N Gauge RTR Track Accuracy

[Flying Pig]

I wonder what is to be gained though by using Kato in preference to, say, easitrac - which is not that difficult to put together and generally newer N stuff will run well on it. And it doesn't have that banked up look.

Easitrac is relatively fragile; you have to assemble it yourself and you have to be a member of the 2mm Association to buy it in the first place. There isn't rtr pointwork in the easitrac range so you end up either building it yourself or matching the plain line to Peco say, which is a slight fiddle as the gauges aren't quite identical. All of which is quite enough to put off people who are looking for a robust and consistent ready to use range they can buy in their local shop without joining an esoteric finescale society.

 

The banked up look is actually prototypical (albeit the ballast is probably too deep unless you're modelling modern pw), although some infilling is required for multiple track or the continuous top usual in stations and sidings.

 

However the points still look unconvincingly clumsy to my eye, are the motors on top of the board or are they inside the point base?

Motors are built into the base as standard (see this post) as is power switching for the frog. Point blades and frog are electrically continuous though rather than having the blades bonded to the adjacent stockrail and the frog separate.

 

I think to call them unconvincingly clumsy is excessively harsh: IMO the #4 compares very favourably with Peco code 55 despite the deeper rail section. The one piece pressed blades on the #6 are a lot less satisfactory. The manual operating switch is the most obtrusive feature to my eye and if I were to use them I'd probably try to remove it and cover the slot.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

I have great admiration for those with the time and skill to build their own track but with my limited time, this route is not for me. Perhaps I would be willing to take the plunge if easitrac points could be supplied with pre-made frogs and blades as this seems the hardest area to get right DIY.

I'd built in EM before but the thought of the 2mm scale points was a bit offputting, but once started I found that with the aids from the association the 2mm is much easier, there are many jigs and filing aids which really take the 'chance' element of getting it right away, the only down side of that is that there are more of these tools to buy if you then find you still can't get on with it.

[Dave777]

Problem for me is that I need to get over the 'construction' phase quickly otherwise I lose interest. I just know I'd get bogged down at the point building stage and start doodling the next layout.

 

I think next time I might try and find someone who would build them for me. My next significant N gauge build only needs 6 of them for example...

[TomE]

Having used the 2mm Scale Association Easitrac extensively on my current project, I couldn't ever see myself going back to using Peco track. The difference in appearance is such a complete world away and with the latest Farish models running quite happily on it, it can be used without the need to switch to 2mm if the thought of etched brass & solder scares the bejesus out of you!

 

I can understand that people may be hesitant when it comes to pointwork. Yes, it adds a lot of time to the construction phase, but once you get the first few out of the way it becomes easier. Up until last year I would never have thought I’d be able to hand build one N gauge working point, let alone 7 plus a Barry slip. It would also have been impossible for me to recreate a prototype location I had stuck to Peco. If I can do it, with my somewhat Heath Robinson approach, then anyone can!!

 

Of course you can use the plain Easitrac with Peco points, the difference in gauge being so minuscule that the widening of the point is unnoticeable. The difference in appearance, not so much however!

 

In my case, Peco's loss is the 2mm Scale Associations gain. Had a better off the shelf N gauge track system been available then I would most likely have gone with that and stuck with N gauge. As it is, my next layout will almost certainly be full 2mm Finescale, and I can't wait!

 

Bullhead Easitrac on Ropley:

 

Hand built points to N gauge clearances using Easitrac components on Ropley:

 

And it even works for Modern Image too:

 

Tom

[queensquare]

That looks superb Tom. We can go round in circles for ever discussing the merits or otherwise of building your own track but there can be absolutely no doubt that scale track, whether built to N or 2FS standards, knocks anything else into a cocked hat when it comes down to looks. The evidence is simply irrefutable.

As Tom says it really isn't that difficult once you have plucked up the courage to have a go. Personally I prefer the more traditional soldered method of making points as I find it easier and stronger but it is very much down to personal preference and there is no doubt that the results using easitrac look stunning.

Many thanks for posting these pictures - as somebody once said 'a picture paints a thosand words'

 

Jerry

[Armchair Modeller]

Great looking track, Tom.

