RMweb Premium nick_bastable Posted February 2, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2014 Pete, Valentin and Andrew have beaten me to it with the details of the Kent and Essex Group. Hope you can make it to the meeting - I'm sure you'll get some help with dismantling the loco. Andy No need to dismantle just drop the wheels out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernboy Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Hello Mark, Eileen's Emporium (www.eileensemporium.com) sell 1mm x 1mm brass T section - that's pretty small... Alex. Thank you Alex, I had checked Eileen's Emporium but nothing came up in a search. I'll drop them an email. Thanks again, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteDavey Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Is it possible to use a radius as tight as 13.5" in 2mm Finescale? I need to run hidden track to this radius as my maximum baseboard width prevents going larger. I have no intention of running steam on this layout, mainly DMU's and EMU's and perhaps diesel hauled coaches. Is it possible to make this work by gauge widening perhaps? What's the tightest radius you have ever used without problems? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold queensquare Posted February 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 4, 2014 Is it possible to use a radius as tight as 13.5" in 2mm Finescale? I need to run hidden track to this radius as my maximum baseboard width prevents going larger. I have no intention of running steam on this layout, mainly DMU's and EMU's and perhaps diesel hauled coaches. Is it possible to make this work by gauge widening perhaps? What's the tightest radius you have ever used without problems? Pete Its a bit tight to say the least but if you are only running bogie stock you might get away with it. I would make up a test piece a fraction tighter, say 12'5-13", and try it. Jerry 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted February 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 4, 2014 Jerry offers some good advice test it first. You may also find you need to attach any couplings further forward or onto bogies. With bogie vehicles a slight easement into a curve may be more important than the absolute minimum radius. The maximum offset of the vehicle ends is when one vehicle is on the curve and the other on the straight. Also any reverse curve is a no no there needs to be a piece of straight longer than your longest vehicle between opposite curves. You could also add a checkrail that is what they do on tight curves at 12inch to the ft. An alternative approach may be to make a flap that folds down when running to increase the available width but can fold away when not in use. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted February 5, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 5, 2014 Is it possible to use a radius as tight as 13.5" in 2mm Finescale? I need to run hidden track to this radius as my maximum baseboard width prevents going larger. I have no intention of running steam on this layout, mainly DMU's and EMU's and perhaps diesel hauled coaches. Is it possible to make this work by gauge widening perhaps? What's the tightest radius you have ever used without problems? Pete For what you require, although it's not perhaps ideal, radii down to 11" can be used. I have a crude test (torture) track using easitrac slapped down on some 4x2 hardboard with radius down to this, and most stock except steam runs just fine. Just recently at my local group meeting a fellow members newly converted Farish Warship, Dapol Hymek and Farish CL14 were quite happily buzzing around on it. I have had no issues with any stock to date, diesels or DMU's, coaches/wagons. Even a 2mmSA long wheelbase CCT is okay (which surprised me). My main layout also has radius down to 12" in the hidden/non-scenic areas, and as long as you use suitably set couplings such as DG's, which will prevent buffer locking, it all seems possible. I would however suggest that since there is the danger of gauge narrowing occuring with easitrac set to too tight a radius, that soldered track is used for these radii with gauge widening (achieved with the 3-point gauge). Having to use radii like this isn't ideal, but when push comes to shove it's better than nothing....... which is why my two layouts built so far also have some curved points with 15"/20" radius........ Izzy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold queensquare Posted February 5, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 5, 2014 Having to use radii like this isn't ideal, but when push comes to shove it's better than nothing....... which is why my two layouts built so far also have some curved points with 15"/20" radius........ Izzy I would agree. On Wadebridge quay there is a double slip followed by a curved threeway point on a ruling radius of 8.5", admittedly it was built by John Greenwood who takes little notice of the 'rules', (where do you think I learnt it!) and is mainly the preserve of the Well tanks but it does demonstrate what is possible. See the sixth picture down in this post. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78121-the-north-cornwall-line-in-2mm-finescale/?p=1218250 Incidently the Padstow line seen curving away bottom right in the same picture is 18" radius. Jerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium CF MRC Posted February 5, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 5, 2014 Its a bit tight to say the least but if you are only running bogie stock you might get away with it. I would make up a test piece a fraction tighter, say 12'5-13", and try it. Jerry There is 'rule' on minimum track radius that Stewart Hine told me: An inch for every millimetre of scale is the mainline minimum e.g 7mm scale 7'. Nothing in 2 mm scale will have major problems with 600mm radius, but it is surprising how much clearance bogie stock needs behind the solebars, especially with long wheelbase or 6 wheel bogies and 7mm diameter wheels. On the NLR on Copenhagen Fields the Oerlikom set negotiates a < 9" bend at the layout front. To accommodate this, the buffers on the inside of the curve are significantly shorter than they should be to avoid buffer lock, but then nobody ever sees them.... John Greenwood has divine dispensation to do things that others should not try, but he is fortunate that Bulleid Pacifics are relatively short wheelbase engines. Tim 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted February 5, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 5, 2014 Frank Roomes was another with divine dispensation he built an 0 gauge layout with very sharp curves and had an LMS 4-6-0 with brakes, sanding gear, all flanges, full valve gear which would traverse a 3ft 6in curve equivalent to 1ft in 2mm. However a skilled builder will maximise sideplay where it will not cause an issue and minimise it where it could. It is possible to push the boundaries on curves but one of the advantages of 2mm is the space problem usually means we can avoid doing so and layouts look the better for it. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamjamie Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Is it possible to use a radius as tight as 13.5" in 2mm Finescale? I need to run hidden track to this radius as my maximum baseboard width prevents going larger. I have no intention of running steam on this layout, mainly DMU's and EMU's and perhaps diesel hauled coaches. Is it possible to make this work by gauge widening perhaps? What's the tightest radius you have ever used without problems? Pete I've already started building a layout in N gauge, but not quite got to the point of soldering the rails to the sleepers yet! I am planning to use steam locos on the layout, and currently my minimum radius is 12" - which is probably pushing it for N gauge anyway. But, if enough sideplay is designed into the loco is it possible to run with 2mm wheels on radii that tight? I only ask because it would be great to use 2mm gauge track everywhere, it's just the two ends where the radius needs to get tight to loop back on it's self. At the moment I'm planning to use a 9mm gauge, but I will be building everything to a scale of 1:152. I'd be interested to see how tight 2mm can go though, as that would look great in the long straight(-ish!) sections! I don't want to lay the track to N gauge and then regret not laying it to 2mm gauge at a later date(!) Edited February 8, 2014 by iamjamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted February 8, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 8, 2014 The extra 0.42mm may actually help on curves with stock designed to N gauge standards. If you want to adopt 2mFS standards on curves that tight a little bit of gauge widening beyond 9.42 might be a help. For steam locos on tight curves I would recomend making jointed rods as these enable the sideplay to be used without having to provide extra clearance on the crankpins. I would probably cheat and make the actual joint on the crankpin. You are on uncharted territory using 2mFS on such tight curves. Really this is something I would suggest you do some tests on before committing yourself. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-missy- Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Hello. For steam locos on tight curves I would recomend making jointed rods as these enable the sideplay to be used without having to provide extra clearance on the crankpins. I would probably cheat and make the actual joint on the crankpin. You are on uncharted territory using 2mFS on such tight curves. Really this is something I would suggest you do some tests on before committing yourself. Don I dont think I have ever seem jointed coupling rods on a 2mm steam engine. I would love to be proved wrong though. The way that I have done it in the past is just to add extra sideplay in the wheels by narrowing the chassis and the wheel muffs slightly. M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold queensquare Posted February 9, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 9, 2014 My little early Farish Holden/General purpose tank has jointed coupling rods. Not jointed prototypically but in two bits around the crankpin - see picture. The purpose was not to get it to go round tight corners but to try to get better pickup. The axles have a degree of vertical movement combined with top acting wiper pickups/springs. It works well enough although in reality probably more complicated than necessary. As for the original question. Its not entirely clear what Iamjamie is trying to do - 2mm gauge is very small - I presume you mean 2mm scale. Whatever, if the layout is being built to N gauge then 12" curves at the ends will cause no problems. If trying to build it to 2mm Finescale standards then I would suggest the curves are too tight for all but the smallest steam locos. The fact that the plain track is 9.42mm gauge is irrelevant, it is the standards used around the pointwork that are crucial. If you want to build your own locos using 2mm Association wheels then 2FS is the only option. 