Moving from Peco Code 55 to British Finescale Finetrax Code 40

[Caley Jim]

7 hours ago, n9 said:

- Go with 2FS, deal with its consequences both positive and negative, redesign my layout, and probably be much happier.

Go on!  You know you want to!

 

I got disillusioned with N-gauge track standards before I got the length of a layout, then discovered 2FS and have never regretted it.  That was c55 years ago!

 

A Guid New year tae yin an' a'!  Lang may yer lums/exhausts reek.

 

Jim

[Chris Higgs]

BTW, if you just wanted to experiment with your Peco points, you could use slivers of plastikard to narrow the flangeway gaps to match those of the Finetrax. Then you will see whether that reduces your waggling or dropping into the frog.

 

It won't look that great, but will give you some feel as to what will solve the problem. It could just be that you 03 has dodgy BtoB settings.

 

Chris 

[n9]

3 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

BTW, if you just wanted to experiment with your Peco points, you could use slivers of plastikard to narrow the flangeway gaps to match those of the Finetrax. Then you will see whether that reduces your waggling or dropping into the frog.

 

It won't look that great, but will give you some feel as to what will solve the problem. It could just be that you 03 has dodgy BtoB settings.

 

Chris 

Thanks Chris! The B2Bs on the 03 have been checked, so I don't think that's it.

 

I've previously experimented shimming turnouts other than the slip with partial success, but enough to see that it is an option worth exploring more before making a decision.

 

Right now I'm getting a handle on the geometry of the Finetrax Code 40 track to get a feel of what is viable to transpose from my Code 55 plan. Hopefully that will allow me to order some test pieces of track that would later have a future on a new layout.

 

For anyone else who's struggled getting this kind of info, it looks like this is the forum for finetrax https://finetrax.proboards.com/, and it looks like Templot might be the way to get detailed information on things like turnout radii and angles.

 

Although not for the same scale, this site was a discovery too, in that it answered some questions about the names of the points and what they meant (A5, B6, etc.) This kind of stuff has not been immediately obvious to me.

 

I'm puzzled too, as to why building crossovers from individual Finetrax points does not yield a consistent parallel track separation, but using the equivalent crossover kits does. E.g. if I build a crossover from 2 x B6 points (B6R), the distance between parallel tracks is 2.58cm. But if I build it using their B6 crossover kit (B6SCR), the distance between parallel tracks does stay consistent at 2.3cm. This shows a couple of examples in AnyRail:

 

 

 

No one has so far objected to me posting about Finetrax here, so please let me know if you'd prefer I ask these questions on the Finetrax forum. That said, I can sort of see these discussions being relevant to people who, like me, are weighing up whether to go 2FS or Finetrax.

[Izzy]

18 hours ago, n9 said:

No one has so far objected to me posting about Finetrax here, so please let me know if you'd prefer I ask these questions on the Finetrax forum. That said, I can sort of see these discussions being relevant to people who, like me, are weighing up whether to go 2FS or Finetrax.

I think the aspect of track distance might have relevance for 2mm association members who use the British Finescale 2FS turnouts now in shop 1 as might other constructional areas concerning them. 

 

The simple answer is that RTL individual turnouts are made to a certain length past the crossing because they could be used for many situations. The same is true of any RTL pointwork in any scale. Okay the BF pointwork isn’t exactly RTL but the basic principle is the same. So for crossings using the minimum line spacing distance of 11’2” then adjusting/trimming them to suit is required as would using diamonds, slips etc.  Exactly as you would if hand building track using individual templates where you would trim them to fit what was needed. 

 

Templot allows the setting of distance at any chosen spacing because it can vary greatly depending on needs and circumstance, 15’2” between sidings or pairs of running lines and so forth. Such as Anyrail is based upon snap together templates of RTL so distance cannot be adjusted.

