2mm & N Track- someone set me straight

[Etched Pixels]

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.

 

The NGS are VAT registered that causes lots of problems when the suppliers are not - been there, had that discussion with the shop, the fact they need a trade price where the small supplier takes the vat hit and gives them a margin is why they don't get any Ultima bits. For they jigs It would mean prices would be a lot higher for the jigs almost certainly.

 

Doing a batch might help I guess but do you really want or expect to sell 500 ?

 

As to the proto87 vees they do N gauge ones as well as Proto87 ones. They assume modern standards based wheels but then so does using code 40 rail. Yes they need soldering but for easitrac you will need to solder droppers, tie bars and the like anyway - which quite frankly are much harder.

 

Cast ones would I fear be very pricey - you'd need to shift a lot of them and the tooling would not be cheap. You also need to get he sharp frog end which can be done - Kato do it, and you need to hide the chunky casting somehow (which Kato fail to do). Given the important bit for the frog is the angles I wonder if it would in fact be easier just to get some rail ends milled to 1:8 1:10 etc. You don't actually need to solder them just fix them firmly to the base as some of the other track systems do

[PaulCheffus]

Given the important bit for the frog is the angles I wonder if it would in fact be easier just to get some rail ends milled to 1:8 1:10 etc. You don't actually need to solder them just fix them firmly to the base as some of the other track systems do

 

Hi

 

Personnally I found filing the frog and soldering to be easy using the 2mm SA jigs, the problem I had was with the point blades as there arn't any for forming these.

 

I had a few attempts but was unsure of what I was doing. I took one of my attempts to Warley last year as the Association were running an EasiTrak demo and got advice from them. This then enabled me to finish my points and they weren't as difficult as I thought but a jig would have made the process easier.

 

Maybe it would be good to offer milled rails for both the crossing and the blades.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[grahame]

The NGS are VAT registered that causes lots of problems when the suppliers are not - been there, had that discussion with the shop, the fact they need a trade price where the small supplier takes the vat hit and gives them a margin is why they don't get any Ultima bits. For they jigs It would mean prices would be a lot higher for the jigs almost certainly.

 

Why should it be any more difficult and expensive than for any other similar relationship that the NGS has with suppliers in a similar position. None as far as I can see.

 

Cast ones would I fear be very pricey - you'd need to shift a lot of them and the tooling would not be cheap. You also need to get he sharp frog end which can be done - Kato do it, and you need to hide the chunky casting somehow (which Kato fail to do). Given the important bit for the frog is the angles I wonder if it would in fact be easier just to get some rail ends milled to 1:8 1:10 etc. You don't actually need to solder them just fix them firmly to the base as some of the other track systems do

 

ME produce cast frog and check rail assemblies but only in code 55 and 70 (and even blades with attached tie bars) that aren't particularly pricey and without all the issues you think exist - it's only a matter of something similar in code 40, to NMRA standards and suitable for Easitrac point bases. That would reduce the overall soldering necessary and make it more attractive to people.

 

http://www.nscalesupply.com/MEE/MEE-Track.html

 

G.

[Etched Pixels]

Why should it be any more difficult and expensive than for any other similar relationship that the NGS has with suppliers in a similar position.

 

Which is the problem. In my experience they ask for a large trade discount and then the vat hit covered to. It's not worth it.

 

Alan

[queensquare]

ME produce cast frog and check rail assemblies but only in code 55 and 70 (and even blades with attached tie bars) that aren't particularly pricey and without all the issues you think exist - it's only a matter of something similar in code 40, to NMRA standards and suitable for Easitrac point bases. That would reduce the overall soldering necessary and make it more attractive to people.

 

http://www.nscalesupply.com/MEE/MEE-Track.html

 

G.

 

 

I would have to agree with Alan on this. I'm not convinced that cast frogs would work, either visually or practicaly, with the easitrac system of seperate chairs. Soldering up the common crossing is not difficult whether you use a special jig or one that takes all of five minutes to make from a couple of bits of 1mm ply or card stuck down at the correct angle. If soldering up the common crossing (frog) is too much for a modellers skills then the much trickier jobs of attaching a tie bar or feed wires are going to be out of the question.

Sadly (and I'm not a member for these reasons) the N gauge society appears to me to bury its head in the sand when it comes to wanting to improve the scale. They appear to be moving away from kits toward RTR and argue that supporting a better track system would not be economically viable despite the fact that the 2mm scale Association make it pay with but a fraction of the membership. As an outsider looking in it appears to me to be in danger of becoming a glorified collectors club rather than something that supports modellers like Graham et el.

