Whats on your 2mm Work bench

[Chris Higgs]

The suggestion of a new standard was a bit tongue in cheek.  We arguably have more than enough standards already for very small trains.  NEM, NMRA, 2FS, FS160, N2 (8.8mm gauge with fine flangeways, to avoid the need to adjust back to backs on RTR N gauge), and then there's commercial N gauge running NMRA profile wheels set to NEM back to back on track that makes Triang Super Four look finescale. The main thing is to pick a standard that works for you personally and apply it consistently. I'm getting good results so far with NMRA but it's early days.

 

Ah, Triang Super 4. I was never quite sure if it was suppose to be representing transverse sleepers, or Brunel's baulk road. 

 

EDIT: My apologies to Super 4. It was Series 3 and the 'standard track' that preceded that I was thinking of.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Chris Higgs

[Atso]

I've just about completed the V1 locomotive.

 

 

The cab was glazed using Kristal Klear. This is the first time I've tried this and it wasn't quite dry when the photo was taken.

[grahame]

 

Indeed you are correct about Peco's 'catch all' track standards. Finetrax uses a check rail clearance of 1mm while I've reduced this to 0.9mm on mine as I'll need to reverse some lengthy formations in the fiddle yard. I've tested reversing three wagons (all that the test track can accommodate) through the turnout and have had zero derailments so far. A quick attempt using a Peco turnout gave around 75% reliability.

 

 

I've always thought that fiNetrax missed a trick with standardising on 1mm flangeways. AFAIA they're only that size because of a 'vote' on the NGF where people wanted to be able to use their Peco wagons with Peco moulded plastic wheelsets. In a way it was a sort of compromise which is probably not ideal for setting standards. And somehow I doubt that those who won't/can't change their Peco wheel-sets for more modern metal NMRA ones (now fitted on the vast majority of all new N gauge stock for almost 20 years now) and adjust 'back to backs' would be likely to actually build point kits and use fiNtrax. Shame, but nonetheless the fiNtrax does look a massive improvement over Peco N track.

 

And, of course, it's a big shame that Peco didn't take the opportunity to 'improve' their N points when tooling up for the new 'unifrog' ones which I understand will replace the current/old code 55 range. A tightening up of the flangeways (closer to NMRA ideals) and getting rid of those code 80 blades (over a section of lowered sleepers) would have been a start, even if they couldn't quite go British with 1:148 scale sleeper sizes and spacing (to still be attractive in the international market).

 

G 

[queensquare]

I've always thought that fiNetrax missed a trick with standardising on 1mm flangeways. AFAIA they're only that size because of a 'vote' on the NGF where people wanted to be able to use their Peco wagons with Peco moulded plastic wheelsets. In a way it was a sort of compromise which is probably not ideal for setting standards. And somehow I doubt that those who won't/can't change their Peco wheel-sets for more modern metal NMRA ones (now fitted on the vast majority of all new N gauge stock for almost 20 years now) and adjust 'back to backs' would be likely to actually build point kits and use fiNtrax. Shame, but nonetheless the fiNtrax does look a massive improvement over Peco N track.

 

And, of course, it's a big shame that Peco didn't take the opportunity to 'improve' their N points when tooling up for the new 'unifrog' ones which I understand will replace the current/old code 55 range. A tightening up of the flangeways (closer to NMRA ideals) and getting rid of those code 80 blades (over a section of lowered sleepers) would have been a start, even if they couldn't quite go British with 1:148 scale sleeper sizes and spacing (to still be attractive in the international market).

 

G 

 

Couldn't agree more. I was very tempted to stick with N on code 40 track for my 1970s projects as visually it looks excellent and would have been quicker and easier but in the end opted for 2FS track and wheel standards, largely because there isn't really a widely accepted set of standards for British N, (I ignore the small difference between 1;148 and 1;152).

 

The other reason was that converting my blue diesels to 2FS meant I could run them on the home layout - what if the S&D had made it into the 1970s!!:-))

 

Jerry 

[bcnPete]

 The other reason was that converting my blue diesels to 2FS

 

...still waiting to see these Jerry

[Richard Hall]

Couldn't agree more. I was very tempted to stick with N on code 40 track for my 1970s projects as visually it looks excellent and would have been quicker and easier but in the end opted for 2FS track and wheel standards, largely because there isn't really a widely accepted set of standards for British N, (I ignore the small difference between 1;148 and 1;152).