 

Bob

[Ian Morgan]

 

22 hours ago, n9 said:

I'm puzzled too, as to why building crossovers from individual Finetrax points does not yield a consistent parallel track separation, but using the equivalent crossover kits does

 

sometimes, crossings had shared timbers (long ones reaching across both straight tracks), and even sometimes shared extended check rails, where the two points meet in the middle, so the geometry is different.

 

 

[woodenhead]

This is starting to sound like 'DCC is just two wires'

 

There was a chap who used to cut down his N gauge Peco turnouts to achieve a more finescale track spacing - it was very effective.

 

I only want three crossings and some plain track as a start, I shouldn't at this stage really worry about 3-4mm difference in track separation in an exchange siding.  But achieving this in a station environment would interest me for later, I guess I'd need to learn about Templot, I've been using xTrakCad so far

[n9]

20 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

This is starting to sound like 'DCC is just two wires'

Hahaha! Isn't it just!

 

But the explanations given made perfect sense, and were so obvious I didn't see them 🤦‍♂️

 

I'd have no qualms though trimming turnouts or crossings. More of a concern has been not getting email replies from BF and seeing that their forum (which I mentioned above) seems largely abandoned and full of spam. That makes me wonder whether the choice is really 2FS or stick with Peco.

Edited January 2 by n9
Spelling

[RichardT]

8 minutes ago, n9 said:

More of a concern has been not getting email replies from BF and seeing that their forum (which I mentioned above) seems largely abandoned and full of spam. That makes me wonder whether the choice is really 2FS or stick with Peco.

Wayne Kinney (Finetrax), like many niche model manufacturers, is a one-man band working his socks off producing track in several scales, not just N, and juggling family responsibilities with it. It’s also just been the Christmas holidays. I’d cut him a bit of slack re speed of communications.  
 

I’d no idea there was a Finetrax forum - I suspect it was too much for him to run. Wayne contributes regularly on the N Gauge Forum, and elsewhere on RMWeb.

 

Many of the the turnout kits supplied by the 2mm Association are also made by Wayne.

I think the advice given by others here is sound - order a turnout kit or two from Wayne (plus a bit of plain track) and make up a simple Inglenook plank to see how you like it vs Peco. There’s only so much progress and understanding you can get in a hands-on hobby like model railways through forum discussions.

 

RichardT

[Izzy]

46 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

This is starting to sound like 'DCC is just two wires'

 

There was a chap who used to cut down his N gauge Peco turnouts to achieve a more finescale track spacing - it was very effective.

 

I only want three crossings and some plain track as a start, I shouldn't at this stage really worry about 3-4mm difference in track separation in an exchange siding.  But achieving this in a station environment would interest me for later, I guess I'd need to learn about Templot, I've been using xTrakCad so far

 

30 minutes ago, n9 said:

Hahaha! Isn't it just!

 

But the explanations given made perfect sense, and were so obvious I didn't see them 🤦‍♂️

 

I'd have no qualms though trimming turnouts or crossings. More of a concern has been not getting email replies from BF and seeing that their forum (which I mentioned above) seems largely abandoned and full of spam. That makes me wonder whether the choice is really 2FS or stick with Peco.

 

2FS v Peco.  Is that really a choice? 

 

As this is being discussed in the 2mm section I think perhaps obtaining the new edition of the 2mm association book Track might be suggested. Although primarily aimed at those working in 2FS it's got admirers across the scales for the information it contains which is applicable whatever scale/gauge you may choose to use. You don't need to be a member to buy it. 

 

Available at: 2mm.org.uk

 

Bob

Edited January 2 by Izzy

[Yorkshire Square]

As already mentioned our own 2FS turnouts are manufactured by British Finescale. I have always found Wayne to be supportive and very prompt in his response times. Plus we get products to the same high standard as his own Finetrax N products. 

 

I wouldn't want to dissuade the OP from asking questions, but we seem to see this type of thread quite frequently. My simple synopsis is:

 

Happy with okay running and so-so appearance - stick with Peco etc. 

 

Would like better running and appearance, but don't particularly want to convert proprietary rolling stock or scratchbuild/kitbuild stock - upgrade to Finetrax N.