 

Jerry, putting on tin hat and ducking!

[Etched Pixels]

In defence of the NGS one of the "problems" they have (and I don't think problem is the right word) is that they need to reflect the wishes of the membership. The RTR stuff has been a big success and made lots of members happy. If a lot of the NGS membership are collectors or less experienced modellers who will consider some plastic kits but not complex stuff then as a society it has to decide if it's job is to reflect what the members want, take on some 1950's BBC 'betterment of society' type rôle or balance the two.

 

I'm not sure I envy anyone on the NGS committee making those judgements. I don't think the collectors comment is accurate though - a lot of NGS modellers are very clearly enjoying making and running models even if they are not making their own trackwork or assembling anything more complicated than a Peco wagon kit or a Metcalfe pub. At the end of the day its a hobby, and supposed to be fun, it's not an examinable subject.

 

Alan

[Revolution Ben]

<snipped> Sadly (and I'm not a member for these reasons) the N gauge society appears to me to bury its head in the sand when it comes to wanting to improve the scale. They appear to be moving away from kits toward RTR and argue that supporting a better track system would not be economically viable despite the fact that the 2mm scale Association make it pay with but a fraction of the membership. As an outsider looking in it appears to me to be in danger of becoming a glorified collectors club rather than something that supports modellers like Graham et el.

 

Jerry, putting on tin hat and ducking!

 

Hello Jerry,

 

No need for a tin hat! Whether you join the NGS or not is your call; but I can say categorically that the NGS is not moving away from kits. Since 2009 we have produced 2 RTR items - the Stove R and Snowplough - and the Queen Mary brake van is coming this year.

 

During the same period we have also launched the Railtrack PNA kit twin pack, the KPA/JJA/HQA aggregate hopper/autoballaster set of kits, the BR shoc-wagon twin pack, the BR Borail and the BR Mullet. Yet to come this year we have the TTA chemical tanker, the Osprey track panel carrier and the reworked post-98 Salmon, the BR BDV bogie bolster, the Bogie Bolster E and the Turbot (both retooled Parkwood.) So at the moment we are running at a rate of approximately three kits to every RTR vehicle.

 

But as others have rightly pointed out, our kits usually launch with a 1000-odd run and sell steadily; the RTR items have been produced in 2000s or 3000s and sell out rapidly! We can't pretend lots of our members don't want these items so we are trying to satisfy both RTR enthusiasts and kit builders too.

 

And what we are doing is working with both Dapol and Farish - to be fair to both - to produce exclusive models that probably would not have seen the light of day if we had not commissioned them.

 

As for track, the NGS has not buried its head in the sand, but debated this long and hard. We have reluctantly concluded at this time that we just can't commit to the considerable tooling and production costs without a clearer mandate from our members.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

As for track, the NGS has not buried its head in the sand, but debated this long and hard. We have reluctantly concluded at this time that we just can't commit to the considerable tooling and production costs without a clearer mandate from our members.

 

given the 2mm plain track fits the newer N gauge wheels I can see why that should be a problem, many N gaugers I have read about use the better plain track & peco points- which is a decent compromise- I'm starting out a fresh so thinking I might as well make it all 2mm.

 

At this size & gauge I find it hard to tell the difference- the extra 2mm gauge to EM/P4 isnt much in 4mm scale but it gives a nicer view of the front of the train the buffers are in line with the rail tops better somehow, with a difference in gauge of 0.4 mm I can't see this being quite so relevant in the smaller scale ( without wishing to detract from it)

[Kris]

At this size & gauge I find it hard to tell the difference- the extra 2mm gauge to EM/P4 isnt much in 4mm scale but it gives a nicer view of the front of the train the buffers are in line with the rail tops better somehow, with a difference in gauge of 0.4 mm I can't see this being quite so relevant in the smaller scale ( without wishing to detract from it)

 

 

That's true. The narrower rail head of 2mm does exaggerate the difference a little but on plain track, the difference is not as pronounced as it is with OO / EM P4

 

[Revolution Mike]

the RTR items have been produced in 2000s or 3000s and sell out rapidly!

<snip>

And what we are doing is working with both Dapol and Farish - to be fair to both - to produce exclusive models that probably would not have seen the light of day if we had not commissioned them.

