Armchair Modeller Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) The real issue will be how close you want your stock coupled together. To get a realistic appearance, you might want to close couple the stock, so it would not go round tight curves. The buffers would jam and force the stock off the track. With conventional N gauge couplings this would not be an issue, as the stock is normally quite a long way apart, but it looks less realistic. Which code 40 track were you planning to use - Finetrax, Easitrac, or scratchbuilt? You can get loco wheels turned down to 2mm standards, rather than buy replacement wheels. This works out significantly cheaper, but there is a very slight risk that the wheels may get damaged in the process. Edited February 21, 2013 by Armchair Modeller Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-missy- Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Hello Cav. There is no real difference between code 40 track and std PECO stuff when it comes to minimum radius, its dependent upon what the rolling stock can tolerate including, as AM says above, how close you couple them. I would suggest looking what the spec is for the engines/rolling stock you have and stick with that. Missy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I'm planning on using Easitrac on the plain and handbuilt turnouts to N gauge standards (if I can ever find a suitable N gauge roller gauge that will fit code 40 that is!). I'm planning on doing the off scene track in peco code 55 so ought not to cause too much trouble however if I decide to go the whole hog and adopt 2mm standards I'm not sure how tight easitrac will go. I'm pretty sure that diesel traction would cope down to 9", I used to do N gauge back in the early 90s and never had any issues with that radius, as you say its the close coupling that is the issue I guess. I would prefer not to have massive gaps between my coaches if I'm honest but to do the plan I have I need at least 9.5ft of visible track and overall has to get into a length no greater than 12ft. I could compress the design but it fits at full size as is and it would be a shame to compromise I feel. I take it there are no camming couplers available in 2mm then? I don't have any 2mm scale stock yet as the project is very early days so cant even play around. Cav Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Modeller Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Roller gauges for Code 40 are an issue, though you could use 9.42mm gauge roller gauges for the running rails, with home-made gauges for the checkrails on your pointwork. Assuming you are going modern image, like your OO layout, then Code 40 might be too small for main lines. Code 55 from C&L fits perfectly into some N gauge roller gauges I purchased a while back. Modern bufferless stock will be far less of a problem than stock with buffers. Modern coaches and DMUs can be got around tight curves as there will be no buffer locking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted February 21, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 21, 2013 Hi Cav Why not use code 40 on the visible areas and then use Peco track (code 55 or set track) for the hidden areas? That would probably be my solution if I need tight radius curves as using set track it is easier to get smooth curves. Cheers, Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 AM, If I used the 9.42mm gauges with N back to backs the flangways will be even larger and look totally rubbish!! haha. Code 40 is still about right for modern image. In 4mm scale code 83 is near as damn it correct so it follows at half the scale that half the height is correct. Code 55 would be a code 110 equivelent which is far too course, even courser than chunky peco code 100. Code 55 in 2mm scale works out at over 200mm in rail height. Uk main lines are approx 172mm, code 45 would be perfect if it existed!! My layout will be set in the transistion period of BR from 1985 to 1990 so buffered stock is certainly the order of the day. Only the newer dmus and HSTs would be bufferless. Mike, I intend to do just that I just wanted to test the water regarding the pros and cons and if I do decide that I want to go with 2mm wheel standards the plan will still work. Cav Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted February 21, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 21, 2013 If you want the cam type coupler you will probably have to use the N gauge ones. Typically 2mm modellers usually go for 2ft curves as a minimum perhaps down to 18in where sharp curves are aceptable. DG's look quite reasonable on those curves. If you want to go for N gauge curves you may have problems. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I'm guessing that the couplers are the main issue with curves here. I want to make it clear that I don't want sharp curves on the scenic part of the layout just in the hidden areas where I'm basically building acres of empty board in order to get my trains turned through 180°. Seems a shame to eat into the visible stuff in order to do it. Cav Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etched Pixels Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Roller gauges for Code 40 are an issue, though you could use 9.42mm gauge roller gauges for the running rails, with home-made gauges for the checkrails on your pointwork. Assuming you are going modern image, like your OO layout, then Code 40 might be too small for main lines. Code 55 from C&L fits perfectly into some N gauge roller gauges I purchased a while back. Modern bufferless stock will be far less of a problem than stock with buffers. Modern coaches and DMUs can be got around tight curves as there will be no buffer locking. I don't believe any of the modern heavy rail profiles in the UK are beyond code 40 or thereabouts. Some of the older pre BR branches and sidings could I think be quite reasonably laid with code 30 rail. Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted February 21, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 21, 2013 I'm guessing that the couplers are the main issue with curves here. I want to make it clear that I don't want sharp curves on the scenic part of the layout just in the hidden areas where I'm basically building acres of empty board in order to get my trains turned through 180°. Seems a shame to eat into the visible stuff in order to do it. Cav The problem is that the tight curves in the hidden section will dictate the spacing to avoid the buffers locking this will them show up as bigger gaps on the visible section. If you can incorporate a small transistion piece it can help as the worst case is when one vehicle is on the curve while the next is still on the straight. One bonus if you do not need to couple uncouple on the curves it may make it easier. Things like lightly sprung buffers can help but they are not available in 2mm SFAIK and making your own would need a lot of skill. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Modeller Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 AM, If I used the 9.42mm gauges with N back to backs the flangways will be even larger and look totally rubbish!! haha. Code 40 is still about right for modern image. In 4mm scale code 83 is near as damn it correct so it follows at half the scale that half the height is correct. Code 55 would be a code 110 equivelent which is far too course, even courser than chunky peco code 100. Code 55 in 2mm scale works out at over 200mm in rail height. Uk main lines are approx 172mm, code 45 would be perfect if it existed!! My layout will be set in the transistion period of BR from 1985 to 1990 so buffered stock is certainly the order of the day. Only the newer dmus and HSTs would be bufferless. Mike, I intend to do just that I just wanted to test the water regarding the pros and cons and if I do decide that I want to go with 2mm wheel standards the plan will still work. Cav I do appreciate your concern for as fine a scale appearance as possible, but a lot depends on how you plan to make your pointwork. Also, everything is very small in N gauge, so the differences you quote will not be quite so apparent as in 4mm scale - especially from normal viewing distances. As a rough guide I would go for an absolute minimum of 18" curves if reasonably realistic coupling distances are important. There are no Keen couplers in 2mm scale. You can do clever things with magnets on bufferless stock, but buffers are an unavoidable problem when you try to couple things close together and use tight curves. By the sound of things, you are not far off being able to get 18" radius curves at the ends of your layout. You have to weigh up the pros and cons- something will have to give! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I would prefer to stay away from buffers messing with each other at all if i can get away it. Through experience in 4mm, if you want anything under 4.5ft radius (I guess 2.25ft in 2mm) then you dont want buffering to happen as there is always a chance of buffer lock when propelling. I don't intend to uncouple on the tight curves but will need to propel around them at one end. For coaching stock I would be happy to modify the buffers to be 'retracted' so that they are well back from the gangway faces that would mean that I could have the gangways closer without the buffer interfereing. Cav Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Modeller Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Standards are quite loose with N gauge wheels and track. The wheels can move quite a long way from side to side, increasing the risk of buffer locking if you don't use N gauge couplers to keep things well apart. Bizarre as it may sound, you would probably get away with slightly tighter curves using 2mm standards, as there is less freedom for wheels to move sideways on the track compared with OO and N gauge. 2ft radius worked fine for me. For 18" radius, then BR MK1 coaches had to be sightly further apart than I would have liked. Sharp reverse curves are the real killer - best to make those slightly easier if possible. If the length of the layout concerns you, maybe you could have a removable section somewhere in the middle - only added when you take the layout to exhibitions? - just a thought Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etched Pixels Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 You might also want to have a look at the work being done on N gauge code 40 track/point kits that Wayne Kinney is working on as 'fiNetrax' . It's conceptually similar but using cast n/s frogs and milled based pre holed for chairs so that aligning and assembling should be much easier Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I think that I may have to look at my plan a bit more and do some simulations to see what I'm up against coupling wise. As for the removable middle section thats a no no. There is too much going on scenery wise to allow for it. Cav Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 You might also want to have a look at the work being done on N gauge code 40 track/point kits that Wayne Kinney is working on as 'fiNetrax' . It's conceptually similar but using cast n/s frogs and milled based pre holed for chairs so that aligning and assembling should be much easier Alan I have no issue with building track Alan, Waynes stuff is rather nice though. Cav Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim V Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 The way to avoid buffer locking when propelling on reverse curves is - just don't do it! Try and design the layout so the move isn't required. Simples! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Modeller Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I know from my own experience that changes in scale and gauge bring their own unique problems and opportunities, whether it be the availability of products, differences in standards, whatever. What seems like a simple transition from one scale to another quickly becomes a huge learning curve. You often have to develop very different ways of doing things and different ways of thinking. I found that moving to a smaller scale is actually more difficult than the other way around. I suspect that would be true of you, as your previous work suggests you have a great eye for detail. You may have to compromise a few of your ideals to cope with the smaller scale - but there are also many advantages, like getting more in a space, more realistic train lengths etc. A few experiments - even a quick scenic test track or two - would be a very valuable experience before you go for the big one. Knowing someone with similar interests in your local area would be a big help, if you are so lucky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Im not a stranger to N as I was an N gauge modeller back in the 90s. In fact my last layout before Outon Road was N gauge. I just have finer standards that I can play with nowadays. Buffer locking will only be an issue if the buffers touch which I will avoid. Thats the same for any scale. My 4mm stuff couldnt avoid it as I was/am a 3 link man but in 2mm Im sure the couplers can take the strain. As you have said it depends on what I will accept with regards to coupling distances and that is where I need to focus I think. As for the layout design I can't design the propelling move out as the location is a real place and the yard entrance is where it is. Cav Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted February 21, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 21, 2013 If you use either DG couplings or the N gauge types then buffer locking issues should not arise whether reverse curves are involved or not. The little micro-circular layout which I've built to 2mm 2FS has curves down to 12" radius and no stock has problems. This ranges from modern stock such as Class 66/86/156/ freightliner flats etc to older 1960's green diesel era stuff, 24/31/37/mk 1's/short wheelbase wagons etc. However, the only couplings that work reliably on curved track with regard to coupling/uncoupling are the DG's. I used them on a previous N layout on curves down to 9" without issue. Izzy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Modeller Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) I think there are 2 things to consider with buffers and curves. The first is buffer locking, where one buffer head slips behind the buffer on the next vehicle. With DGs, this is pretty well impossible as the buffing bar of the DGs blocks the possibility of it happening. The second problem is for buffer heads on the inside of a tight curve, on adjacent vehicles, to be forced hard against each other. This is really what concerned me. I have practical experience of it happening. Whatever coupler you use, I think this is possible. If the curve is too tight then one or more vehicles will be forced to derail. We get around this by allowing looseness in the couplings. With the DGs, the looseness can be adjusted by setting the coupling further away from the buffer beam - or maybe by making the loops bigger. The down side of this adjustment is that stock will be further apart when running normally in a train. You need to balance the ability to go round curves with the appearance of the train. This will vary with individual taste and the layout the train is running on. "Tight" couplings give the train a better appearance, but only looser couplings will allow trains to go around tight curves - especially reverse curves. I remember operating a layout where stock from various people was mixed together. Everyone made and set their DG couplings very slightly differently. Also, the wheelbase and end overhang varied from vehicle to vehicle. Even on minimum curves of 2ft radius, there were some combinations of stock where the buffers jammed and derailed the train. Edited February 21, 2013 by Armchair Modeller Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Yeah I get the meachanics of it. Its no different in the larger scales tbh. I think as I say I can get around it with coaching stock by setting the buffers back but the freight stock is the obvious concern. I think I need to run a simulation and see what I get. I may simply accept slightly bigger gaps between stock than I would normally like as a cost for making the layout I want and can run without issue. Cav Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I don't believe any of the modern heavy rail profiles in the UK are beyond code 40 or thereabouts. Some of the older pre BR branches and sidings could I think be quite reasonably laid with code 30 rail. Alan Can't speak for the UK, but I measured some modern main line rail profile in Germany and a scale equivalent would be close to Code 50. The problem with using model Code 55 from C&L is that the base is way too wide for representing the prototype, as it is designed to represent light rail in 4mm scale. So it will look too heavy, even if the height is not that far out. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon br blue Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Hi, this is not strictly a 2mm finescale question but is there a way of removing the fuel tanks from a Farish class 24 chassis? And whats behind the plastic - is there a metal chassis or weight? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orinoco Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 See here http://www.Bachmann.co.uk/pdfs/GF_Cl_24.pdf The underframe moulding is plastic, but there is part of the split-frame metal core holding the motor and transmission inside it. 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