2mm & N Track- someone set me straight

[James]

Grahame, with that in mind, do you think it's now less likely thatb some modellers will make the full switch to 2mmFS than may have done before when N gauge RTR wheels standards were much poorer and the only way to be able to use 'finer' track was wholescale rewheeling?

[Karhedron]

do you think it's now less likely thatb some modellers will make the full switch to 2mmFS than may have done before when N gauge RTR wheels standards were much poorer and the only way to be able to use 'finer' track was wholescale rewheeling?

I hope you do not mind my oppinion on the subject. There may be some modellers who will use N gauge on Easitrac who might otherwise have gone for full 2FS. However I suspect there are more modellers who would never have made the switch to FS but might give Easitrac a try.

[James]

Don't mind at all!

 

I find the situation fascinating as a product meant to make 2mmFS has opened up all sorts of possibilities for N guage modellers. But even so, it's definately not a case of the the Two MM Association shooting themselves in the foot - all this extra interests and purchases must be having a positive impact on their membership and income.

 

I don't like seeing these new developments though - it's too temtping to go back to 2mmFS again!

[-missy-]

Grahame, with that in mind, do you think it's now less likely thatb some modellers will make the full switch to 2mmFS than may have done before when N gauge RTR wheels standards were much poorer and the only way to be able to use 'finer' track was wholescale rewheeling?

 

Hello

 

I really think it has a bearing on the descision and I wouldnt blame anyone for going down that route but there is an increasing number of people who arent just happy with improved track and decide to change to 2mmFS for better looking engines and rolling stock. To me its all down to what you want from the hobby, if you like building things then 2mmFS might be the better option, after all its a hobby and you do what you enjoy doing!

 

Missy

 

(trying not to get into the whole 2mm vs. N Gauge debate!)

[James]

(trying not to get into the whole 2mm vs. N Gauge debate!)

Nor am I! But, it almost seems like this could lead to fine N gauge, almost the equivelant of EM is the four mil' spectrum.

 

(Though I'm aware 2mmFS isn't the smaller equivalent of P$, but hopefully you know what I mean!)

[Dave777]

2mm has always impressed me as a scale, the improved finesse over N gauge is significant IMHO. But I also know that it requires doing things that I have no real interest in doing - building trackwork, building chassis, and so on. I'm happy to rewheel stock (and have done), but generally I'm a RTR + kit builder. I'll do my own buildings, but I really can't see me ever building my own trackwork unless it's dead simple.

 

What Easitrac offers is better looking trackwork but I get to keep my RTR stock. And that pretty much sums it up for me - being honest, I couldn't really give a stuff if I'm moving nearer to 2mm modelling or not, it's simply better looking N gauge trackwork! The only '2mm' aspect is the website it's being sold via.

 

To answer the question, fewer N gaugers moving to 2mm modelling? Not sure, I still think a complete change to the scale offers up advantages beyond the permanent way and that will still attract plenty. For many I suspect this will be their first contact with anything approaching 2mm modelling - it might actually suck more in who want to explore the possiblities further.

[Revolution Mike]

James

 

I tihnk another part of it is the slight difference between 1:148 and 1:152. While some happily mix and match, I can see others preferring to plump one way or the other. Obviously RTR stuff comes 1:148.

 

Cheers, Mike

[2mm Andy]

The 2FS standards aren't 'dead-scale' - we describe them as a sort of 2mm equivalent of 'EM' gauge. I guess a finescale N gauge would be comparable to Finescale 00.

 

Just one other point (bad pun, I know!) - the Easitrac check rail chairs will set your rails with 2FS flangeways, so these cannot be used if you're building the track to a different standard. There are several straightforward ways around this though.

 

I think the introduction of Easitrac has definitely boosted 2mm SA membership and shop sales to members. Mind you, the range of tasty goodies that the N Gauge Society continue to produce will also be increasing the number of 2mm scale modellers in their membership, so it's good all round!

 

Andy

(2mm Scale Assoc. Secretary for my sins!)

[54Strat]

I've been following this with interest and found these excellent four videos on YouTube...