 

Which suggests that the RTR manufacturers are not exactly getting their product selection correct or that their pricing model is incorrect (ie trying to spread tooling costs across too many models when they could run more "limited" editions).

 

As for track, the NGS has not buried its head in the sand, but debated this long and hard. We have reluctantly concluded at this time that we just can't commit to the considerable tooling and production costs without a clearer mandate from our members.

 

I am afraid that I am with Jerry on this one. It is such a glaring gap as to almost be unbelievable that the NGS isn't prepared to do something about it. What is being done about getting a clear mandate? Or taking a lead and pushing standards forward rather than resting on laurels and taking "easy" decisions?

 

I know that you have mentioned the survey, but was there a question dedicated to the track question (I can't remember)?

 

I know we are focussing on track, but really Jerry's post gets to the heart of the matter ie what is the NGS for? Commissioning RTR models is a nice thing to do, but not really what I ever envisaged joining the NGS for. Apologies for banging on about this, but the fact that they are popular does not necessarily make them the right thing for the NGS to do! After all even those of us who don't think it is what the NGS should be doing will still buy RTR if it suits our plans!

 

Anyway I think it is a bit of a red herring as the NGS is of sufficient size that it can aim to fill more than one role ie it could provide for RTR commissions as well as kits and track. If everything is judged purely on sales or in comparison to what a RTR commission would sell then I fear we are lost as leaders of N gauge pushing high quality modelling and essentially a sales organisation with a few member benefits thrown in.

 

Cheers, Mike

[Donw]

given the 2mm plain track fits the newer N gauge wheels I can see why that should be a problem, many N gaugers I have read about use the better plain track & peco points- which is a decent compromise- I'm starting out a fresh so thinking I might as well make it all 2mm.

 

At this size & gauge I find it hard to tell the difference- the extra 2mm gauge to EM/P4 isnt much in 4mm scale but it gives a nicer view of the front of the train the buffers are in line with the rail tops better somehow, with a difference in gauge of 0.4 mm I can't see this being quite so relevant in the smaller scale ( without wishing to detract from it)

 

When the 2mm Association started there just wasn't anything else around. I saw the Groves layout at Central hall about 62 or 63 and was really taken by it. However when I spoke to Mr Whall on the 2mm stand it was obvious that there just wasn't much around Arnold hadn't introduced the first N gauge then so the descision to opt for 9.42 made sense considering there was no N and that extra 0.4mm is very useful space between the frames. Once started on 9.42 anything the 2mm society does will take that into account. Besides N guage stuff seems to run on 9.42 quite well -so long as there are no points.

 

BTW I think Noel Lever might be ordering some more jigs for easitrac crossing to NMRA N gauge specs

Don

[Karhedron]

Which suggests that the RTR manufacturers are not exactly getting their product selection correct or that their pricing model is incorrect (ie trying to spread tooling costs across too many models when they could run more "limited" editions).

Production and marketing are more of an art than an exact science. Dapol go more towards the "frequent small batches" than Farish but they frequently get criticised for this by people who have missed out on a particular model. As to judging what will sell, any manufacturer in any sector would love to know for sure what will be a good seller.

 

I am afraid that I am with Jerry on this one. It is such a glaring gap as to almost be unbelievable that the NGS isn't prepared to do something about it. What is being done about getting a clear mandate? Or taking a lead and pushing standards forward rather than resting on laurels and taking "easy" decisions?

 

I know that you have mentioned the survey, but was there a question dedicated to the track question (I can't remember)?

There are a couple of things to bear in mind. Firstly the NGS is largely run by volunteers, people with particular skills or interests drive projects as and when they can. I cannot recall whether there was a specific track question but I certainly mentioned both track and couplings when filling mine in.

 

I am not really suprised that the 2mm Assoc. has got ahead here. Their mandate is specifically to support finescale modelling and track is a big part of that. The NGS caters to a broader church so large projects like track might be regarded as aiming too specifically at one group within the society.

 

I know we are focussing on track, but really Jerry's post gets to the heart of the matter ie what is the NGS for? Commissioning RTR models is a nice thing to do, but not really what I ever envisaged joining the NGS for.

Supporting N gauge modelling (everything from RTR to scratch-building). It does not have a specific mandate to try and drive standards IIRC (however much I and others would like them to). Their role is to support the wishes of their members. Arguably the large volume of sales of RTR shows democracy in action. If they were not what members wanted they would not buy them in the quantities they have.

 

Apologies for banging on about this, but the fact that they are popular does not necessarily make them the right thing for the NGS to do!