 

Want high quality running and appearance and are prepared to convert stock or scratch/kit build - welcome to 2FS. Tried and test track/wheel standards and multiple options for track construction. 

 

If you want to start altering existing standards, fine, but you'll be plowing a lonely furrow and it would be a good idea to get an idea how some of the existing systems work before jumping in feet first.

[woodenhead]

Just been looking at this page, probably worth a punt, build a cute 16t mineral with a bit of track and see if the bug bites.

https://www.2mm.org.uk/products/nms/index.html

 

Having recently discovered I can solder onto tiny chips I guess it's time to see if I can solder tiny components together, it's something I've always wanted to do but never tried.

 

2mm FS group are also at Model Rail in Feb - so perhaps I need to have a sit down with them too.

 

As a general question how well do modern Farish box vans and mineral wagon bodies translate to a 2mm finescale chassis over simple wheel replacement?

 

[queensquare]

29 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Just been looking at this page, probably worth a punt, build a cute 16t mineral with a bit of track and see if the bug bites.

https://www.2mm.org.uk/products/nms/index.html

 

Having recently discovered I can solder onto tiny chips I guess it's time to see if I can solder tiny components together, it's something I've always wanted to do but never tried.

 

2mm FS group are also at Model Rail in Feb - so perhaps I need to have a sit down with them too.

 

As a general question how well do modern Farish box vans and mineral wagon bodies translate to a 2mm finescale chassis over simple wheel replacement?

 

don’t know what part of the country you are in but the 2mm Roadshow and a demo will be at Southampton 26/27 Jan. I’m taking WilliamSmith’s Wharf which at 2’ long and with just two points is perfect for those that fancy dipping their toes into 2mm waters to see if they like it.

Latest generation N gauge wagons and vans look excellent with replacement wheels though the biggest improvement is getting rid of the awful N gauge coupling and the great big box it sits in.

 

Jerry

[woodenhead]

I'm in the North West, there is Model Rail Scotland coming up which will have a 2mm society presence and BRM at Doncaster might as well, but there's nothing listed so far for clubs and societies.

 

I'm going to order the mineral wagon kit and see how that goes, I do have a spare baseboard though it might be a tad big for a starter unless it happens to suit a very small colliery exchange in some Welsh hills.

 

In my head I see people in little workshops with lots of tools to make the 2mm stuff and I am probably overthinking it.

 

So little steps - lets see how I get on with a kit and I should probably purchase the track building book too.

 

The mind is willing but my own lack of self belief kicks in and holds me back, I am trying to overcome this.

 

[n9]

FWIW, from what I've seen from you in the brief time I've been here, I think you're eminently qualified to do this, and what you don't know you'll pick up readily and quite easily.

 

I too was looking at that page and have been sorely tempted. I'd say the bug has already bitten, and it's now just a question when, not if.

 

But know that I squarely blame everyone who's posted here, dammit! 😁

[woodenhead]

@N9 Or my N gauge layout is stalled and this is just a different way for me to do what I always do and start over.

 

Whilst I have been busy adding more sound and beyond that stay alives to my locos the actual layout development has stalled and I am seeing problems in the design because of the way I was operating it so diving off into a 2mm odyssey has all the hallmarks of avoidance.

 

But on the other side am I completely happy with the points on my layout, perhaps not, am I finding the easi-shunts sometimes get caught in the point mechanisms, maybe - though this might be due to small screws from the motors protuding into the point and causing distortion.

 

At least I am not looking to go back to OO and 2mm finescale has always fascinated me since Chee Tor, so nothing ventured nothing gained.

 

I equally don't see me completely abandoning N either but I might have to rethink the current design and I might need to fix the screws causing track distortion (extra bit of ply is all it needs really).

 

But I am conscious this is a 2mm forum section so whilst I am here it's time to jump in and take a dip.

[woodenhead]

Taken the leap - ordered the Track book, the getting started in 2mm and the mineral wagon.

