Making a Start in 2FS - Some Thoughts

[PatB]

I've been faffing around at the edge of 2FS for several months now. Joined the Association, attended the excellent gathering of the Australian contingent last August, have started collecting BR Blue period stock for rewheeling and keep trying to organise an order with the Association shop so that I can actually get something under way, but I still haven't actually sent off my completed order forms. I could procrastinate for my country, I really could .

 

Part of my hesitation has been, I think, lack of a plan which is clear and, most importantly, achievable given my current circumstances. If I may be forgiven for a somewhat rambling post, I feel that setting my thoughts down here may help in crystallising a few things that are starting to come together in my head.

 

My interest in the scale stems from two factors. Firstly, although I've recently been fiddling about with 0 gauge kit construction and enjoy the larger scale, I also have a hankering for, one day, a substantial, main-line roundy-roundy and I simply can't envisage ever having the space to do this in 7mm (or the money to stock it, come to that, even without resorting to r-t-r). Whilst N might be a more sensible choice, I find myself dissatisfied with the appearance of proprietary N track and consider it worth the effort to go to the better looking finescale track standards. Secondly, my current circumstances, as alluded to earlier, are not conducive to modelmaking on any extensive scale. I'm working away from home, living in digs where even uninterrupted access to a flat surface is not a given, and am having to get used to being without the workshop facilities I've, rather shamefully, come to take for granted at home. It's an awful lot easier to pack 2mm/N equipment, and the tools needed to build it, into a box at the end of a modelling session than it is with 7mm. Things may be improving a bit in the forseeable future but things still won't be ideal.

 

So now I need to think about a first, 2mm specific, move. I've got a Farish 25, 46 and Cl108 DMU, a handful of Dapol parcels vans and some Farish Mk1s (a couple of the current generation and a few more from some historical era when it seems to have been acceptable to have a moulding pip in the centre of a window ). They all need rewheeling eventually but I need to establish priorities.

 

I also need somewhere to test the rewheeled stock. Ultimately, as a first "proper" layout, I rather fancy a Minories variant, probably on a 3-fold board with turntable fiddleyard. However, although the necessary baseboard construction would be no problem were I at home, it ain't going to happen here for a while. Something more achievable is needed and, yesterday, a rummage in the depths of my locker at work provided me with what I think may be an answer, in the shape of a sturdy cardboard box, 1000 mm x 60 mm x 60 mm (approx), which once held a promotional umbrella. The umbrella was rubbish but the box is quite decent and I've been hanging onto it because it's too good to consign to the bin but too odd a shape to be much use. Until now.

 

I've had a play with Templot and I reckon that I can, using a simple foamcore baseboard inside the box, get in two parallel straight tracks with facing and a trailing B6 crossovers. If the crossovers are tight toe-to-toe, the "headshunt" at each end should just hold the 46 and a single Mk1 or a couple of vans. Track and points would be plain soldered PCB construction (no chairplates  this time, and no Easitrac) with point control and polarity switching by slide SPDT switches glued to the baseboard surface adjacent to each point. There'll be no room for real scenic development but I can play with ballasting techniques and add a couple of Association buffer stop kits to the longer sidings.

 

Not much of a layout I'll admit, but it will allow me to test a number of things, including whether I can build reliable track in this scale, whether, on said track, a bogie diesel with long fixed wheelbases will run reliably through B6 crossovers, and whether bogie and long wheelbase stock can be reliably propelled through B6 crossovers.

 

So, as a minimum to get started, I think I need from the Association:-

 

• Set of Association wheels for the 46
• Enough rail  for 2m of straight track and the crossovers - say 10m to allow for mistakes.
• ~400 pcb sleepers plus  enough point timbers for 2 crossovers
• Plain track jig
• Turnout jig for B6 turnout (let's assume that I don't  fancy building turnouts freehand yet)
• Couple of roller gauges
• Ideally, enough coach wheels  to equip at least a couple of items of rolling stock (need to determine sizes and axle lengths)
• Ideally, enough DG couplings to do likewise

 

Have I missed anything obvious? General tools, materials and equipment I can either collect from home or source locally. It's the scale specific stuff that I'm mainly concerned with.

 

Anyhow, I'm going to have to bite the bullet soon, so that I can get an order in before the Oz dollar falls any further .

 

As noted at the beginning, this post is as much to organise my own thoughts as anything else, although if anyone does have any advice to offer, it certainly won't go unappreciated.

[Ian Smeeton]

Turnout jig may not be necessary, as you could print an accurate B6 from Templot.

 

Filing jig for the crossing might be a good idea.