The NGS is run by volunteers for the benefit of members. I cannot think of any better criteria than popularity.

 

Are you suggesting that the NGS should engage in large projects and tell members "This is for your own good!"

 

I sympathise with the frustration, I would like better track and couplings too. But I think we are in danger of bashing the NGS too hard for not cnoforming to our own idea of what it should be.

 

Easitrac has shown that a small group of dedicated individuals with a clear focus on a project can produce a quality commercial product. If we want a better range of trackwork then maybe the same approach should be taken rather than simply trying to badger the NGS. It is a large and diverse group while the calls for better standards are a specific subject.

 

At the end of the day, if someone really feels it is the role of the NGS to promote finer standards then perhaps they should stand for a role on the committee so that they can push for that to happen.

[Revolution Ben]

...It is such a glaring gap as to almost be unbelievable that the NGS isn't prepared to do something about it. What is being done about getting a clear mandate? Or taking a lead and pushing standards forward rather than resting on laurels and taking "easy" decisions?

 

I know that you have mentioned the survey, but was there a question dedicated to the track question (I can't remember)?

 

I know we are focussing on track, but really Jerry's post gets to the heart of the matter ie what is the NGS for? Commissioning RTR models is a nice thing to do, but not really what I ever envisaged joining the NGS for. Apologies for banging on about this, but the fact that they are popular does not necessarily make them the right thing for the NGS to do! After all even those of us who don't think it is what the NGS should be doing will still buy RTR if it suits our plans!

 

Cheers, Mike

 

Hi Mike

 

What is being done about getting a mandate is what you identified - a survey which has been produced for us by a member who is experienced in market research. We hope it will be the most thorough and extensive such exercise the NGS has ever carried out. To that end we have made repeated appeals to all our members to fill it in and return it, though we don't yet know how many have. The results are expected to be presented at the next Committee meeting and then in the journal immediately after.

 

I do not know if there is a specific "track" question on there but certainly there is plenty of room for members to suggest such things, as was pointed out in another post.

 

One difficulty the committee has always had is the "silent majority" - put simply, the vast vast majority of NGS members who simply get on with the N Gauge modelling, enjoy the journal, use the shop and buy any new items they want but never see any need to contact the Committee or write to the journal. All we can assume - from the fact that they renew every year - is that whatever they are getting from the NGS is in their minds worth the annual fee.

 

I also think that it's a little unfair to say we are "resting on our laurels" just because we have, reluctantly, decided not to do a thing that you want right now. I accept that this decision will lead to some disappointment - and I am genuinely sorry that we can't do everything wanted of us - but I can assure you that I (and others!) have plenty of late nights working on etch drawings, decal artwork, instructions, publicity material, advertisements, reports, budgeting and pricing spreadsheets, test builds, etc etc so we are not just sitting around talking about how great we are!

 

There is also the question of cost. I salute the work done by the Easitrac team and consider it a fine product; I have bought plenty of the plain track myself for use as wagon loads. However, to build a small layout - say 8' long, with 30' of plain track and six turnouts - the cost using Peco code 55 is around £130; while with Easitrac (and not counting the costs of jigs) it is well over £200. I might feel that the improved appearance of Easitrac is worth the price differential and extra work fitting, but would other NGS members?

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[grahame]

As for track, the NGS has not buried its head in the sand, but debated this long and hard. We have reluctantly concluded at this time that we just can't commit to the considerable tooling and production costs without a clearer mandate from our members.

 

Presumably those debates were carried out within the committee as I'm not aware of the details. Was any of it bounced off the members for their reaction or input? I know there's a questionnaire curently going around but it's not specificaly or exclusively about track or standards and it's rather after the event/decision.

 

Like Mike (Red Death) I'm also with Jerry on this one. Commissioning RTR models is fine but there are now dealers/traders like Osborns, Modelzone and C&M picking up that sector of the market quite successfully and that rather begs the question should the NGS also be doing that (or even bothering to compete in it). Perhaps the NGS should bite the bullet and start looking at tackling the more difficult areas and inherant issues. IMO it should be looking to the future rather than just playing in the present. A start would be to publish proposed standards/ideas to improve N gauge modelling and push/canvass the manufacturers regarding track standards and coupling development even if it can't afford to develop such things itself.

 

G.