[n9]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

@N9 Or my N gauge layout is stalled and this is just a different way for me to do what I always do and start over.

 

Whilst I have been busy adding more sound and beyond that stay alives to my locos the actual layout development has stalled and I am seeing problems in the design because of the way I was operating it so diving off into a 2mm odyssey has all the hallmarks of avoidance.

 

But on the other side am I completely happy with the points on my layout, perhaps not, am I finding the easi-shunts sometimes get caught in the point mechanisms, maybe - though this might be due to small screws from the motors protuding into the point and causing distortion.

 

At least I am not looking to go back to OO and 2mm finescale has always fascinated me since Chee Tor, so nothing ventured nothing gained.

 

I equally don't see me completely abandoning N either but I might have to rethink the current design and I might need to fix the screws causing track distortion (extra bit of ply is all it needs really).

 

But I am conscious this is a 2mm forum section so whilst I am here it's time to jump in and take a dip.

Well, I'd like to think that posting about experiences and realisations that lead us to choosing 2FS over something else might be relevant to this forum. I think it's been made clear that non-2FS stuff really isn't. So I hope replying to your comments in the context of the former is okay.

 

I've also been thinking that I keep starting over and never getting over the line. Aside from 3 or 4 loco projects at various stages of completion, I'm on the third iteration of my layout, and going 2FS will mean a fourth, and likely an opportunity to totally rethink what I want to achieve and how I go about it. (Definitely I will start a lot smaller, for instance.) But even though there have been times when I've considered the past iterations as failures, I've concluded that all of what's come before is actually a good thing; the truth is I've learnt an awful lot from every one of them, and I think a staggering amount from my third iteration - valuable lessons that are just not going to go to waste. Consequently, while I think it would be a challenge, I don't see 2FS as being beyond me. That's not what I would have said to you a couple of years ago if you'd asked me.

 

I'm still mulling it all over - and I'm in no rush to choose - but more and more it's looking like 2FS, and like you and others have suggested I'll start with something small that I can later make bigger. No substitute for trying the shoes on and walking around a bit.

 

For my current layout as it stands, I may yet complete its "Phase 1" if for no other reason than I can still learn more from it and then be able to say "I did it."

[Caley Jim]

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

2mm FS group are also at Model Rail in Feb - so perhaps I need to have a sit down with them too.

Please do.  You'll be more than welcome!

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

In my head I see people in little workshops with lots of tools to make the 2mm stuff and I am probably overthinking it.

As I said above, I've been working in 2FS for almost 55 years, have no workshop and nothing more than basic tools.  When I started there were no wagon kits and loco wheels were only just beginning to appear.  Re-wheeling RTR wagons involved cutting and pin-pointing your own axles from (very hard) steel rod and then fitting the plastic moulded wheels to the correct back to back.  Life is so much easier now!  If I can do it, anyone with a modicum of patience and who is prepared to learn the skills can.  You will find a wealth of advice and help through membership of the 2MM SA.  We are a very friendly and supportive bunch!

 

Jim

[Yorkshire Square]

9 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I'm in the North West, there is Model Rail Scotland coming up which will have a 2mm society presence and BRM at Doncaster might as well, but there's nothing listed so far for clubs and societies.

 

 

We'll definitely be at Doncaster. Do call and see us if you attend!

[Southernfrance]

I love the look of 2mmFS and code 40 N but for me it's time versus size of layout. I'm seven years into my South London project "Brickmakers Lane" and to do this in either 2mmFS or code 40 N would have cost me lot more in both money and time, with close to 60 points to make instead of buy and (carefully) plant. I've narrowed all of the point spacings to more reflect the real thing too.. Yes, sometimes locos and stock wobbles a bit, but it doesn't put me off overly. I try to work out what is causing the problem and try to resolve it. I had a good go at this after wiring was finished and now that ballasted the bulk of the lower main lines and yards, i'm still finding little niggles with bits of ballast, dirty rail, or loco issues to resolve. It's gradually getting better, and it's now at a stage I'm happy with. I'll continue to add shims to the points that cause bouncing, and tweak stock as needed.  Here's a couple of pictures of the carriage yard exit onto the main and relief lines on the lower level. Most stock runs over this very well at slow speeds in all directions, but I do agree the slips are worse for any potential bouncing. Larger locos are obviously better than smaller, diesels like my Dapol 33 are way better than my Farish Jinty for example.