 

 

A series of clips from EasiTrac Point Building workshops presented Spring 2010. EasiTrac is a plastic sleeper based track system for 2mm/ft finescale model railways. The workshop was presented by two of the creators of the Easitrac system, Mick Simpson and Allan Smith.

 

 

I too would like to model these in N gauge, and I'm curious about the N gauge Jig Grahame mentions in a previous post.

 

...There is another jig that holds the rails in place (especially for N gauge) and you just solder three short pieces of wire (or shims of brass etch) across the bottom of the rails to form the crossing - and thats all the soldering for each point (except the tie bar bit)....

 

G.

 

Where could I get hold of one of these?

 

A year or so back, there was mention of evaluating EasiTrac in one of the N Gauge Journals though little has come of it. It seems that this type of Jig would be ideal for the NGS to take on board.

 

Paul

[Etched Pixels]

For Wadebridge I've been using Easitrac for the straight track and Peco code 55 points. It needs a little packing to level it up and the inside edges of the point ends filing to take them from 9mm out to 9.42mm. That actually works nicely because the Peco rail is much fatter so the outside edges are still aligned ! It's a compromise but seems to work well.

 

I've now built my first bit of soldered track (NN3) so I'll probably have a crack at a point soon.

[Etched Pixels]

If you use 2mm track and converted diesels you should be able to get away with rather sharp curves. Steam locos with longer rigid wheel bases need larger radius curves. At a guess I would say that you could get a diesel loco running round 15 inch curves (I've not tried this and don't have the track to had to do it, but have more on order so if you need a quick test I should be able to do a quick test in a couple of weeks time if you need more).

 

Back of envelope calculation suggests you should still be able to do 9" curves but might need to lay the 9" curves a fraction gauge widened (just like some of the 9" and smaller curves in some set-track ranges are). You've got less room for gauge widening due to the narrower wheels. Not tried this, and the usual warning about in theory and practice only being the same in theory applies.

 

Bigger problem would be couplers especially if replacing the Rapido ones. You'd need some kind of smart variable spacing coupler system for sharp curves and a good look in normal use.

[Dave777]

Do you find the sleeper difference jars where the two types of track meet? What you're doing there is the most obvious route to go for the non point builder, but I had assumed it wouldn't work visually...?

[Donw]

Do you find the sleeper difference jars where the two types of track meet? What you're doing there is the most obvious route to go for the non point builder, but I had assumed it wouldn't work visually...?

 

The appearance jarring is the reason some people go to P4 scaleseven and 2mfs. You have to decide whether the appearance jars enough to make you want to do the extra work. Personally I enjoy building track so its easier to choose. I suggest trying a test piece. On a piece of board one peco point a bit of easitrac. Ballast aand a bit of scenic work along the track sides and see what you think.

Don

[Etched Pixels]

Do you find the sleeper difference jars where the two types of track meet? What you're doing there is the most obvious route to go for the non point builder, but I had assumed it wouldn't work visually...?

 

They don't match particularly well but once ballasted and those areas made generally dirty it doesn't really stand out unless you peer hard at that bit of the trackwork and look for it, while the vastly superior thin rail head and correct UK sleeper spacing on the rest of the track definitely make it look better overall.

 

Don't get me wrong, doing proper hand built points would be vastly better looking, but its a trade off and its definitely better than doing the lot in peco.

 

Alan

[Russ (mines a pint)]

despite posting this I've yet to read every single person's posts, but thanks for all the contribrutions. From earlier checkbacks I can see that my first few questions have been answered and detailed reading will probably produce a few more.

 

-as mentioned at the start I have read/am reading the 2mm S.A. stuff they sent too. I'm all for giving the full 2mm track thing ago even though I will mostly want to use RTR stock, as I have little interest in stock construction (ie its a last resort if I cant get it RTR) but like the track & scenic side of things, pretty much like my foray into EM in fact!- each to their own I say

[grahame]

Grahame, with that in mind, do you think it's now less likely thatb some modellers will make the full switch to 2mmFS than may have done before when N gauge RTR wheels standards were much poorer and the only way to be able to use 'finer' track was wholescale rewheeling?