[Revolution Ben]

Presumably those debates were carried out within the committee as I'm not aware of the details. Was any of it bounced off the members for their reaction or input? I know there's a questionnaire curently going around but it's not specificaly or exclusively about track or standards and it's rather after the event/decision.

 

Certainly the debates were carried out within the Committee - that's the way the NGS works! And no one has ever raised track as an issue at an AGM as far as I am aware, which is the other opportunity for debating. I can't recall any letters to the journal either, though there may have been one or two.

 

I disagree that the questionnaire is "after the event/decision" since the point of it is to prompt a possible rethink or changed decision!

 

Like Mike (Red Death) I'm also with Jerry on this one. Commissioning RTR models is fine but there are now dealers/traders like Osborns, Modelzone and C&M picking up that sector of the market quite successfully and that rather begs the question should the NGS also be doing that (or even bothering to compete in it). Perhaps the NGS should bite the bullet and start looking at tackling the more difficult areas and inherant issues. IMO it should be looking to the future rather than just playing in the present. A start would be to publish proposed standards/ideas to improve N gauge modelling and push/canvass the manufacturers regarding track standards and coupling development even if it can't afford to develop such things itself.

 

G.

 

While I acknowledge the great work of Maurice at Osborns, and Modelzone and C&M, what models have they commissioned that aren't repaints of existing stock? I thought we were talking here about innovating and working with manufacturers to produce items that would not otherwise be produced...

 

I agree that maybe the NGS should bite the bullet - and if that's what our members wants us to do, then we will do it. And the NGS has long been lobbying the manufacturers to improve standards - from blackened wheels to better couplers - and I don't think it would be unreasonable for me to say that the NGS's efforts are, in part, why both Dapol and Farish have ongoing R&D projects working on this, with possible results later this year.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[bcnPete]

I might be wrong here but I thought that the 'easitrac' system was actually developed and independantly financed by 3/4 individual 2mm members and then it was made available to the 2mm Association.

 

If the NGS has a larger membership, perhaps a similiar consortium of members could develop and finance something independantly for the track that could equally be made available to the NGS afterwards?

 

Just a suggestion mind...

 

Pete (treading carefully and not wanting to spark the old N v 2mm debate)

[54Strat]

From the above comments, it seems there's a few courses of action available if we'd like to try and improve our N gauge track, none of which are mutually exclusive;

 

• The NGS could canvas from it's members opinions on whether a new track system is a worthy project.

To be honest I should have aired my thoughts about this to the society, as Ben had pointed out in a previous post. Nevertheless, if the NGS were motivated by enough interest, maybe we could see if such a venture would be supported conclusively by it's members.

• A private enterprise is undertaken to produce a bespoke track system, or components and jigs to compliment the easitrac system.

Personally, I'd consider stepping up and getting involved in something along these lines (whether my skills are up to it is another matter) How this would come about is another matter, and probably for another thread.

• The NGS and individuals canvas Peco for better track.

Economics no doubt will determine this outcome.

• We make do with current state of affairs; sourcing Jigs, Gauges and the like from NGS, 2mmSA and private individuals.

It appears some of us are making do and quite successfully too.

Personally, I can see merit for all of these. Short term there's a solution though I guess only the more tenacious will take this up. Long term, we'll have to see, though I think it'd be a real shame if better track wasn't made more accessible to the average modeller (if ever such a beast exists).

 

Paul

[Etched Pixels]

Well the NGS and 2mmSA have some 'selling each others products' arrangements for certain items so perhaps that is a sane path forward.

 

That said the kind of people who want their stuff accurate and finer are I think going to find the 2mmSA good value even if they model entirely in N. I know I am.

 

Alan

[Revolution Ben]

Hi all,

 

Will newer N Gauge wheelsets negotiate Easitrac 2mm turnouts if the check-rails are not added? Or are entirely new turnout chairplate toolings required?

 

Looking at the instructions on the 2mmA website, as far as I can see, the check-rails are held in place by "combination" chairplates which also fix the distance between the running rail and the checkrail. Perhaps a sprue of "N-compatible" check-rail chairplates would be an affordable compromise - allowing N Gaugers who want to build better track to use all the Easitrac bits but in the knowledge that N stuff will run through the turnouts.

 

Are there any diamond crossings in Easitrac?

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Perhaps a sprue of "N-compatible" check-rail chairplates would be an affordable compromise - allowing N Gaugers who want to build better track to use all the Easitrac bits but in the knowledge that N stuff will run through the turnouts.