 

It's horses for courses for me - complicated layout, lots of operation, not too long a timescale to complete - N; smaller layout, less operation, in same timescale - 2mmFS; compromise between the two  - code 40.

 

Dave

[tom s]

I did not know about the finetrax 2FS kits when I was building my layout and I am leaning on starting over with them now, or trying to assemble sometime similar with my printer, (my layout has a pair of Y points so this was likely necessary anyway.)
I feel if I moved onto electrics and cosmetics now, I'd come to regret going 'good enough' in a few years time to the code 55.
Making a hash of soldering was always a big sticking point.
Also I had some encouraging results printing a finescale wheel so I think I am ready to join and order some axles and rims to see if resin wheels and chassis are viable.

[DavidLong]

On 31/12/2023 at 14:35, woodenhead said:

I have a plan for a small exchange sidings scenario using Finetrax as a means to test it out before deciding to go all in.

 

 

JDI, Mr W, JDI. I know that you have the skills 🙂

 

Happy New Year

 

David

[Nigelcliffe]

10 hours ago, tom s said:

Also I had some encouraging results printing a finescale wheel so I think I am ready to join and order some axles and rims to see if resin wheels and chassis are viable.
 

 

There are many elements in making a wheel, and the centre is only one of them.    You need to think about: 

a)  getting power from the rim to whatever pickup your loco contains.   If re-wheeling a commercial loco, that's either wiper pickups on back of wheels, or its pickup on a tube in the centre of the wheel.    If a typical 2mm kit chassis, it's split frame onto the axle.     Obviously new pickups could be fabricated for the loco, but that's another small fiddly thing to add to a loco.  

b)  fixing the axle so it is perpendicular to the wheel.   A narrow wheel print has a tendency to go slightly squint and give a wobbly wheel. Hence 2mm Scale Association wheels have an axle with a flange to seat in the rear of the wheel.   The current stainless prints have a recess on their rear face for the flange to sit in (doing it flush will result in too little clearance from wheel to chassis). 

c)  fixing the crankpin so it is perpendicular to the wheel, in a manner which allows the crank-pin "nut" to be secured to the crankpin.   Typically people solder fine washers to crankpins as the "nut", so that's heat going into the crankpin, which mustn't move/melt the wheel.

d)  securing the rim to the centre.  Typically its done with a retaining compound (from either Loctite or 3M), which in turn requires some space to expand into - create the space in the 3D print.  

 

I'm quite certain that resin printed centres can work, but there are a lot of things to consider to get them from a nice looking centre to a functional wheel.   Several people have used resin prints as prototypes, then transfer that design to use as investment in brass casting processes. 

 

 

- Nigel    (designer of the current 2mm Scale Association shop wheels  ).  

Edited January 5 by Nigelcliffe

[Richard Hall]

A bit late to the party, but when I went down the code 40 / 9mm gauge route with "Longframlington" I ended up building turnouts to the American NMRA standard or thereabouts: 0.75mm flangeways, 7.65mm back to back.  That actually works quite nicely with the wheel profile on most N gauge models from the last 20 years, but I decided that if I was going to hand-build my pointwork and adjust the back to back of every single wheelset I might as well go the whole hog and construct my next layout in 2FS.  I have found the jump from fine-ish N to 2FS quite challenging and I suspect it will take a lot more fiddling before I have something which runs as well as "Longframlington". My two tips for beginners: stick to standard geometry straight pointwork, and diesels. I did neither.

 

Richard

[n9]

I was about to say exactly what @Nigelcliffe has. But then I realised I'd need a million years more experience and a technical mind the size of a small planet.