 

 

You would have thought the N Gauge Society would have something to say on the subject, but I just had a look at their website and there is no mention of standards, beyond them saying that 2FS is 9.5mm gauge (sic) and therefore not N Gauge. Somehow I don't think that specifying the distance between running rails is quite enough on its own to constitute a standard.  (And what about Brunel's Broad Gauge in 1:148 - is that N Gauge or not?)

 

Richard

[grahame]

You would have thought the N Gauge Society would have something to say on the subject, but I just had a look at their website and there is no mention of standards, beyond them saying that 2FS is 9.5mm gauge (sic) and therefore not N Gauge. Somehow I don't think that specifying the distance between running rails is quite enough on its own to constitute a standard.  (And what about Brunel's Broad Gauge in 1:148 - is that N Gauge or not?)

 

There is a bit about N Gauge standards in the NGS Handbook so it does have something to say, but, as you are probably aware, these days the custodians of N gauge standards tends to be NEM and NMRA with Peco seeming to do their own thing. I doubt the NGS has sufficient international clout to determine another set of standards and it would probably only add to the confusion.

 

As the 'N' in N gauge stand for nine (mm) the track gauge dimension, then Brunels broad gauge would probably need to be BB gauge rather than N ;-)

 

G

[Atso]

I'll have to stick up hand up to still using Peco wheelsets under some wagons. However, that is due to the cost of replacing them while on limited means rather than a lack of desire to replace them.

 

Likewise with my decision to finally have a go at building my own track, the cost of laying my planned fiddle yard with Peco turnouts was eye watering! As I'm likely to be using at least some Peco wheel sets for the foreseeable future, I've set my check rail clearances for these as I can adjust the back to backs on everything else I own. So far this has proven successful with short wheelbase wagons rolling going through my test pieces much better than the Peco equivalent. As I'm not using any established standards, I guess I've inadvertently come up with a new one of my own which I will name the 'BIAS' standards (Bodge It And See!). 

 

As I said before, while I seem to have successfully gotten away with this using N gauge wheel sets, I very much doubt my approach would work for constructing fine scale track!

Edited June 18, 2018 by Atso

[Ian Morgan]

The Broad Gauge Society have published standards for 7mm, 4mm and 2mm scales. BG2 is based on 2mm Scale Association standards, whilst there are two sets of 4mm standards, BG4(EM) and BG4(P4/S4). They do not endorse OO or N, because any mixed gauge trackwork would not look right.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Ian Morgan

[grahame]

They do not endorse OO or N, because any mixed gauge trackwork would not look right.

I guess that is a matter of opinion. I don't think broad gauge 'looks right' regardless of the scale it is modelled in, including full size.

;-)

 

G

[Chris Higgs]

The Broad Gauge Society have published standards for 7mm, 4mm and 2mm scales. BG2 is based on 2mm Scale Association standards, whilst there are two sets of 4mm standards, BG4(EM) and BG4(P4/S4). They do not endorse OO or N, because any mixed gauge trackwork would not look right.

 

A bit odd with N, as it is no more out-of-proportion (9 vs 9.42)  than EM is compared to P4 (18/18.2 vs 18.83). Perhaps it is relating to the large flangeways, which can get difficult to deal with on mixed-gauge track. With OO the percentage difference with 16.5 as against 18.83 is pretty large.

 

Chris 

[Donw]

A bit odd with N, as it is no more out-of-proportion (9 vs 9.42)  than EM is compared to P4 (18/18.2 vs 18.83). Perhaps it is relating to the large flangeways, which can get difficult to deal with on mixed-gauge track. With OO the percentage difference with 16.5 as against 18.83 is pretty large.

 

Chris 

 

I suspect that the BGS felt they might attract more converts to modelling the Broad Gauge from 2mm Association members than from NGS society members, after all modelling Boad gauge in 2mm would probably require a lot of scratch building. I seem to remember Kelvin White writing something on BG in 2mm for the magazine and him talking about it at a BGS meeting I attended at the Origninal Temple Meads station.

 

Don 

[queensquare]

The campaign to finish some of the stuff that's been started before starting anything else continues - (am I the only one who finds it near impossible to resist getting going on a virgin etch!)

 

We have a bunch of MR, GWR and LNWR NPCS, three lowmacs from Association etches, a LNWR D33 box van and a Caley open.

 

This hot, dry weather does mean I only get the soldering iron out early morning and the cool of the evening but its great for spraying outside - in the shade!