2mm Association wheels will not work through N gauge pointwork - they fall into the large gaps around the common crossing. Jerry 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-missy- Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Fantastic! Thank you Jerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamjamie Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Thanks for correcting me Jerry! I'm normally very good with my gauge -v- scale usage! The main reason for me trying to go down the 2mm route is because of the look of the pointwork. Also, I will be scratch building all of the buildings, so working at 2mm:ft seems to be not too mathematically challenging! I keep changing my mind about what I'm going to do with the track(!), but I think I just need to stick with the N Gauge route... I'm determined to build a 2mmFS layout one day though! Unfortunately my current two projects don't really allow for this, so it might be a couple of years away...! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted February 9, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) That is exactly what I meant Jerry. Very nicely done. You need two sets of coupling rods unless you make your own. Cut one set forward of the centre pin the other set rearward then comes the tricky bit reducing the height of the centre boss one set filed from the front the other set from the rear. Should be reasonably easy for you with a mill Julia. If you are using etched rods where two layer are laminated it can be easier provided the thickness is strong enough. Don Edited February 9, 2014 by Donw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel8910 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 A quick question- is it viable to use cut and sanded matchsticks in conjunction with pcb sleepers as a base for 2mmFS track?? Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamjamie Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I'm using wooden "ties" from handlaidtrack, an American company. They resemble match sticks, but I'm not quite sure how dimensionally similar they actually are, not having any matchsticks to hand... I'll be using a combination of FiNetrax "pegged" chairs, inserting them into drilled holes, and normal FiNetrax/Easitrac chairs. It's going to be a very slow and laborious process, but I think the final result is worth it. I've attached a picture of my test track so you can see what it looks like. The rail and chairs still require painting however... 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel8910 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 The process is very laborious, yes, but with effort one can get a real process going, and can make good progress. I had considered some of the American products, but the postage would consume my small budget! Looks very similar to 'Murder on the Tracks'- wait, is that you ?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamjamie Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 The process is very laborious, yes, but with effort one can get a real process going, and can make good progress. I had considered some of the American products, but the postage would consume my small budget! Looks very similar to 'Murder on the Tracks'- wait, is that you ?? It is! The pricing (without postage!) works out about the same as buying the same amount of PCB sleepers from the 2mmSA, but I just love the look of real wood sleepers! I'm surprised there isn't someone in the UK that's producing something similar. You can spend a lot of time trying to paint plastic sleepers to look like wood, but why not just stain wood to the desired colour? The other selling point about these sleepers, for me anyway, is that they are thicker that PCB sleepers. This allows you to get a decent amount of ballast down, rather than just a thin layer... I will be using PCB sleepers at the baseboard edges for added strength, so I'll need to raise them up a bit to get them level. Although a quick google suggests you can buy 5000 matchsticks for less than £4, so if the dimensions do work out it certainly works out much cheaper!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2mm Andy Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 A quick question- is it viable to use cut and sanded matchsticks in conjunction with pcb sleepers as a base for 2mmFS track?? Thanks! I'd be very wary - matchsticks are pretty poor quality wood, and sanding them down would be a very tedious and time-consuming task. Better to cut ply strips as others have done and stain them before sticking down. The chap at County Rolling Stock showed me some laser-cut timber sleepers at the St.Albans show - he's hoping to make them available soon I believe. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanLister Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Hi The sleepers for the experimental turnout I built just before Christmas are 2mm walnut strip; it's very easy to work and quite inexpensive...13p per metre in fact, if I remember correctly....... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel8910 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 'Walnut strip'- now thats something that would suit! Cheap, available and suitable,, cannot believe I didnt think of that before . Thanks everyone for their replies, has helped me save a lot of time, and almost definitely a lot of money!! Daniel8910 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted February 12, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Basically yes Daniel rather than sanding down whn I used 1/32 ply I used packing under the easitrac at the joints There are some photos of my work and even better work from David Long in my Micro kayout thread below Don edit kayout/layout missbehaving fingers again. Edited February 12, 2014 by Donw 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 One thing I would be concerned about with wood (from an outside point of view with no experience) is long term warping or moisture induced swelling (e.g. when soaking the ballast with glue). Can anyone who has used this before comment on it's long term stability vs. plastic or soldered track? Is it fine so long as you do something to protect the wood? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now