 

Oddly enough a bit of both ImO. For example I doubt it will mean steam era enthusiasts think twice and do not change as the latest N gauge wheel standards are still less of a visual benefit and 2mm ones look so much better on kettles. However, for modern D&E enthusiats it's a lot less clear cut or obvious - probably more will stick with finer N gauge standards (and not make the full switch) as the locos are also Brtish N scale at 1:148 even when converted to 2mmFS (while in steam people tend to build complete new chassis and bodies to fit the wheels which are then correct 2mmFS at 1:152).

 

However, Easitrac is a big benefit to both N and 2mm and both societies are seeing increased and record level membership. Plus of course most small scale railway modellers tend to be a member of both, regardless of the discipline/scale they favour. It's a good time to model in either scale/gauge (or switch to them from OO or other scales) and both are seeing huge improvements and increases in product ranges

 

G.

[grahame]

I too would like to model these in N gauge, and I'm curious about the N gauge Jig Grahame mentions in a previous post.

 

Where could I get hold of one of these?

 

A year or so back, there was mention of evaluating EasiTrac in one of the N Gauge Journals though little has come of it. It seems that this type of Jig would be ideal for the NGS to take on board.

 

Annoyingly the 2mmSA won't sell the Easitrac N gauge jigs and the NGS won't get involved with 2mm Easitrac. However, I did 'review/compare' Easitrac for N gauge scale with Peco code 55 track including showing the N gauge jigs in N'spirations3. The jigs are available from Noel leaver and N'spirations is available from me.

 

G.

[TomE]

Annoyingly the 2mmSA won't sell the Easitrac N gauge jigs and the NGS won't get involved with 2mm Easitrac. However, I did 'review/compare' Easitrac for N gauge scale with Peco code 55 track including showing the N gauge jigs in N'spirations3. The jigs are available from Noel leaver and N'spirations is available from me.

 

G.

 

Has the N gauge society ever looked at producing a true N gauge easitrac type system itself? Obviously there is a financial implication with the initial tooling & production costs, but the fact that so many people who do model N are starting to use easitrac suggests there is a real demand for finer N track?

 

Tom.

[Weekday Cross]

Annoyingly the 2mmSA won't sell the Easitrac N gauge jigs and the NGS won't get involved with 2mm Easitrac.

 

Well, the NGS won't sell their stuff to non-members either. The whole thing is quite ridiculous as 2mm modellers need some N gauge stuff and vice versa. If this was a couple of superstore companies there would be a public outcry in the papers and the OFT would be carrying out an inquiry.

[-missy-]

Me again

 

Just to add the 2mmSA stocks lots of the NGS kits, especially wagons. The majority of NGS bits are available through regular traders, because of this I have never felt the need to join the NGS.

 

Missy

 

Well, the NGS won't sell their stuff to non-members either. The whole thing is quite ridiculous as 2mm modellers need some N gauge stuff and vice versa. If this was a couple of superstore companies there would be a public outcry in the papers and the OFT would be carrying out an inquiry.

[Kris]

Well, the NGS won't sell their stuff to non-members either. The whole thing is quite ridiculous as 2mm modellers need some N gauge stuff and vice versa. If this was a couple of superstore companies there would be a public outcry in the papers and the OFT would be carrying out an inquiry.

 

 

It's done for tax purposes and makes things far easier for the volunteers who run the organisations.

 

 

[Etched Pixels]

Has the N gauge society ever looked at producing a true N gauge easitrac type system itself? Obviously there is a financial implication with the initial tooling & production costs, but the fact that so many people who do model N are starting to use easitrac suggests there is a real demand for finer N track?

 

Tom.

 

It was raised (passionately) with the NGS powers that be before the 2mmSA bought out the range itself. The powers that be declined for a variety of reasons. Sets of N gauge gauges for the easitrac points have been produced independently and for the plain track it's a serious question whether there is any sense in producing 9mm mouldings give that the 9.43 works with N and is way more accurate anyway. The costs for each set of tooling (bullhead sleepers, flatbottom, concrete (with or without dowmac logo) is pretty substantial without having 9mm and 9.42mm versions splitting the return on investment. Of course the one thing I want now is steel sleepers which nobody has done yet 8)

 

I don't think it's actually a big problem.. If you are serious about fine work in N gauge then the 2mmSA supplies a wide range of stuff too good to do without and well worth the membership.

