YORK for York Show 2023 and beyond

[queensquare]

21 minutes ago, kirmies said:

Finally the batch of 4 A3s and 4 A4s is completed.

I've posted on here before how batch building is a double edged sword - one the one hand you do end up with a whole batch of stuff built but......it takes ages.

When I first started building 'This is York' I divided the work up into 'modules' with a target completion date for each. This felt very efficient and positive at the time.

So first the good news: the 8 Gresley pacifics are completed......

And now the bad news, the target date for completion was the end of March 2021.

The best laid plans etc.

 

Thats less than a year behind. As you’ve put York’s appearance at York back by a whole year that makes you ahead of schedule. 

Result!

 

Jerry

[CF MRC]

Your comments about the differences between top end N and 2mm FS are very valid Pete.  I wound seriously question the advantage of the fine scale standings when modelling diesels, but steam engines with big wheels are a different ball game. 
 

Will your valve gear etches be available in the Association shop? They should be!

 

Tim

[Steven B]

21 hours ago, kirmies said:

Or, to put it another way, the first photo couldn't really be anything other than an N-gauge model whereas the second just might be a photo of a 4mm model.

 

Without the Rapido coupling, the RTR Dapol model could potentially be confused with a c.1970-80s Hornby model where as the second could compared to a current OO Gauge locomotive.

 

There's no doubting that the finer wheelsets and valve gear lift the model to another level, although I've seen N Gauge models to similar standards (albeit without the external valve-gear).

 

One thing I've often wondered about 2mmFS modellers is how they feel about the compromise in scale when using 1:148 body shells on 1:152 running gear and track?

 

The fine-scale 9.42mm track gauge is more accurate for the 1:148 body than the off-the shelf 9mm track but when put next to some 1:152 rolling stock, doesn't the scale difference become apparent?

 

Steven B.

[Bryn]

7 hours ago, Steven B said:

One thing I've often wondered about 2mmFS modellers is how they feel about the compromise in scale when using 1:148 body shells on 1:152 running gear and track?

 

A question which alway results in endless debate which could easily take this enjoyable thread off topic. So to wrap this up:

 

"At the time of creating your project use the best options given your; current modelling time allowance, skills and off the shelf models/kits available"

 

Not all 2FS modellers are the same, there is a very diverse range of skills and experience within this group of active modellers.

 

The idea of there being a hard line between N gauge and 2mm Finescale is where this conversation normally gets confused in translation. In my experience it truly is a grey scale all the way from code 80 Peco track with older 1:148(ish) Farish models through to hand crafted 1:152 brass locomotives on 2FS track. You just need to consider what is the best combination for yourself at the time of the project in hand.

 

As of today your basic scenarios are as follows.

 

Steam Era 

As mentioned above, a 1:152 kit on 2FS track is the best option visually.

 

An etched chassis under a 1:148 RTR body is still an improvement over N gauge if you don't have time to build a body or more likely you'll see new modellers in the scale using this option as a stepping stone on their modelling journey to full 1:152 (if time and skill allows... we can gain skill, but sadly not time).

 

Diesel (Green and Blue)

For the record there are a few 1:152 scratch built diesels around, the Association's 08 kit and a few etched scratch aid kits on the market. Not for the faint hearted, but they do exist out in the wild as running  models.

 

The discussion normally focuses around the fact that a rewheeled 1:148 locomotive on 2FS track doesn't really improve the model, which is fully correct. This is the situation I find myself in with Colwyn Bay Goods, I can't currently build a class 25 in 1:152 which would look better than my out of scale Farish model with drop in wheels. It is my best option at this moment in time given my skills and available time.  

 

You need to consider the bigger picture of all rolling stock of this era, I much prefer the etched kits such as the 16T mineral wagons and catfish which are only available in 1:152 currently. The wagons have very open underframes which show off the finer wheels to great effect and are a massive improvement on the current N gauge alternatives. 

 

I can't make the 3 way turnout with Finetrax as the over scale flangeways would overlap and clash (granted, Colwyn Bay Goods predated Finetrax by a decade).

 

With technology progressing well the concept of a 3D printed 1:152 diesel body becomes a closer reality I would like to explore, because I enjoy building kits and have recently started to learn about making my own 2FS chassis. 

 

In summary, this era is a grey area. No wrong answers but no easy perfect solution either way.

 

Diesel and Electric (The air braked era)

Unless you need to model complex trackwork (where the wider clearances of Finetrax will always be a limiting factor) then it makes sense to use 1:148 models on code 40 N gauge track.... but not for the reasons we all assume.

