Any Question Answered

[MarshLane]

51 minutes ago, Izzy said:

 

15mm Rich, I've just been and checked to be sure. This used to be the standard length Farish have used and I don't think it has changed for any bogie coaching stock but it does now vary widely for newer wagons so you do have to be careful. Not sure about the CCT's though, it seems I have re-wheeled them with 12.25's running in the top hat brass bearings so not sure what the original axle length was.

 

Bob

Thanks Bob,

Really appreciate that. I'll go with the 15.2mm option from the Assoc. Shop as they are standard Mk1 coaches.

 

Cheers

Rich

[Chris Higgs]

On 19/11/2023 at 20:34, MarshLane said:

Thanks Bob,

Really appreciate that. I'll go with the 15.2mm option from the Assoc. Shop as they are standard Mk1 coaches.

 

Cheers

Rich

 

I would check if I were you. I seem to recall the Mk4 and Commonwealth bogies might have been different lengths. But mine are also packed away.

 

Chris 

[yaxxbarl]

2 minutes ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

I would check if I were you. I seem to recall the Mk4 and Commonwealth bogies might have been different lengths. But mine are also packed away.

 

Chris 

Chris,

 

I'd need to check on commonwealth bogies as I don't think I've needed to replace the wheelsets in any of them, however for Mk1s using the BR Mk1 bogie, also for the LMS Stanier Coaches, 15.2mm axles fit fine.

 

For the BT10 bogies used under later Mk1s and also Mk2s the 14.2mm axles are needed. CCTs I'm not sure of but I think they're also 15.2mm too.

 

Cheers,

 

John

[Izzy]

Both the old & new versions of the commonwealths use 15.2’s. The between solebars of the CCT’s is just 12mm so think perhaps they are 14.2’s or 13.7’s. Must be the reason I used 12.25’s with bearings, had them in stock.

 

Bob

[richbrummitt]

On 09/09/2023 at 04:11, QRModeller said:

Thank you Duncan. I shall await publication of your article to learn what to do for the Minks. 
 

Cheers!

 

Matt

There are various shortcomings of the association body. The one I built got worked up into a GPV. I since created printed versions of iron Minks based on the information in the book on the subject that will sit much better against the resin body Minks the association can supply. 

[Matt.S.]

10 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

There are various shortcomings of the association body. The one I built got worked up into a GPV. I since created printed versions of iron Minks based on the information in the book on the subject that will sit much better against the resin body Minks the association can supply. 

We may have to collectively pick your brains Rich - I'm keen to put together a small rake to keep a Cambrian 24 busy...

[richbrummitt]

36 minutes ago, Matt.S. said:

We may have to collectively pick your brains Rich - I'm keen to put together a small rake to keep a Cambrian 24 busy...

Maybe. I’ve done the Welsh ones too, but no Cones. 

[Sithlord75]

I'm looking at getting a J27 commissioned so we can have a couple to run on Wansbeck Road.  I am aware of the Shapeways body but some of the reports I've seen suggest that whilst it's to scale, it's too to scale for even 2mm standards (besides, I'm not sure you'd get enough weight into it).  Has anyone tried the J27 from Shapeways to confirm or deny the rumours?  And could some kind soul point me at some good plans for a J27.  

 

TIA.

 

[GER_Jon]

Hi Kevin August 2015 railway modeller has a good article with drawings.

[A. Bastow]

5 hours ago, Sithlord75 said:

I'm looking at getting a J27 commissioned so we can have a couple to run on Wansbeck Road.  I am aware of the Shapeways body but some of the reports I've seen suggest that whilst it's to scale, it's too to scale for even 2mm standards (besides, I'm not sure you'd get enough weight into it).  Has anyone tried the J27 from Shapeways to confirm or deny the rumours?  And could some kind soul point me at some good plans for a J27.  

 

TIA.

 

Is it by Recreation21? 
The boiler should be hollow to let you put some weight into the loco, plus any weights that you'll be able to squeeze in between the frames. 

You might need to make your chassis a bit narrower to accommodate a gear tower but that's about it. My L&Y class 28 steam loco was a printed one and it runs nicely - albeit with an etched chassis. Maybe the generic one supplied by Bob Jones or the association would work for a J27? Worth a look. 

 

Adam

[65179]

I think Bob's generic one is in fact a J26/7 chassis. Certainly he did one for some shotdown 4mm J26/7 etches (organised by Mick?) years ago.

 

It might be worth seeing if anyone has any of those body etches stashed away.