 

Alan

[Karhedron]

Has the N gauge society ever looked at producing a true N gauge easitrac type system itself? Obviously there is a financial implication with the initial tooling & production costs, but the fact that so many people who do model N are starting to use easitrac suggests there is a real demand for finer N track?

The NGS never seems to have had the appetite to approach this subject or couplings (the other persistent bugbear of N gauge). On occasions there is has been raised the standard objection is that members cannot agree among themselves what sort of track they want. Bullhead vs flat-bottomed, concrete sleepers vs wooden and other things.

 

With kits, the NGS do not mind favouring one particular segment of the membership because the next segment will get a turn soon. The larger investment required in track means that it might be a long time before different styles could be offered and then there is the issue of points...

 

On the one hand I can see their point of view. But on the other it is sometimes frustrating that the society seems to content to simply supply products and is not more active in improving standards.

[Revolution Ben]

Hi all,

 

Speaking for the NGS here...

 

Firstly: the NGS sells appropriate 2mmA products (mainly plastic wagon body kits) and vice versa. This agreement - to the mututal benefit of members of both organisations so they don't have to join both unless they particularly want to - was agreed some years ago.

 

Re track:

If we assume that NGS members don't like soldering (a fair assumption, as it's what kit sales and pretty much all our feedback tells us) then any track system that the NGS were to introduce would have to offer pre-soldered frogs etc and also would need to be a complete system with plain track, LH and RH straight turnouts and a diamond crossing available right from the start as an absolute minimum. Technically, this is possible and theoretically the NGS could afford it even though we are talking about a considerable investment in both tooling and parts manufacture.

 

The problems:

1) Should we produce flat bottom or bullhead track? Concrete sleeper or wooden sleeper?

2) Short, medium or long radius points? What would be the mechanism for motorising them?

3) Should we be so blatantly competing with Peco?

4) Is there really a demand for such a product among the 5000+ members of the NGS?

5) Is this the best use of Society funds, or should we instead put the cash into proven sellers, such as kits and RTR models?

 

Re couplers:

There has been for some time and NGS working group looking at this, but frankly it's a hard nut to crack with all sorts of competing demands causing considerable technical difficulties and again it would require extensive investment in tooling, machining and testing before any return might be expected.

 

The problems:

1) Design - the coupler needs to work, look good, be easy to retro-fit and operate and not too expensive. Has anyone here tried to design something that fits the bill? It's not easy!

2) Bachmann and Dapol hare both working on improved systems based around the proven Micro-trains type US buckeye couplers. Should the NGS compete?

3) Is this the best use of Society funds, or should we instead put the cash into proven sellers, such as kits and RTR models?

 

The NGS has certainly given much thought to both track and couplers, but sometimes when spending other people's money the Committee has to conclude, perhaps regretfully, that inaction is the fairest and wisest course.

 

With regard to couplers, BTW, the NGS has lobbied the major manufacturers hard for improved designs and this is being addressed.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

(NGS VP)

[Russ (mines a pint)]

of track quality I think that you might as well go the full 2mm hog if you pardon the expression with diesels, pretty much the same argument as OO/EM you can do it without spending (much) extra money/hassle. The problems largely start with steam loco modelling where you end up rebuilding the whole bottom half of the locomotive, and having done that notice some bits of the top half or none too clever either.

 

I'm now in the stage of ordering 2mm scale points from a contact in the association who will build points/crossings to requirements for roughly 150% of the cost of a new peco point in basic copperclad (which was my EM standard anyway), and approx 250% if you want the highest spec. We all say we wouldnt mind paying a bit more for RTR correct track, I do believe in the 2mm scale you can have your cake and eat it! I'm not sure about N Gauge maybe there is also someone who will make correctly spaced sleepered points.

 

As yet I have not really seen what the N Gauge association has to offer, tho I do notice some of their products in the 2mm price list?

 

back to the silly questions department what is 'good ballast' for 2mm track as I used extra fine in EM and still thought it was too coarse?