 

- 1:152 Track has a correct track spacing for the scale, 9.42mm

- 1:148 Finescale track should be to 9.69mm

- Finetrax is 9mm

 

Why? Because UK N gauge is running on European/American 1:160 track which is where the 9mm comes from. So technically you would be nearer to scale to use N gauge stock on 2FS track.

 

So not only does Finetrax have have over sized flangeways the gauge is still wrong. 

 

So why did I state Finetrax as the best option for modern diesel/electric? It's back to "the best option at the current time" as it looks right and is cost effective. Why rewheel stock if you can't see the benefit behind bogie side frames?

 

Also, I can't think of any modern 1:152 kits (currently).

 

Conclusion 

Sometimes the overall effect is more important than dimensional accuracy. Unless your're rewheeling 1:148 N gauge locos to run on hand made 9.69mm track it's always going to be a compromise which suits your current situation.

 

If mixing 1:152 stock with 1:148 try not to use combinations which obviously visually clash. For instance, mixed freight wagons hide the scale difference well but a rake of similar coaches should be of one scale. Current situation etc. 

 

Which is why the majority of active 2mm Finescale modellers rewheel N gauge. We just like building and tinkering with stuff. Nothing more, nothing less. The satisfaction of this is greater than exact dimensional perfection. This will always be a soft target for people to call foul play and it's not really 2mm Finescale, but hey! It makes us happy and who knows maybe a few of us will progress slowly towards pure 1:152.

 

Hats off to the pure 1:152 modellers, we all truely look up to them, but the rest of us are just plodding along that grey scale line away from code 80 and pizza cutters at our own speed

 

 

[Ian Morgan]

I first tried 2mm finescale in the late 1980's. I soon discovered that in addition to looking better, there was also improvement in reliable, slow running through pointwork that finescale provided. Since then, N gauge has improved considerably, and looks a lot better, but short wagons still rock and roll through pointwork, and short locos still hesitate.

 

I am flexible when it comes to scale, but try to avoid parking similar vehicles of different scales too close to each other. It is the running performance that keeps me from straying from finescale track standards.

 

[kirmies]

On 31/01/2022 at 14:58, queensquare said:

 

Thats less than a year behind. As you’ve put York’s appearance at York back by a whole year that makes you ahead of schedule. 

Result!

 

Jerry

Thanks Jerry.

That's the sort of positive thinking I love:

I'm now so far behind........I'm ahead!!

Peter

[kirmies]

23 hours ago, CF MRC said:

Your comments about the differences between top end N and 2mm FS are very valid Pete.  I wound seriously question the advantage of the fine scale standings when modelling diesels, but steam engines with big wheels are a different ball game. 
 

Will your valve gear etches be available in the Association shop? They should be!

 

Tim

Tim,

The valve gear etch can definitey be made available but I'd like to wait until some of the loco fitted with it have done some proper miles. It's very delicate (drawn to the recommended limits by the etchers PPD but still over scale) so I'm slightly concerned about wear and handling damage.

I'm thinking of getting some etched in mild steel for the next batch as it should be more robust. This is perfectly okay for soldering using decent strength phosphoric acid flux, it's just vital to wash part thoroughly at the end of each session to avoid rust.

Peter 

[kirmies]

I've finally got started on the back wall of the train shed:

The first two sections, a combination of layered 10 thou plastikard (cut and scored with my Silhouette craft cutter) and Evergreen styrene strip.

Not all the arches are infilled with brickwork: there are doors, windows and, of course, open arches to allow access to the far platforms. The LNER plan I have (seen in the background) will enable me to work out which goes where.

Just SEVENTY NINE more sections to go...........

Edited May 10, 2022 by kirmies
Photo had disappeared

[Barry O]

That looks splendid!

 

Baz

[Not Jeremy]

I have just caught up with this absolutely stunning project via a conversation with Jerry Queensquare Clifford.

 

Everything you'd expect in terms of artistry, originality and skill from the man who brought us Blea Moor and Laramie.

 

In fact I think it might just be genius, pure and simple.

 

Simon

[kirmies]

An Update!

 

Apologies to anyone who has noticed it’s 4 months since I last posted on this thread.

 

There have been various reasons for this the main one being leading a project to encourage a population of swifts to nest in our village – Nibley Swifts.

 

In short, we had swifts nest in boxes on our house for the first time last year and I thought it’d be good to get some nesting on other houses so offered to build people boxes for the cost of the materials. I thought I’d be doing well if half a dozen people were interested. How wrong can you be? There are now over EIGHTY boxes spread around 30 houses (plus a load on the local secondary school) and I have a waiting list for next year!