 

Wheels for the 25 would be good too, as by all accounts, it is easy to do, and probably quicker than the 46.

 

Regards

 

Ian

[Curlew]

A back-to-back gauge would be very useful - particularly for the rolling stock. That way you can confirm that the stock is to gauge when testing your hand-made pointwork. In my experience, two or three more track gauges would be helpful too.

 

Good luck with this first project in 2mm scale. It is not really that difficult - just needs a bit of practice.

[mikes rail]

The most helpful thing I have found so far is the people on here and their help when you are trying to get things right, I must also put in a word for the society shops and the team that run them, they can't do enough to help you

[Caley Jim]

Sounds like an excellent plan for a test(ing) track, both for exploring the feasibility of 2FS and for testing stock.   I would add a couple of 'button' track gauges to your list (item 1-253 Crossing nose gauges).   Essential for gauging the crossing nose to the stock rails and also for gauging between the toe of a switch and the opposite stock rail.

 

As regards small layoouts, Anthony yeates (now editor of the magazine) built a layout in a box file!

 

Jim

[D869]

I'd recommend doing the 25 first. The peaks have very long bogies and are more prone to derailments or binding on tight curves.

 

It sounds like a micro layout of some sort will be a good idea but bear in mind that making the baseboard takes a tiny proportion of the overall time so do at least consider what space you have, storage, carrying and so on and what size of custom board(s) would best suit you. FWIW mine is sized to be carried in a briefcase but that's just my personal choice.

 

Regards, Andy

[nick_bastable]

I've been faffing around at the edge of 2FS for several months now. Joined the Association, attended the excellent gathering of the Australian contingent last August, have started collecting BR Blue period stock for rewheeling and keep trying to organise an order with the Association shop so that I can actually get something under way, but I still haven't actually sent off my completed order forms. I could procrastinate for my country, I really could .

 

Part of my hesitation has been, I think, lack of a plan which is clear and, most importantly, achievable given my current circumstances. If I may be forgiven for a somewhat rambling post, I feel that setting my thoughts down here may help in crystallising a few things that are starting to come together in my head.

 

My interest in the scale stems from two factors. Firstly, although I've recently been fiddling about with 0 gauge kit construction and enjoy the larger scale, I also have a hankering for, one day, a substantial, main-line roundy-roundy and I simply can't envisage ever having the space to do this in 7mm (or the money to stock it, come to that, even without resorting to r-t-r). Whilst N might be a more sensible choice, I find myself dissatisfied with the appearance of proprietary N track and consider it worth the effort to go to the better looking finescale track standards. Secondly, my current circumstances, as alluded to earlier, are not conducive to modelmaking on any extensive scale. I'm working away from home, living in digs where even uninterrupted access to a flat surface is not a given, and am having to get used to being without the workshop facilities I've, rather shamefully, come to take for granted at home. It's an awful lot easier to pack 2mm/N equipment, and the tools needed to build it, into a box at the end of a modelling session than it is with 7mm. Things may be improving a bit in the forseeable future but things still won't be ideal.

 

So now I need to think about a first, 2mm specific, move. I've got a Farish 25, 46 and Cl108 DMU, a handful of Dapol parcels vans and some Farish Mk1s (a couple of the current generation and a few more from some historical era when it seems to have been acceptable to have a moulding pip in the centre of a window ). They all need rewheeling eventually but I need to establish priorities.

 

I also need somewhere to test the rewheeled stock. Ultimately, as a first "proper" layout, I rather fancy a Minories variant, probably on a 3-fold board with turntable fiddleyard. However, although the necessary baseboard construction would be no problem were I at home, it ain't going to happen here for a while. Something more achievable is needed and, yesterday, a rummage in the depths of my locker at work provided me with what I think may be an answer, in the shape of a sturdy cardboard box, 1000 mm x 60 mm x 60 mm (approx), which once held a promotional umbrella. The umbrella was rubbish but the box is quite decent and I've been hanging onto it because it's too good to consign to the bin but too odd a shape to be much use. Until now.

 

I've had a play with Templot and I reckon that I can, using a simple foamcore baseboard inside the box, get in two parallel straight tracks with facing and a trailing B6 crossovers. If the crossovers are tight toe-to-toe, the "headshunt" at each end should just hold the 46 and a single Mk1 or a couple of vans. Track and points would be plain soldered PCB construction (no chairplates  this time, and no Easitrac) with point control and polarity switching by slide SPDT switches glued to the baseboard surface adjacent to each point. There'll be no room for real scenic development but I can play with ballasting techniques and add a couple of Association buffer stop kits to the longer sidings.