 

Regards,

 

Simon

Edited November 26, 2023 by 65179

[Matt.S.]

Morning all,

 

Currently building two D2026 motor car vans however the reccomended components no longer exist. Please can someone assist with the following - either confirmation or recommendations please!

 

2-004 currently 5.25mm wheels, 14.2mm axle (should this be 7mm disc?)  7mm fitted as per diagram book

2-464 4'6" spring, J hanger, LMS?

2-419 Mystery axlebox (flat fronted LMS?)

2-121 Buffers (possibly coach buffers?)

Edited December 7, 2023 by Matt.S.

[Nig H]

8 hours ago, Matt.S. said:

Morning all,

 

Currently building two D2026 motor car vans however the reccomended components no longer exist. Please can someone assist with the following - either confirmation or recommendations please!

 

2-004 currently 5.25mm wheels, 14.2mm axle (should this be 7mm disc?)

2-464 4'6" spring, J hanger, LMS?

2-419 Mystery axlebox (flat fronted LMS?)

2-121 Buffers (possibly coach buffers?)

Hi Matt,

 

You need 7mm diameter wheels and if it's the Stephen Harris kit, then 12.25 mm axles. The springs and axle boxes sound about right. I think the type of buffers varied over time, so you need to have a look at some pics at the approximate time period to decide, but coach buffers (as clipped to a varying degree) are probably what you need. There's information in LMS coaches vol 1, page 88 onwards, or try the Paul Bartlett  website.

 

Nigel Hunt

[Matt.S.]

Thanks Nigel. I thought I'd check my assumptions before ordering to NZ!

[2mm Andy]

I don't know if this will help Matt, but attached is a photo of an LMS D2026 CCT axlebox/spring. The photo was taken at the Tanfield Railway - the CCT body had been removed and the chassis used to carry a NER carriage body.

 

 

Andy

[Matt.S.]

Thanks Andy, that will definitely help, I'll have a ponder. 

[tom s]

If the gauging is reduced sufficiently, do 2mm finescale wheelsets run on N gauge commercially available track?

I have a code 55 layout I am building and while I am content with the fat N gauge wheels that are obscured by bogie or sideframes diesel/rolling stock, I would like to scratchbuild some 6-coupled tank engines, where the wheels are on full view. I am hoping that the finer flanges would be able to cope with the code 55 point's courser standard gaps.

[Izzy]

It is possible to get 2FS wheelsets to run on N by using a btb of 7.9mm. But the passage through pointwork crossings isn’t pretty and I personally wouldn’t want to do it. 
 

Bob

[Klaus ojo]

Tom, 

I´d agree with Bob: staight track is no problem and curves as well, as far as they are having a large radius.

I´ve tried a narrower wheel gauge of 8.9 mm with a BR class 11 (otherwise to 2mm FS standards) and it did run astoundingly well on N Kato track even with an approx. 290 mm radius and simple turnouts. However, your code 55 is sounding like Peco. The gap at the crossing at the Peco turnout I have is 11mm long and 1.3..1.4 mm wide and at the checkrails it is 1mm. With a wheel only 1.3mm wide that is difficult. With special turnouts this might work.

The FREMO FiNescale folks are running their trains on basically 2mm FS standards but reduced btb to accomodate +/-  9mm gauge. This is still not compatible to NEM standard  N gauge. 

Klaus

 

Edited December 30, 2023 by Klaus ojo

[Jan W]

I have tried to run 6-coupled locos with 2FS wheels on scratchbuilt n gauge track to NMRA standards and it works on normal track and standard points. However it won’t work on more complex pointwork like 3-way or double slips.

But this was on track with flangeways of 0.7mm where Peco track has flangeways of 1.2/1.3mm.

In the end I decided to convert the layout (just four points) to standard N gauge so I can run stock straight out of the box.

This also means that I have to build new chassis for some locos using Farish or Dapol wheels that are available as spares.

 

My advice: if you want to keep using your code 55 trackwork accept that the wheels have to be a bit coarser and use standard N gauge wheels for your locos.

Modern wheels don’t look bad especially if you keep in mind that they are tiny when in use on the layout and not blown up in a photo like in this link:

https://www.ngaugenews.com/post/new-efe-n-gauge-j94-liveries-and-additional-pba-wagons-announced

 

Jan

[tom s]

Thankyou for the feedback! The track is indeed Peco but it is just standard and Y points, after seeing n9's experience it seems I dodged a bullet by not using a slip. I am planning on replacing the checkrails with 3d printed ones for a reduced flangeway and some more prototypical looking lengths, it seems like an achievable beginner improvement as the checkrails are just plastic. 
It is my first layout but I will definitely be looking into 2FS if I do a second one.
7.9 btb sounds good, I have been having some trouble with wheel play so want to set that on all my stock if the check rail tweaks are a success.