 

This has somewhat distracted from progress on YORK but:

• The layout is now confirmed to be making its first public appearance at York Show Easter 2023
• The main station board will make a single outing prior to this as a static ‘work in progress’ exhibit at Larkrail on Saturday 23rd July,
• The rear wall of the station roof (first section of which features in my last post of 17th Feb) is finally nearing completion so, in the next day or two, I’ll post more on that – with pictures!
• And finally, I've taken the radical step of changing the name of the layout from the rather indulgently long 'This is York' to the altogether more snappy 'YORK' (all upper case). Obviously this will completely transform the nature of the layout!

[queensquare]

Brilliant work on the Swifts, what a fantastic project.

 

As for the name change. Deciding to call your model of York, YORK, well simply inspired!

 

Jerry

[Ian Morgan]

A management consultancy would have charged you several hundred thousand pounds to suggest that name change. I trust you carried out the requisite focus groups and consultations ... 🙂

[kirmies]

1 hour ago, Ian Morgan said:

A management consultancy would have charged you several hundred thousand pounds to suggest that name change. I trust you carried out the requisite focus groups and consultations ... 🙂

I most certainly did!😉 I consulted with my self at great length.

The main topic of discussion was should it be YORK or YORK!

In the end a majority (of me) took against the '!' as overstating the obvious! 🤭

[Caley Jim]

Is the rebranding exercise (new logo, signage, paperwork, etc) going to be expensive? 

 

Jim 

[Nick Mitchell]

Love the new title. It really shouts out what the layout is all about.

[kirmies]

4 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

Is the rebranding exercise (new logo, signage, paperwork, etc) going to be expensive? 

 

Jim 

Since there was no existing logo, signage or even paperwork this rebranding exercise will, in contrast to many others, have zero cost!

[kirmies]

Whilst the label on the tin is important, it’s the contents that really count. So…..

 

Back in February I produced a test section of the back wall of the overall roof using my Silhouette craft cutter to cut multiple layers of 10 thou plastikard MEKed together to produce the required thickness:

Given that there are 81 essentially similar arched sections to this back wall it made sense to produce them ‘by machine’ in some way and, whilst I could have gone for 3D printing (pretty expensive as the back wall is over 5ft long), laser cutting (probably likewise) or resin casting, I chose to go with the craft cutter mostly because I have one and have got the hang of how to do this layering of thin plastikard thing.

 

Fast forward several months and I’d finally reached the stage where I had fabricated enough sections (‘here are another 79 I produced earlier’) and could start assembly.

 

I made a 6mm ply curved carcass to mount the sections on and then set about temporarily fitting them on this with double sided tape to see whether they lined up with the main part of the roof.

Queue another lesson in cumulative error: the 2 arch sections I’d made were nearly 1mm per arch too narrow so, by the time I reached the other end of the roof I was about 8cm short!

 

How could this have happened and, more to the point, what the hell could I do about it?

 

Long story short, I ended up making single arch joining sections each around 2mm over width and then, after a lengthy series of mounting on ply carcass, measuring the error, removing and filing a bit more off each section and then retrying, I finally got there.

 

This was a long and tedious process but, by now, I realised that, with now 54 separate pieces – 27 under width double arch bits and 27 over width single arch ones – an error of even 0.1mm per section led to a total error of over 5mm and, therefore, either a big gap or a back wall that wouldn’t fit!

 

What I though would be a relatively quick job compared to the overall roof build had already taken up over 100 somewhat frustrating hours!

 

I used a tried and tested method to bond the plastikard pieces to the ply carcass – Evostik. As long as you apply the glue to BOTH surfaces and let it go COMPLETELY dry before bringing the two together, it works brilliantly. I left small sections at a time clamped in place overnight for the glue to fully cure and, over a period of about a week, gradually went from one end to the other:

I have to say I’m VERY happy with the result and, although every third arch is wider than the others, I don’t think this will be at all apparent once it’s fitted to the back of the layout.

Next step painting!

[Barry O]

Great work as usual Pete!

 

Baz

[kirmies]

As many will know, York station is built from yellow/yellow ochre engineering brick (I'm sure someone can shed light on the history/origin) and is very characteristic of the buildings. So, pretty vital to capture at least a close approximation of this colour:

As can be seen, as with most brickwork, there is variation in colour between bricks. Whilst this can be recreated to great effect by painting individual bricks using a range of similar but slightly differing shades/colour in larger scales, I'm not sure this is all that practical in 2mm: the bricks are SO small! So, as with many things in this scale, the suggestion of this may well be better and is certainly more practical than individual brick painting!

 

I happened to have some acrylic sand coloured primer so thought this would be a good starting point:

As can be seen, this is not a bad first approximation and this is confirmed when the back wall is in place on the layout: EXCELLENT news!