 

Its another thing you could already do though - from my experience I dont think 'checkrail chairs' are available due to the EM/P4 differences in gap, but you assemble the checkrails/crossing wings on a slim peice of metal and then split a normal (which has now become purely cosmetic) chair, relying on the metal to hold the rails in place, -you could already do this to 'convert' 2mm easitrac points to N gauge?

[kenbec]

As a very new member of the N Gauge Society I would not have the effrontery to criticise the comittee

who are volunteers and obviously doing what they think is in line with the wishes of the majority of

their members. This is especially true considering the fact that I obviously only paid superficial attention

to the survey as I can't even remember filling it in.

That said I agree that standards are important as I, as a newcomer to model railways, have had great difficulty

deciding the best way for me to go.

 

After a lot of searching the web in the various forums I have come to the conclusion that the best solution for me is;-

 

a. N scale Ready To Run locomotives and rolling stock.

b. 2mm code 40 track.

 

My experience has been that as I investigated certain paths I inevitably ran into roadblocks.

Even with the way I intend to go I find that the aids to track construction are not available to me unless I go to the

2mm Fine Scale track standards.

From this and other threads I have established that although I can use the 2mm gauge (9.42mm) for standard track

I must switch to N gauge (9mm) for turnouts.

 

This leads me to my request for an answer to one question which is that although I clearly understan the reasoning

behind the ordinary track I haven't understood why the turnouts can't use the same standard, this meaning that

again track building aids are not available because the N gauge gauges (I have a lot of trouble with the dual meaning of gauge)

all seem to be designed for the much coarser code 80 rail.

Could someone please explain in a way that a total amateur can understand?

 

I hope I haven't rambled on too much,

 

Regards,

 

Ken

[54Strat]

Hi Ken,

 

I think it's mainly due to the different tolerances between the back to backs of N gauge and 2mm. The back to back measurement is the distance, measured parallel to the axle, between the inside flanges of the wheels.

 

N Gauge is typically 7.4 – 7.45 mm and 2mm is a minimum of 8.51mm. To negotiate points, the back to back distance must clear the check rails, for 2mm the maximum distance between check rails is 8.38mm. N Gauge wheels, at 7.45 (back to back), won't clear the check rails of a 2mm point, so we'll have to adjust the check rails to take this into account.

 

With code 55 and code 80 rail, the number refers to the height of the rail in thousands of an inch, and has nothing really to do with gauge. Code 80 does allow you to run older stock with deeper flanges.

 

hth

 

Paul

[PaulCheffus]

Hi all,

 

Will newer N Gauge wheelsets negotiate Easitrac 2mm turnouts if the check-rails are not added? Or are entirely new turnout chairplate toolings required?

 

Looking at the instructions on the 2mmA website, as far as I can see, the check-rails are held in place by "combination" chairplates which also fix the distance between the running rail and the checkrail. Perhaps a sprue of "N-compatible" check-rail chairplates would be an affordable compromise - allowing N Gaugers who want to build better track to use all the Easitrac bits but in the knowledge that N stuff will run through the turnouts.

 

Are there any diamond crossings in Easitrac?

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

 

Hi

 

Without using Noel Leaver's crossing jig no as the gap between the wing rails on the crossing and the crossing itself is too small.

 

No diamond crossing as a pre-milled base but you can get individual sleepers to make any track formation. I actually used the sleepers for the points I built for my small 2mm shunting layout.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[Donw]

If you use the crossing jig for NMRA N standard the wingrails are set to allow the wider flanges and back toback of N gauge wheels. These can be soldered in the jib to small scraps of metal to hold the assembly together. This can then be fixed down to sleepers ( soldering if PCB or glue if plastic). The stock rails can then be gauged from the crossing and each other.

Guage is controlled by one type of gauge. Flangeways are controlled by the jigs and flngeway gauge. Within limits flangeways for any size of wheels can be set for any gauge. E.g 2mfs wheels can be used for 2mm narrow gauge same wheels different gauge.

Diamonds and slips are perfectly possible with Easitrac. Maybe a little more difficult as the wider flangeways are difficult around the obtuse crossings. It may be better to use a few pcb sleepers for extra strength on slips. I suggest learning to do standard points first. Before diving into diamonds and slips.

 

Don

[Kris]

Ian M has been documenting how to build an easitrack point having filmed the process at a 2mm association point building workshop.

 

 

 

 

 

These guides are nice and detailed but are not yet complete so don't show the whole process but do give a very good idea of the work involved in building a point.