 

Seeing that makes me wonder if it is worth the hassle of going all the way and moving to 2FS standards - especially for modern image, where the width of the wheels is usually hidden behind bogie frames. I guess with steam locos it is slightly different, as the driving wheels are so much more obvious.

[brossard]

I love to see well made track. That's great work.

 

John

[CF MRC]

I would certainly recommend 2mm FS track standards (for obvious reasons), but if you really don't want to convert from N gauge, then consider tightening the gauge (8.8 mm) through hand made turnouts. It will improve the appearance no end, because of the smaller wing and check rail dimensions and also improve running. We did this on Chiltern Green 30+ years ago.

 

Tim

[Russ (mines a pint)]

the N gauge easytrack points are looking good, you are presumably having no 'chair bashing' problems? - with the steam locos.

 

I'm still on with the copperclad construction, partly cos I enjoy it and partly down to being a cheapskate!

I think I'll go for the 2mm spec.

[Revolution Mike]

I am going/gone the same way as Tom - 2mm FS for plain track with (eventually) Easitrac points built to 9mm. For modern image (which I run) it saves the cost/hassle of changing wheelsets (or having them turned down). If I was modelling steam era then I suspect my decision may well be different.

 

As Jerry says once you see Easitrac and compare it to Peco there is just no dispute as to which is better.

 

Cheers, Mike

[Karhedron]

As Jerry says once you see Easitrac and compare it to Peco there is just no dispute as to which is better.

I certainly do not dispute the better appearance of easitrac. However the question for me is whether the time and effort in building it (which in my case is a scarce resource) is worth the improvement. I am a dab-hand with a paint brush but making something like a point which has to be made well enough to work properly every time would be a lot of time and effort. For me I think that time and effort would show better if I concentrated it on the scenic parts of my layout.

 

In an ideal world I would have enough time to build better track and better scenery but as it is, I prefer to focus on my strengths and use RTR products to cover the areas where my own skills are not up to scratch. This is I (for one) would support a better standard of RTR track even if it was not all the way up to easitrac standards.

[TomE]

Thanks all

 

Russ, no problems with chairs catching wheels, but I suspect the old Poole 'pizza cutter' wheels would be a different story.

 

Tom.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

I can understand that people may be hesitant when it comes to pointwork. Yes, it adds a lot of time to the construction phase, but once you get the first few out of the way it becomes easier. Up until last year I would never have thought I’d be able to hand build one N gauge working point, let alone 7 plus a Barry slip. It would also have been impossible for me to recreate a prototype location I had stuck to Peco. If I can do it, with my somewhat Heath Robinson approach, then anyone can!!

 

I have the same debate about track everytime I start a new project, the 4mm points I built were the first ever and I thought them to be right at the limit of my capabilites, in 2mm the association have a much more wholistic approach and somehow I have (possibly by chance) seem to aqcuired the correct tools for the job, and it seems enjoyable.

 

The time issue is really a bit like learning to drive or ride a bike, it takes time to learn, but once you have it saves time!

 

I actually enjoy building track, but hate building stock, some are the opposite, each to their own!

[HSB]

Going back to the original question - PECO track dimensions are closest to Continental European standards in 1:160.

I dropped out of N gauge about 20 years ago partly because I became disillusioned with the very crude track and wheel standards.

I have been tempted back by some of the superb recent releases and the the much finer wheel standards but am still put off by the track. It would be nice if the NGS or C&L could produce an British N gauge equivalent of Easi-track. I know N gauge can run on 2FS plain track but there must be a lot of slop between flange and rail!

HSB

[Dave777]

Easi-track basically IS a 'British N gauge equivalent' - you build it and then run N gauge stock on it unaltered (ie, no need to change the wheels). At least, that was MY understanding from the website & exhibition stands...?

 

 

I wonder if anyone has considered taking the whole kit & kaboodle down to Peco to combine the Easitrac toolings with Peco's mass production know-how?

[TomE]

Hi Dave.