Next step = how to introduce at least the impression of some subtle variation in brick colour? Enter my favourite weathering powder - AK Industrial City Dirt. This is a subtle grey colour and works very well in many circumstances. Here, to the left is a section with the roof beams in place, the coping stomes pick out in pale cream and a sparing application of the weathering powder:

To my eye, that's not at all bad!

Edited June 13, 2022 by kirmies
correct spellong errors

[Caley Jim]

I've always found that dusting stonework with light grey (in my case dry powder paint) helps to enhance the texture and tone down the base colour.  Works well on your brickwork too!

 

Jim

[kirmies]

This post is about how satisfying making something can be when, despite set backs, trials and tribulations along the way , it all starts to come together.

 

Having decided I was happy with the painting/weathering sceheme I'd come up with for the back wall/roof, it was time to replicate it along the whole length (81 columns/roof beams etc.).

 

The roof sections were primed with the same acrylic sand primer I'd used for the walls, sprayed with a pale cream/off white colour and then the roof panels masked to allow beams to be painted black:

When I say 'painted black' I hardly EVER use pure black any more but one or other of a really excellent set of complex grey shades in this set:

In this case, black uniform base. The whole lot, wall and roof sections were then dusted in AK Industrial City Dirt (now marketed as Abteilung 502 Urban Industry Dirt) and once I was happy with the finish, everything was sprayed with AK Pigment Fixer.

 

Now for the best bit (I hoped!) attaching the roof panels to the wall and seeing it all grow. As with fixing the plastikard wall sections to the ply former, I used Evostik, clamping each section until the glue bonded:

An unexpected benefit of the current hot weather is that the glue goes off in about an hour. So, glue a section on, clamp it, set a timer for an hour and go and do something else (e.g. sit in the shade with a cool drink!) go back, glue the next bit. And repeat!

I have to say I'm REALLY pleased with the way its's turning out:

The windows need finishing, a bit of touching up needed here and there but, essentially LOOKING GOOD!

 

YORK won't be at the 2mm Association Diamond Jubilee event this weekend.... but I will with John Aldrick's Ivybridge and the return curves that will also supply the trains to YORK. This will be their first test under exhibition conditions so here's hoping it all goes well! Come and have a chat!

 

 

[kirmies]

As I’m sure has been reported elsewhere, The 2mm Association Diamond Jubilee (+2) weekend was a great success and a big thank you to everyone who said such positive things about the Ivybridge/YORK return curves despite the odd teething problem in their running.

 

The return curves were met with alot of puzzled faces and many questions so I though I should try to explain their design.

 

When first seen they look quite mind boggling:

 

 

But are really quite simple in concept: They are essentially folded figure of eight so that all trains appear (over time) in both directions. :

 

 

So if, for example, there were 10 trains in action and you were watching the layout, the 11th train you see pass by will be the first train you saw going back in the opposite direction. You would have to wait until the 21st train to go past before you would see the same train going passed in the same direction for a second time.

 

Unfolded the track would form a continuous circle of single track with the two section that runs across the front of the layout at opposite sides of the circle.

 

To avoid flat crossings, there is an upper level (blue in this diagram) and a lower level (red).

 

Trains climb (or descend) from one level to the other via a shallow (and pretty much imperceptible) gradient (something like 1 in 200) across the front of the layout.

 

Every train going both ways across the front of the layout does mean differences in formation in the up version of a train versus the down can’t be modelled BUT only half as many trains are needed to provide a given length of sequence.

 

Those who remember my 4mm layout Blea Moor will notice a similarity in this track design and the control system is also strangely similar as I’ll explain next time.

[bécasse]

5 hours ago, kirmies said:

As I’m sure has been reported elsewhere, The 2mm Association Diamond Jubilee (+2) weekend was a great success and a big thank you to everyone who said such positive things about the Ivybridge/YORK return curves despite the odd teething problem in their running.

 

The return curves were met with alot of puzzled faces and many questions so I though I should try to explain their design.

 

When first seen they look quite mind boggling:

 

 

But are really quite simple in concept: They are essentially folded figure of eight so that all trains appear (over time) in both directions. :

 

 

 

Every train going both ways across the front of the layout does mean differences in formation in the up version of a train versus the down can’t be modelled BUT only half as many trains are needed to provide a given length of sequence.

 

As a different side of a train going from left to right would be seen from when it was going from right to left, it would seem possible to have stock of the same general type that differs in detail when one side is compared with the other.

[St Enodoc]

13 hours ago, kirmies said:

Those who remember my 4mm layout Blea Moor

I do! the loops at the back were far more exciting than the scenic bit at the front!