Karhedron Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 One thing to bear in mind is that although the range of stock is more limited in N gauge than 00, the gap is narrowing and is likely to continue to do so in the next few years as other popular items get shrunk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold roundhouse Posted March 31, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2014 Dont forget that there are complete bodies available in 3D printing in N scale whereas in OO theres nomrally only parts of sections and its a lot more expensive in OO / HO to do a complete model. N has the dvantage that its not so expensive. There is some nice items out there in both US and British N scales let alone other European N gauge. Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 With limited space and getting more limited then to me an North American/Canadian shunting plank sounds like the right option in N or HO. Personally that is where I would go now if I was starting over and had a limited space, but it really depends on what it is you want out of your model. I know my father never looked back after giving up British N for American N especially with respect to the mechanisms and the couplings - Dapol do knuckle couplings but they don't fit everything because we have yet to achieve a single standard across all N gauge models though it is getting better. There are other options for better couplings but all require surgery to stock and making the couplings from kits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAustin Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Another option is fine scale track standards in N. Essentially to 2mm standards, but 9mm gauge and slightly wider crossing gauge at the nose. You still have to build the track, but a recent startup is providing components and kits. See http://www.britishfinescale.com/ Mark A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAustin Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 In a lot of cases, this will depend on exactly what you are comparing. If you have a 1:148 5-plank wagon coupled next to a 1:152 one, it will probably look very odd (at best). On the other hand, 1:152 stock running through a landscape using 1:148 scenic items will look fine. Scale differences of a few percent are only obvious when you have similar items in close proximity. Personally I am happy with commercial N gauge (1:148) for my stock. The scale/guage discrepancy is only about half as bad as it is for 00 gauge and for me, it is not particularly noticable. I notice things like the larghe couplings and deep rails more than a slight narrowing of gauge. The main thing to remember is that sloutions exist to most of the "problems" with N gauge if they bother you enough. Aftermarket brass couplings are available that are far less obtrusive than the chunky Rapidos. FiNetrax make code 40 track in kit for that looks very nice if Peco does not look convincing enough for you. For me, the compromises in N gauge are not sufficient to bother me and I focus my efforts on kit-building and scenery building to help make my layout a little more individual. The difference is less than 3%. For a standard wagon of 17ft 6in, this is only 1mm. Wagon heights would be about 0.5mm difference. It does matter for coaches: for a 57ft coach it's 3.5mm. The real problem is (as Jerry has said) that so much N gauge stuff staerts off oversize so that when put next to scale (N or 2mm) models it looks wrong. Mark A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted April 2, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 2, 2014 Of course if you modelling pre-group GWR a typical train often had coaches of differing heights Mink wagons the Iron ones were smaller than the later ones. On the SR a terrier looked small compared to the coaches. So it is not always that critical. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Line Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 The difference between the two scales is 2.7% (2.6667) when written, or as a linear measurement. However when you calculate the squaring effect of flat surfaces or the volume of three dimensional objects we see that 152nd scale is 5.4% (5.3933) smaller than 148th scale in area and 8% (8.0808) smaller in volume. hope this helps 'clear the waters?' cheers Mark (edited to simplify) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2mm Andy Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Sorry Mark - you've lost me with the latter part of your post. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted April 5, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 5, 2014 Ah but 2.7% is really 0.027 and your logic is slightly flawed, now the 148 model should be 1.027x1.027x1.027 times bigger in volume but we are splitting hairs here. When admiring say Jerry's Highbury Colliery you don't keep thinking are that is a 2mm scale model and that is a 1:148 one you just admire the results. What I and others find difficult to ignore is the flangeways and corse wheels of N gauge which are 2 or 3 times (not percent) over scale. It is true in 2mFS they may not be exact but are a good compromise between exact and practical. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Line Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Sorry Mark - you've lost me with the latter part of your post. Andy Cheers Andy that bit was superfluous to the point in hand, iv'e deleted it. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Line Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Ah but 2.7% is really 0.027 and your logic is slightly flawed, now the 148 model should be 1.027x1.027x1.027 times bigger in volume but we are splitting hairs here. When admiring say Jerry's Highbury Colliery you don't keep thinking are that is a 2mm scale model and that is a 1:148 one you just admire the results. What I and others find difficult to ignore is the flangeways and corse wheels of N gauge which are 2 or 3 times (not percent) over scale. It is true in 2mFS they may not be exact but are a good compromise between exact and practical. Don Hi Don, the numbers quoted in post No.33 are correct, iv'e even gone back over them again just to make sure... Your right about the wheels in N though and even with the big leaps made in recent years there is still a good argument for going to a single and finer wheel and check standard for some modelers..but as with many things in this hobby its a choice made up of many factors both practical and personal for each modeler to decide on.. cheers Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted April 6, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 6, 2014 Hi Don, the numbers quoted in post No.33 are correct, iv'e even gone back over them again just to make sure... Your right about the wheels in N though and even with the big leaps made in recent years there is still a good argument for going to a single and finer wheel and check standard for some modelers..but as with many things in this hobby its a choice made up of many factors both practical and personal for each modeler to decide on.. cheers Mark It wasn't your figures I was referring to, it was autocoupler who was just cubing the 2.7% and getting 19%. A good example of what is noticeable is shown by those 0 gaugers who have reduced the gauge to 31.5 keeping the Back to back the same. You cannot spot the 0.5mm on the gauge but you can easily see the diffrence in the flangeways. Whether you use 9mm, 9.42 or 9.7(or thereabouts) matters less than the effect of finer wheels and tighter flangeways. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Line Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Sorry Don gone two posts muddled in my head there... I was not aware that some 'O gaugers' were gauge squashing..interesting.. Gauge reductions, in smaller scale modelling were muted a while back as you can squash n gauge down to 8.65mm and when using the latest wheels (post 2003) this could offer a check spacing of around 0.7/0.8mm but does then raise a mix of issues relating to varying effective flange thicknesses and relative back to back measurements on RTR N wheel-sets... but as you say this would not overcome the many other reasons modelers have though for 'going finescale' so to speak. Hence again the suggestion towards adopting a unified wheel and check spacing using the 2mmSA standard. Cheers Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenDiesel Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 Just when I thought I'd put this N Scale idea to bed, I've been given a batch of N Scale Altas track, buildings, etc. No rolling stock, or loco, but a few hundred dollars worth of N stuff. Now I'm getting tempted to reconsider! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sheep Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Come to the dark side, we have cookies... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valentin Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 [...]Now I'm getting tempted to reconsider! You won't reconsider any more after running your hand-build trains on your hand-build tracks. It's not simple but the satisfactions are huge! You will start thinking how could you have "played" with trains instead of doing some real railway modelling! I know precisely what I'm saying as I bit the bullet just 4 years ago and I made the switch (pun intended). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenDiesel Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 Are Dapol couplers compatible with Graham Farish, etc.? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anglian Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I've not seen the model in the flesh yet but the new Farish 4F appears to be excellent and is getting positive reviews for its looks. Haulage seems to be modest according to the magazine reviews I've read so it possibly won't cope with 40 wagons. As a starting point I think the latest Farish releases with the fiNescale N gauge track is quite a visual step on and would be where I'd start before considering a move to 2mm Finescale. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sheep Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Are Dapol couplers compatible with Graham Farish, etc.? Simple answer? Yes but No. Dapol's couplings are NEM pocket compatible. So, any locomotives that have been produced in recent years as new tooling will be NEM compatible. Simply tug the coupling out and push the Dapol one in. Locomotives that are a bit older / been a re-run of old tooling may not have been updated, once you've seen a few NEM equipped locos you'll be able to tell at a quick glance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anglian Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I watched Keith Armes amazing Chipping Norton for well over and hour. He uses the D&G couplings and observing him shunt the yard was fantastic. I believe the system works by activating an electro-magnet to decouple but the locomotive can then push the uncoupled portion of the train to the desired position before backing away. The odd strategically placed figure or pile of old sleepers etc can be used to mark the exact position of the magnets. I'm not sure how tricky they are to set-up – they come as an etched sheet so need folding up and painting plus of course the fitting. However, having seen them in operation I think they are worth the effort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 One thing to bear in mind is that although the range of stock is more limited in N gauge than 00, the gap is narrowing and is likely to continue to do so in the next few years as other popular items get shrunk. I'm not suggesting that there are any problems otherwise, but ongoing shrinking of already small motors, gear teeth and bearings clearances isn't something that can be done ad infinitum. At spme point you will reach economic mechanical limits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I wasn't suggesting models could be shrunk ad infinitum. Rather I was observing that an increasing number of models that have been developed in 00 are also being released in N gauge. Bachmann have stated in the past that they intend in the long term to mirror their 00 and N gauge ranges. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAustin Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Yes, not 'strictly' true, but more usual than in the UK. I didn't mean standardization, as in USRA, but that many roads bought from builders 'catalogs'. Example, the C&O needed something to replace double heading 4-6-2 Pacifics in the mountains, as passenger cars became heavier and trains longer. They had ALCO design the new engine, which became the 4-8-2 Mountain type. This was a success, and other roads then bought the same type from ALCO, but made with features they wanted. Very few railroads had their own erecting shops, verses the UK, where it seems most railways built their own locos. Jim F Salisbury NC Most of the larger companies built their own locomotives, etc. However, many of the medium to small companies (e.g. most of the pre-grouping South Wales lines) designed their own and then had them built by outside contractors. What was rare in the Uk (compared with the US) was for locomotives designed by one company or builder to be used on another line. Mark A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAustin Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I'm now considering N scale as an alternative to 00 (as per one of my other threads, I was looking at TT but it might be too hard & frustrating finding TT products in Canada). The space in our house is very confined and will probably become even more limited in the future. I have several basic questions regarding British N scale: -- it sounds as if British N scale has the same scale "problems" as 00, in that the British locos and rolling stock are made slightly larger than they should be (so that the gauge/wheel spacing is too narrow for the scale). I always thought N scale was free from these problems but it sounds as if the same thing happened to N as it did with 00? So, 2mm Finescale (as an alternative to N) would be the equivalent to P4 or EM (as an alternative to 00). -- how do the couplers of N scale work ... are shunting operations easy to do and does the rolling stock uncouple easily? -- the main N scale manufacturers appear to be Graham Farish (owned by Bachmann) and Dapol. Are there others? ... I don't believe Hornby has an N scale line although they do have N scale buildings. I'll probably have a few other questions as I think about this further. Only doing research right now (and that might be only as far as I get!). Thanks, Rob As Martyn Wynne pointed out on the Templot/Hand built track forum, there is a case for gauge narrowing in the coarser scales. Even with the better standards of modern N gauge stock, stock is wider over the wheels, cylinders etc than scale. A lot of US stuff looks too wide below the footplate. Narrowing the gauge brings things back into proportion. That was the rationale for EM. Get the gauge more accurate but still allow for a bit overscale on either side of the wheels. The main difference is standards. Put a piec of code 40 N gauge track next to 2mm track, and I defy anyone to pick out which is which without butting them up end to end. Mark A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.