 

I don't think that's quite how Easitrac is intended. It was produced purely as a 2mm Finscale system, and at the time I suspect no thought was given to N gauge at all. It's simply a result of Bachmann's improvements to the Farish range, and in particular the finer wheel profiles introduced in the last few years, that N gauge stock is able to run on plain Easitrac without a problem. Points are a different prospect as you can't use the jigs sold by the 2mm FS society to produce turnouts through which off the shelf N gauge stock will run. You need alternative jigs sold outside of the society, or your own method of opening up the clearances to N gauge, so it's not quite a straight alternative to N gauge.

 

Peco's problem is that they would have to retool their entire range of pointwork to match any improvement in plain track. That's a huge investment they don't seem to have the will, nor perhaps the funding, to undertake.

 

Tom.

[Dave777]

Sure, well aware that Peco would need to do the whole range, and...

 

Points are a different prospect as you can't use the jigs sold by the 2mm FS society to produce turnouts through which off the shelf N gauge stock will run. You need alternative jigs sold outside of the society, or your own method of opening up the Clarence's to N gauge, so it's not quite a straight alternative to N gauge.

 

...that I didn't know, and I don't think it was explained to me when I chatted to the 2mm folk either (twice!). Hmmm, not sure what to do now, was seriously contemplating getting someone to build some points for me but re-wheeling cost for the amount of stock I've got may be an excessive cost.

 

Good info, thanks.

[HSB]

Easi-track is to 9.42mm gauge for 2mm (1:152) scale use with 2FS wheelsets and not actually designed for 9mm gauge stock.

Isn't it ridiculous having two scales so close together ( 1:148 and 1:152). Perhaps it's time both sides split the difference and agreed on a common scale of 1:150!

HSB

[Russ (mines a pint)]

...that I didn't know, and I don't think it was explained to me when I chatted to the 2mm folk either (twice!). Hmmm, not sure what to do now, was seriously contemplating getting someone to build some points for me but re-wheeling cost for the amount of stock I've got may be an excessive cost.

 

Good info, thanks.

you could run un re-wheeled on the easitrac plain track, but you would need your points built to N gauge clearances, which is exactly what Tom E's excellent pics show.

[Dave777]

Ohhhhh, now I understand! Sorry I'm being really dense here. Right, okay, so that is still an option then.

[Douglas G]

Just to be controversial—now that there is so much high quality RTR British N stock, wouldn't it make sense if finescale modellers moved to 1:148 scale and built finescale track to match this scale?

 

I know that 2mm scale was around long before British N scale, so it is a matter of history. Nevertheless, it seems to me preferable in the present day to have the same situation as EM and P4, where finescale modellers can adapt commercial offerings by rewheeling or new chasses, and still have them correct to scale. It would also help people to make the transition from commercial track to finescale track without the issue of changing or mixing scales. If you are having to make the track any way, it is surely as easy to do it at 1:148 if the appropriate aids are available.

 

It jars a bit with me when 2mm scale modellers adapt locos and stock at 1:148 scale to run on track at 2mm to the foot scale, especially if buildings and layout are also built to 2mm scale. With one common scale, N gauge and 2mm modellers could use RTR stock and kits produced for each other without a compromise on scale.

 

I know it probably isn't going to happen, but it would make a lot of sense.

 

Please note that this is not meant in any way as a criticism of 2mm finescale modelling, just a reflection on how things have now changed in recent years and what would be the most logical and mutually advantageous situation.

 

Douglas

[Chrislock]

There is another issue to consider with finescale wheels, which have slightly different tolerances to even the latest RTR wheels- at least that's my understanding, having purchased a recent B1 and compared. That meanstrack clearances would be an issue.

Anyway, 9mm is only accurate for the permanent way at European scale of 1/160!

 

If you are starting out in 2mm modern image, it makes sense to use 2mmFS - if you've got the confidence and determination to get it right. There is decent support and an excellent shop available for parts.

.Drop in wheels for a number of diesels are now available from the association, and by all accounts straightforward enough to change. The wheel profiling service is also available

.

Steam ain't quite as easy, and will require a good deal of further work to get something running on FS. I am no engineer but took this approach and its slowly coming together... by the way, the plain easitrac itself is a easy enough to thread up.