 

 

 

 

 

Jerry

[Nick Mitchell]

A small package arrived from Shapeways a couple of hours ago to distract me from my Jubilee chassis.

I have a very long term (and very small) project that keeps bubbling around in my brain. 

This was an experiment in 3D printing in brass (well, printing in wax, then investment casting in brass) to see if I could produce some viable wheel centres. The alternative would be an etched overlay.

The design was done in TinkerCad, and exported directly to Shapeways.

I drew the circumferences over-sized so I could machine the critical surfaces - the one on the right has been so treated.

I'm quite pleased with how the've turned out. I think the slight layering effect just visible will disappear under paint and weathering. I just need to order some 6mm tyres from shop 3 now.

With exchange rates, postage and tyres, they probably work out at just less than double the price of an Association wheel. At least I only need 4 of them.

 

No prizes for guessing the prototype...

 

[Nigelcliffe]

Nick,

suggest repeating your experiment at iMaterialise.com.   You'll be able to get better definition, and in materials such as steel.

 

Nigel

[Kylestrome]

 

My battle against the pile of unfinished projects has advanced one more step. This CCT kit, from the estimable Mr Higgs, was started many years ago and ran out of steam at the final detailing stage. 

 

It’s an excellent kit and provided hours of soldering fun. Any difficulties I had with it were entirely my own fault. In particular, glueing in the voltage regulator, after finishing the rest of the chassis, provided a great opportunity for attempting the impossible. It probably didn’t help that I did almost everything in reverse order to what’s in the instructions (maybe I should have read them first?   ).

 

I’m now at the painting stage so, if the good weather holds up, it should be ready for service on Kylestrome soon.

 

David

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Kylestrome

[Caley Jim]

Ah, yes! If all else fails, read the instructions!

 

Jim

[nick_bastable]

Ah, yes! If all else fails, read the instructions!

 

Jim

       

 

perhaps that's where I go wrong   

 

Nick

[John57sharp]

Oh that’s given me a little swoosh of enthusiasm to get on and finish mine, which doesn’t look as good as this one (yet, I’m working on it...)

 

John

[timatheronwood]

I suspect that the BGS felt they might attract more converts to modelling the Broad Gauge from 2mm Association members than from NGS society members, after all modelling Boad gauge in 2mm would probably require a lot of scratch building. I seem to remember Kelvin White writing something on BG in 2mm for the magazine and him talking about it at a BGS meeting I attended at the Origninal Temple Meads station.

 

Don 

There is also Neath Riverside modelled by Hendreladis: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65499-whats-on-your-2mm-work-bench/page-75?hl=neath&do=findComment&comment=2930681

I would love to see more pictures of this model - I am greatly intrigued. I began to build a GWR BG tilt wagon some time ago but could not get the requisite end sections to work in plastic. I must try again in thin metal.

 

Tim

[Izzy]

Been playing around with bits of card to make the first section of my Priory Road station buildings while trying to decide exactly how and where I want them as I am not at all sure what looks best or right.

 

 

 

 

 

Izzy

[sp1]

That looks great! Very clever

[modfather]

Emigration isn't really an excuse anymore, had another fight with the RCH tank chassis that put me off 2mm last time, just long enough to get comfortable with the RSU.

 

Which was sharply followed up by a CCT chassis to fit under a PD Marsh body from the Sykes boxes at Tutbury.

 

Which was going swimmingly until I realised I had only got wagon wheels in stock...

 

 

[Atso]

My 'holiday project' while I'm up in Pickering for the week.

 

 

This is an LNER Toad E which I am building from the association's etch. I've only brought a very basic toolkit with me some I'm really quite happy with how this is going together without my usual (over stocked) arsenal of stuff!

[Atso]

I think I've gone as far as I can with the Toad E until I get home. The model is missing a few bits which I need to fabricate replacements due to either not reading the instructions properly or losing the bits because I wasn't careful in cutting them out. The roof is just balanced on at the moment and it appears that one of the hand grabs by the ducket wasn't soldered on very well. I think I'm going to replace the long horizontal handrails with guitar wire and handrail knobs as they are rather fragile.

 

 

Overall I'm really happy with how this has come out and for about £12 for all the bits, you can't really go wrong. I'm definitely going to build at least one more (hopefully learning from my mistakes on this one) and have my eye on the dia. 1/506 brake van to convert into an early Toad D. If only somebody did a Toad B, I'd be able to have the whole LNER set!