Also Bob I really enjoyed seeing your class 16 progress, it has been a goal of mine to make one ever since I checked Diesel Pioneers out from our library when I was still in school 😁

[Izzy]

5 hours ago, tom s said:

Thankyou for the feedback! The track is indeed Peco but it is just standard and Y points, after seeing n9's experience it seems I dodged a bullet by not using a slip. I am planning on replacing the checkrails with 3d printed ones for a reduced flangeway and some more prototypical looking lengths, it seems like an achievable beginner improvement as the checkrails are just plastic. 
It is my first layout but I will definitely be looking into 2FS if I do a second one.
7.9 btb sounds good, I have been having some trouble with wheel play so want to set that on all my stock if the check rail tweaks are a success.

Also Bob I really enjoyed seeing your class 16 progress, it has been a goal of mine to make one ever since I checked Diesel Pioneers out from our library when I was still in school 😁

Thanks Tom, pleased you found the class 16 interesting. 
 

With regard to altering track N standards might I say that altering the checkrail won’t achieve anything useful. It’s just there to stop the wheel flange from riding up the crossing/frog nose. It’s closing that gap where the benefit occurs. I have read some working in N use 0.85mm flangeways with the standard 7.4mm btb and the NMRA RP profile wheels (what most wheels conform to these days - except 2FS of course). I’ve no idea how well this pans out in reducing the wheel bumping.  But altering the wing rails of Peco points seems an awful lot of work to do this if indeed it’s possible without wrecking the point in the process. Different matter if your hand building the track. ISTR some asked for the British Finescale N gauge to use this flangeway measurement when they were originally being developed but the majority called for standard N dimensions which is what arrived. 
 

Bob

 

 

[Jan W]

Tom,

I happen to have an almost finished chassis for a Farish SECR C class. I bought the C class as spare parts without the chassis with the intention to build a 2FS chassis for it.

I never finished the finescale layout so I tried to make it run on N gauge trackwork with the finescale wheels I also bought for it.

This was when I still had trackwork to NMRA standards (0.7mm flangeways) but I abandoned the idea of using it when I converted the layout to accept RTR stock out of the box. Maybe I’ll reconsider after the tests I just did.

Here are some photos I just took on the N gauge layout with 0.85mm flangeways and a BTB of 7.9mm.

There are definitely some pitfalls.

Here you see the wheel hanging in the air. It works as long as the center of gravity is above the center driver.

Flangeways are 0.85mm so you can imagine that the gap on Peco track (1.2mm flangeway on the crossing) is A LOT bigger.

 

This is what happens if the center of gravity is above one of the first or last driver. The wheel falls into the gap and lifts the flange of the driver on the opposite side of the chassis off the track. (Here the rear left falls into the gap lifting the front right flange above the rail).

 

Using a BTB distance of 7.9mm gives enough clearance on the crossing. 
 

It can work as long as you can keep the center of gravity above the center drivers. Can be a challenge but it’s up to you if you want to try it.

A cheap way to try if a chassis can work on Peco track is to make a chassis of evergreen square channel (6.4mm I think), drill 3 holes through it at the correct dimensions for the loco you want to build and put 3 axles with wagon wheels in it.

PM me if you want a few axles (at the expense of p&p from the netherlands)

 

Jan

[CF MRC]

I’m afraid you simply can’t run FS wheels on track with N gauge clearances. The tread width could, in theory stay the same but with extra thick tyres: not an easy solution and very ugly to look at. 
 

Probably best to either tighten the gauge through hand made turnouts for N, or go to 2mm FS. 
 

Tim

[tom s]

Much appreciated for the feedback! I can see the issues. I am modelling an N2 so Farish B1 wheelset spares are almost shouting 'pick me' if the finescale wheels are going to be ill-suited.


This is roughly my plans for point edits, was hoping the 0.5mm flangeway on the new checkrail would keep the horizontal movement contained, and the shim would allow the flange to just roll over the top of it to cope with the vertical movement. Some of my farish 12t wagons already fall into the gap so the shim seems ideal in either case! Hopefully it doesn't look too glaring when it has been sleeper grime'd up.