 

If you've already invested in N gauge but have more modern rolling stock, Tom's way is proably the best. Trackwork can actually be very satisfying to model, though you will probably need a few attempts to get the hang enough to be consistent and confident enough to build pointwork like Tom's.

I also tried easitrac points, but had a number of running issues- you have to get it dead right from the off and they aren't cheap. As a result, I changed over to rail soldered directly to PCB sleepers, which while lacking the chairs does not look as good, is easier to construct and tweak, and more robust.

[HSB]

Just to be controversial—now that there is so much high quality RTR British N stock, wouldn't it make sense if finescale modellers moved to 1:148 scale and built finescale track to match this scale?

 

I know that 2mm scale was around long before British N scale, so it is a matter of history. Nevertheless, it seems to me preferable in the present day to have the same situation as EM and P4, where finescale modellers can adapt commercial offerings by rewheeling or new chasses, and still have them correct to scale. It would also help people to make the transition from commercial track to finescale track without the issue of changing or mixing scales. If you are having to make the track any way, it is surely as easy to do it at 1:148 if the appropriate aids are available.

 

It jars a bit with me when 2mm scale modellers adapt locos and stock at 1:148 scale to run on track at 2mm to the foot scale, especially if buildings and layout are also built to 2mm scale. With one common scale, N gauge and 2mm modellers could use RTR stock and kits produced for each other without a compromise on scale.

 

I know it probably isn't going to happen, but it would make a lot of sense.

 

Please note that this is not meant in any way as a criticism of 2mm finescale modelling, just a reflection on how things have now changed in recent years and what would be the most logical and mutually advantageous situation.

 

Douglas

 

I agree but that would require a new finescale gauge of 9.7mm (as near as dammit). Proto148 anyone?

HSB

[Russ (mines a pint)]

 

I agree but that would require a new finescale gauge of 9.7mm (as near as dammit). Proto148 anyone?

HSB

And I think the scale is so physically small you (or anyone) would be hard pressed to notice the difference - its nowhere as big as the HO to OO difference or for that matter the gauge difference between OO/EM/P4? I think the *main* reason the 2mm easitrac looks so good is down to its lower profile & correct sleeper standards more than the actual gauge?

 

- and given the OO debates which have been rattling on for years, can you honestly see anything ever changing?

[-missy-]

Just to be controversial—now that there is so much high quality RTR British N stock, wouldn't it make sense if finescale modellers moved to 1:148 scale and built finescale track to match this scale?

 

I know that 2mm scale was around long before British N scale, so it is a matter of history. Nevertheless, it seems to me preferable in the present day to have the same situation as EM and P4, where finescale modellers can adapt commercial offerings by rewheeling or new chasses, and still have them correct to scale. It would also help people to make the transition from commercial track to finescale track without the issue of changing or mixing scales. If you are having to make the track any way, it is surely as easy to do it at 1:148 if the appropriate aids are available.

 

It jars a bit with me when 2mm scale modellers adapt locos and stock at 1:148 scale to run on track at 2mm to the foot scale, especially if buildings and layout are also built to 2mm scale. With one common scale, N gauge and 2mm modellers could use RTR stock and kits produced for each other without a compromise on scale.

 

I know it probably isn't going to happen, but it would make a lot of sense.

 

Please note that this is not meant in any way as a criticism of 2mm finescale modelling, just a reflection on how things have now changed in recent years and what would be the most logical and mutually advantageous situation.

 

Douglas

 

 

Of course that is assuming that N Gauge Models are actually N Gauge! As far as I am aware there isnt a single N Gauge model that is 100% accurate to 1:148, I know for a fact that the farish pannier tank is closer to 2mm Scale than N Gauge. I know you said that 'just to be controversial' but please take into consideration people like myself who model to 2mm and use N Gauge stuff before making such comments.

 

As for the track my personal opinion is I cannot see N Gauge track improving in the near future. The standards are just not there for all the manufacturers to adhere to plus there is the historical side of things to consider, there is still lots of old N Gauge stuff out there which people use and I am sure they wont be happy if they couldnt run it anymore.

 

Missy