square bar section and sold it on to members in small quantities. When he tried to get some more, the price had risen astronomically, and he decided not to buy any. You could drop him a line or ring him (contact details in the 2mm Yearbook) to see who he dealt with.

 

Andy

[2mm Andy]

 

A few years ago I had a go at cutting down some of the better 1:148 wagon bodies to something closer to 1:152 scale with some success. To me, I can see the difference between the scales (really I can, honest), and although Peco and other manufacturers' wagon mouldings were good, the over-width and often over-length bodies irked me. So I set about them with an Xacto saw.

 

Phil

 

Any photos Phil? - this sounds interesting.

 

Andy (who doubts his own ability to wield an Xacto saw without reducing a wagon to a pile of plastic filings!)

[Phil Copleston]

Readers of this forum may find my post 'Closing the Gap--Farish Wagons' in the N-gauge forum of some help.

 

I just read through that thread, about N-gauge chassis and fitting alternative couplings. Not sure how it relates to this topic?

 

Phil

[Phil Copleston]

Any photos Phil? - this sounds interesting.

Andy (who doubts his own ability to wield an Xacto saw without reducing a wagon to a pile of plastic filings!)

 

Yes sure, Andy. None taken at the time, but I'll take some and post them here. I can bring the actual models with me to Scalefour North in two weeks for you to pick over, if you're really interested? DL says I am a whizzzz with an Xacto - so watch it!

 

Phil

[2mm Andy]

Yes sure, Andy. None taken at the time, but I'll take some and post them here. I can bring the actual models with me to Scalefour North in two weeks for you to pick over, if you're really interested? DL says I am a whizzzz with an Xacto - so watch it!

 

Phil

 

Thanks Phil, that would be great.

 

Andy

[Crepello]

Do you have the URL? I did a search and found the title but oddly I couldn't get into it. Many thanks.

Sorry for confusing you--I meant the Farish section of the Trade and Products Zone on RM Web!

[justin1985]

I had been curious about the new Bachmann / Farish RCH open wagons, as they do seem to be of pretty good quality. I bought one today at the Horsham exhibition to compare against some Mathieson opens, and 2mm kits, to see whether any could be run as 'cheats' with my 2mm collection.

 

The short answer seems to be that they are noticeably larger than the Mathieson wagon, to the extent that it does look a little strange. (apologies for the slightly dark phone picture, and the Unitrack!)

 

 

While I think the Mathieson model represents a wagon built to the 1911 RCH specifications, if we assume the Bachmann one is the built to the 1923 standards, its actually pretty close to the scaled sizes quoted for 2mm by Gingerbread above. I make the body 34mm x 16mm. I don't have built examples of the Association kits to hand, but, theoretically, it seems like they should be at least plausible together.

 

The brake gear and underframe are just as fine on the Bachmann model as the Mathieson, and the body sides are only marginally thicker. One thing that is noticeable though is that the buffers are much larger on the Bachmann.

 

Hope this is of interest!

 

Justin

[Chris Higgs]

I had been curious about the new Bachmann / Farish RCH open wagons, as they do seem to be of pretty good quality. I bought one today at the Horsham exhibition to compare against some Mathieson opens, and 2mm kits, to see whether any could be run as 'cheats' with my 2mm collection.

 

The short answer seems to be that they are noticeably larger than the Mathieson wagon, to the extent that it does look a little strange. (apologies for the slightly dark phone picture, and the Unitrack!)

 

 

While I think the Mathieson model represents a wagon built to the 1911 RCH specifications, if we assume the Bachmann one is the built to the 1923 standards, its actually pretty close to the scaled sizes quoted for 2mm by Gingerbread above. I make the body 34mm x 16mm. I don't have built examples of the Association kits to hand, but, theoretically, it seems like they should be at least plausible together.

 

The brake gear and underframe are just as fine on the Bachmann model as the Mathieson, and the body sides are only marginally thicker. One thing that is noticeable though is that the buffers are much larger on the Bachmann.

 

Hope this is of interest!

 

Justin

 

The Bachmann models do indeed represent the 1923 RCH specification.

 

Take a look at some photos of pre-war coal trains and you will see the wagon sizes are all sorts. They do not look at all like an early version of an MGR train.

 

Chris