RMweb Premium Kris Posted February 28, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 28, 2011 Answer to the silly question. I use sand as picked up from one of my local beaches. This has been graded to take out the larger grains. If I was away from the coast I would look at fine builders or play sand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave777 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I use silver sand Russ. Good luck finding a small bag of it though - the builder's bag I've got is enough to last me the rest of my life Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted February 28, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2011 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? Hi Ben I apologise in advance for what feels like sniping at you, but I can't help feeling that this is looking at things the wrong way round ie reasons not to do something rather than taking the lead and pushing N gauge forward. On the soldering point - I agree, some don't like soldering or are just bad at it (myself included!) though I do sometimes wonder how they attach wires to layouts... Anyway pre-soldered or cast frogs would not be the end of the world. On the plain track (as Alan has already said) I am not sure there is a need to have 9mm plain track, but that is a minor point. The answers to 1 and 2 have surely already been answered by the 2mm Assoc - all of them. The answer to 3 is surely little different to producing a wagon kit ie the NGS already competes with many suppliers. The Peco track looks incredibly tired and poor when put next to something accurate like Easitrac. Q4 - I suspect the answer is the NGS doesn't know, but it hasn't exactly gone out the way to find out. The 2mm Assoc has made it work with considerably fewer members, albeit that there may be a self-selecting membership that are more prepared to kit build. Q5 - it depends on what the vision for the NGS is going to be ie a commissioner of RTR models, exclusive kits, "guardian and standard bearer" for better N gauge (including track) or ideally a combination of all of that. It seems to be an accepted fallacy at the moment in the NGS that proven sellers and maximum appeal are the main criteria rather than perhaps a more long term view of what is right for the society. Would better track actually attract more people into the NGS is one obvious question (that does not mean you are getting rid of those who only want RTR). A difficult set of decisions and priorities admittedly (all the while bearing in mind the financial aspects), but track is an area that N gauge is really starting to lag behind despite the massively increased quality of the models. Cheers, Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekday Cross Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 In my opinion, if their recent OO9 points are anything to go by, then Peco are extremely conservative and a bit out of touch with their customer base. Without direction and pressure from major organisations like the NGS I think they are unlikely ever to come up with something that N gauge modellers really want. If the NGS don't want to spend money, then why not negotiate with Peco and give them the opportunity to do something decent, with the implied threat that the NGS might go it alone if nothing satisfactory comes out of it? From the point of view of N gauge in general, then decent track is the main reason why many 4mm modellers don't switch - especially as some of the new models are better than their 4mm equivalents. Let's give this issue some major priority and get it sorted! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Ben Posted February 28, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2011 Hi Ben I apologise in advance for what feels like sniping at you, but I can't help feeling that this is looking at things the wrong way round ie reasons not to do something rather than taking the lead and pushing N gauge forward. On the soldering point - I agree, some don't like soldering or are just bad at it (myself included!) though I do sometimes wonder how they attach wires to layouts... Anyway pre-soldered or cast frogs would not be the end of the world. On the plain track (as Alan has already said) I am not sure there is a need to have 9mm plain track, but that is a minor point. The answers to 1 and 2 have surely already been answered by the 2mm Assoc - all of them. The answer to 3 is surely little different to producing a wagon kit ie the NGS already competes with many suppliers. The Peco track looks incredibly tired and poor when put next to something accurate like Easitrac. Q4 - I suspect the answer is the NGS doesn't know, but it hasn't exactly gone out the way to find out. The 2mm Assoc has made it work with considerably fewer members, albeit that there may be a self-selecting membership that are more prepared to kit build. Q5 - it depends on what the vision for the NGS is going to be ie a commissioner of RTR models, exclusive kits, "guardian and standard bearer" for better N gauge (including track) or ideally a combination of all of that. It seems to be an accepted fallacy at the moment in the NGS that proven sellers and maximum appeal are the main criteria rather than perhaps a more long term view of what is right for the society. Would better track actually attract more people into the NGS is one obvious question (that does not mean you are getting rid of those who only want RTR). A difficult set of decisions and priorities admittedly (all the while bearing in mind the financial aspects), but track is an area that N gauge is really starting to lag behind despite the massively increased quality of the models. Cheers, Mike Hi Mike, No worries - all fair and well made points. And on some of the questions you raise you're right - the NGS is not all-knowing and it may be that we are more cautious than many commercial concerns because we are acutely aware we are spending our members' money and want to be sure we are doing it wisely. This means that, as you say, often we have to give at least as much consideration to why we shouldn't spend money as why we should. Having said that, I would argue that the NGS does have a track record for innovating: I believe we are the first organisation to commission exclusive N Gauge models from both Dapol and Faish that are not repaints of existing items and we have just commissioned an RTP building - again, another N Gauge first. I am aware that the 2mmA offer various Easi-trac options; but these are aimed at "finescale" modellers who want longer turnouts - many NGS members might want better track but within existing geometries that they are familiar with. The NGS is currently carrying out a major survey of its members to find out what they do want - if track is much requested then of course we will look again at the possibility of producing track. Notwithstanding all the above, I agree that there is a strong case for improved track as a lure to get more people into N, and growing itself and N in general is absolutely what the NGS should be about! cheers Ben A. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etched Pixels Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Answer to the silly question. I use sand as picked up from one of my local beaches. This has been graded to take out the larger grains. If I was away from the coast I would look at fine builders or play sand. Trouble with sand is I fear what happens when it escapes - seems you have to be very sure fine sand is well secured or like find granite and other stuff it makes a nasty scratchy gloop when mixed with oil in loco mechanisms. I've been using the finest woodland scenics stuff for N - its not perfect by any means but with a bit of paintwork and a wash of inks to bring out the texture it passes for me. For Z the best I've found is to just give up on fine anything and use the speckled granite paint. I have no idea how I am going to ballast my T gauge track ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted February 28, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2011 Thanks for the 'pros & cons' of sand for ballast I also now live near the sea so will at least try a test patch and see, surely if wetted and glued like chippings should have the same effect? It is stone after all, just finer. On a OO yard layout which I put air drying clay down then forced flock granules into it, then painted- I may also try that again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted February 28, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yep, treat as chipping's Russ, E P, have you ever had ballast find it's way into the motor or gears? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave777 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 In my opinion, if their recent OO9 points are anything to go by, then Peco are extremely conservative and a bit out of touch with their customer base. I think one problem is that there is no market pull to do anything about it. For all the moaning about Peco that people do the vast majority of modellers still use their track, so I'm never sure if that means they are out of touch with their customers or, actually, really in touch! Putting my business hat on, if I was at Peco I may well think 'We have a large and loyal customer base, so what is the driver for us to spend substantial money on a new track range?'. It only makes sense if 1) a competitor enters the market, or 2) they can capture a significantly larger slice of the market, one that pays for the tooling. All those modellers who build their own track, or use Tilling or whatever, are they going to switch to the new Peco track if it came out? Personally, having witnessed some of the testy discussions on RMWeb in the past about what makes 'good' track, I doubt it! That's a lot of new tooling investment to essentially just end up supplying the same customer base. The main problem is that it's not like Hornby bringing out a shiny new loco, as Little Johnny sees that in a train set in the window and says 'I want that' - another new customer captured. Peco bringing out new track is only of interest to the hobbyists, many of whom aren't actually all that fussed about using the existing track. They may know that a BR Mk3 coach shouldn't be pulled by Mallard in LNER livery, but sleeper spacing is another level of anorakness. From the point of view of N gauge in general, then decent track is the main reason why many 4mm modellers don't switch Really...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TomE Posted February 28, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2011 Hi Ben Thank you for the comprehensive response, I can see the dilemmas faced and reasoning behind the N Gauge Society not yet producing a new track system. It will be interesting to see the results of the members survey! 3) Should we be so blatantly competing with Peco? In response to that question, I'd say yes, you should. The fact that there is no competition for Peco means N gauge Modellers have had to live with the same track for the past X number of years without any prospect of improvement. What reason do Peco have to produce finer track system when the have the market cornered? Competition drives improvement, the entry of Dapol into the N market and it's effect on rolling stock is evidence of that, and maybe a better track system being made available from another source would force Peco to stop resting on it's laurels and start innovating again! Tom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etched Pixels Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yep, treat as chipping's Russ, E P, have you ever had ballast find it's way into the motor or gears? I've repaired the results for people. Mind you compared with dog hair, fluff, and the like its not so common by any means that I've noticed. I've always taken the hoover to my ballasting to be sure - if it sucks holes in the ballast I know I got it wrong, and a bit of fine cloth over the hoover end will catch the residue for relaying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted March 2, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 2, 2011 Making a start on ordering track components. Plain rail? whats that, are the differences in rail profile really discernable in this scale. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted March 2, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2, 2011 Plain rail is what it say's it is plain. There is a discernible difference between the flat bottom and bullhead, but I have never used the plain stuff so can't comment on that. Tomorrow if i'm not working I'll pop up a photo of the flatbottom and bullhead side by side and end on so that you can make your own mind up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Plain rail won't work with Easitrac as far as I can tell. I used it when I built a small 2mmFS layout. From a distance it looks ok actually, but you may as well use BH. You can tell the difference between this and plain rail! Likewise, you can tell the difference between BH and FB in this scale. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted March 2, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 2, 2011 Thanks I was thinking of using BH as its correct to prototype, but my consider FB so that I could tell which is top & bottom of the rail! - I have to shamefully admit I even got some BH rails upside down when making 4mm EM track! of point jigs, which are genuinely necessary/desireable, regards either easitrac points or PCB solder not quite decided which yet? I did all the EM points freehand soldered just using gauges and a template, but as things get smaller whats worth buying and whats not? Said we'd get into 'too many questions' territory before long! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I think the code 40 BH rail is more of an I section from memory! If you decide to go with PCB pointwork, consider using the 'chairplates' - they'll lift the rail up to match the Easitrac plain line. The chairplates do lead to it taking longer to build track but you're not doing a huge amount and the difference, IMHO, is worthwhile. Just have a play about with things and see what suits you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted March 2, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 2, 2011 Just have a play about with things and see what suits you! Yeah still having a wonder if I shouldnt make a 'test track' first- trouble is my test tracks always become scenic! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted March 2, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2, 2011 You can make points just using templates, I have done this in the past however I now use the angle filing jig and the crossing jig as they speed things up and do make the building so much easier. These work with both PCB and easitrack. When making scenic PCB pointwork I use the Blackburn system. It's very slow but the results are worth it. Also see here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted March 3, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 3, 2011 Original 2mm rail was not available and we made do with 1mmx0.5mm strip which looked much better than oversize rail. I would only recommend using it to extend and existing layout. It definatly won't work with easitrac. Regarding Jigs I use a jig for making the crossing V's. In EM and 0 I made my own but the 2mm ones are fairly cheap so I would use those unless I wanted a special then its back to the piece of wood and panel pins again. I never bother with templates. I have a table of Leads (the distance from the crossing nose to the point blades tips for various points and just build them in situ. Every one else seems to go for templates except the full size ones who seem to work from crossing angles and leads. The key things you need are track gauges - at least two and a flangeway gauge ususlly a strip of metal the right size. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted March 3, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 3, 2011 Rail pictures. The end on shot is not as clear as I had hoped for but trying to focus on the end cross section of rail that small was somewhat tricky. Obviously these pictures are significantly enlarged as the rail is only just over 1mm in height. Hope these help you Russ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 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. 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. I do sympathise and agree with this view. It does seem a shame that the NGS appears reluctant to get involved with pushing forward improved standards particularly when, as already mentioned, there are many who would like finer N gauge trackwork but don't want to hassel and expense of wholesale swapping to 2mmFS. The old, should it be wood or concrete sleepers or bull-head or flat-bottomed rail is a bit of a red herring and an excuse IMO. A good start for the NGS would be to adopt and stock/sell the specialist Easitrac jigs required for making the points to NMRA N gauge standards (that the 2mmSA don't sell) and with no extensive either/or excuses and problems. And, even better, to look at the possibility of producing acceptable cast (no soldering required) crossing vees for the points. G. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etched Pixels Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 A good start for the NGS would be to adopt and stock/sell the specialist Easitrac jigs required for making the points to NMRA N gauge standards (that the 2mmSA don't sell) and with no extensive either/or excuses and problems. And, even better, to look at the possibility of producing acceptable cast (no soldering required) crossing vees for the points. G. The NGS missed the boat (or rather opted not to buy a ticket). Given all the bits are available from non NGS sources anyway how does having the NGS shop stock stuff help, other than adding another layer of overhead, trade prices and margins (plus the VAT problem) ? Similarly you can get etched V's from proto87, along in theory with all the other bits you need, In theory because it's all to US practice so you'd need to get some new jigs produced for sleepers laser cut for UK spacing. Even if Andy wasn't interested in producing some its hardly rocket science to get sleepers cut by laser or to draw up a jig or two for sleeper spacing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PaulCheffus Posted March 3, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 3, 2011 Thanks I was thinking of using BH as its correct to prototype, but my consider FB so that I could tell which is top & bottom of the rail! - I have to shamefully admit I even got some BH rails upside down when making 4mm EM track! Hi Its even easier in 2mm to get the rail the wrong way up. A couple of my traverser roads have one rail the right way and one the worng way. At least the main layout is correct. Cheers Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 The NGS missed the boat (or rather opted not to buy a ticket). Given all the bits are available from non NGS sources anyway how does having the NGS shop stock stuff help, other than adding another layer of overhead, trade prices and margins (plus the VAT problem) ? Similarly you can get etched V's from proto87, along in theory with all the other bits you need, The special N jigs aren't generally available from other sources but are specifically made to order in small batches. The NGS could easily place a bulk order and make them more readily and easily available to members. There would be no particular extra layer of overhead or VAT with the NGS although to some extent they have missed the original boat. And the vees from Proto87 are etched, need soldering and are not particularly suitable for N gauge. A more specifically cast N gauge version (to NmRA standards) that worked with the Easitrac point bases would be a winner for those who don't like soldering. G. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted March 3, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 3, 2011 Hi Its even easier in 2mm to get the rail the wrong way up. A couple of my traverser roads have one rail the right way and one the worng way. At least the main layout is correct. Cheers Paul Yes I'm sure it will be! - Thanks Kris for taking the trouble to photo the rail sections, that cant have been easy. Putting the rail order together now, going for BH- easitrac timbers and PCB for the points, it was good enough for me in EM, and I cant see myself fiddling about with sub-1mm high chairs either the 4 mil ones were bad enough. Think I might invest in a magnifying glass, will probably have to lay off the beer for a few days before trying to assemble anything too! I think a small test track layout with few points/complications will be in order, put the 'magnum opus' on hold! Thanks all for the advice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.