 

Not much of a layout I'll admit, but it will allow me to test a number of things, including whether I can build reliable track in this scale, whether, on said track, a bogie diesel with long fixed wheelbases will run reliably through B6 crossovers, and whether bogie and long wheelbase stock can be reliably propelled through B6 crossovers.

 

So, as a minimum to get started, I think I need from the Association:-

 

• Set of Association wheels for the 46
• Enough rail  for 2m of straight track and the crossovers - say 10m to allow for mistakes.
• ~400 pcb sleepers plus  enough point timbers for 2 crossovers
• Plain track jig
• Turnout jig for B6 turnout (let's assume that I don't  fancy building turnouts freehand yet)
• Couple of roller gauges
• Ideally, enough coach wheels  to equip at least a couple of items of rolling stock (need to determine sizes and axle lengths)
• Ideally, enough DG couplings to do likewise

 

Have I missed anything obvious? General tools, materials and equipment I can either collect from home or source locally. It's the scale specific stuff that I'm mainly concerned with.

 

Anyhow, I'm going to have to bite the bullet soon, so that I can get an order in before the Oz dollar falls any further .

 

As noted at the beginning, this post is as much to organise my own thoughts as anything else, although if anyone does have any advice to offer, it certainly won't go unappreciated.

I would suggest convert the 25 using drop in wheels and use easitrac for the main line it will help getting  something running quicker and easier

 

welcome to the darkside   

[PatB]

Thanks to everyone for your input. I'll be taking it all into account.

 

The logic behind converting the 46 first is that, with its long bogies, it represents probably the worst case, in terms of sensitivity to track deficiencies, that I'm likely to encounter in my chosen BR Blue period. However, as long as I don't frighten myself with the cost of my Association Shop orders, I think I'll also spring for a set of wheels for the 25 as well. It'll act as a sort of "control" case, indicating whether a turnout that causes problems for the 46 is irredeemably bad or just in need of minor adjustment. Both appear to be easy to rewheel. I haven't had the 25 to bits yet, but the 46 dismantles in moments without the use of tools. If the 24 is similar, the conversion will take less time than writing the order for the parts. Fitting DG couplings to them both may be a little more involved but appears to be eminently doable.

 

On reflection, I may try some Easitrac on the plain track sections. I'm still set on soldered PCB pointwork though. I've read up on Easitrac turnout construction and, although the system is clever, I feel more comfortable in my ability with a soldering iron than I do with adhesives. I seem to make a mess with solvents much more readily than I do with heat .

 

The advice to get a back-to-back gauge is interesting. I was contemplating it but assumed that, if I use Association wheelsets exclusively, that it wouldn't  be necessary. However, as a check for troubleshooting purposes I can see its utility so back on the list it goes, along with the addition of a pair of 3-point track gauges. My proposed test track won't need the automatic gauge widening that they provide but a future layout, especially my favoured continuous run, might. The crossing nose gauges were also on my original mental list but I forgot to include them above.

 

My choice of B6 crossovers is for much the same reason as my thinking with the 46. As any more ambitious layout I progress to will, hopefully, use B6 turnouts as a minimum, with B8s or more as a goal, I see the reverse curve inherent in these as a worst case requirement for reliable running. If I can make them work, anything larger or with less severe reverse curves should be no problem. Besides, anything bigger won't  allow me to fit my proposed arrangement into the available length .

 

I'm also looking at the Association turnout jig with a view to the future. For a test track or a Minories the production of the necessary pointwork over Templot printouts is feasible. However, should I ever progress to something more elaborate, the ability to rapidly batch produce standard geometries is likely to be a key factor in getting something working before my short attention span comes into play .

 

Baseboard construction, in itself, doesn't scare me. However, I'm not currently in a position to do any kind of serious woodwork in my digs annd my brief trips home do not afford the opportunity for selfish pursuits to eat into the brief time I get to spend with my family. Besides, anything I did build at home would then have to be transported, by air, the 2500 miles to my temporary accommodation. Not impossible for the determined, but not that simple either. On the other hand, cutting up foamboard with a Stanley knife and glueing it together certainly is possible under current circumstances. Besides, I'm intrigued by this method of baseboard construction and would like to give it a try on a small scale. As a bonus, a layout which can be stored in an umbrella stand has a certain gimmick appeal .

 

I think I'll go and put together an Association Shop order which might actually happen this time . I think I'll also dig the 46 out of the cupboard where it's been languishing since I had a go at weathering it. Maybe it doesn't  look as bad as I told myself that it did.

[Nigelcliffe]

Back to back gauge is essential.   Whilst a fair bit of effort goes into making accurate wheels, there are a lot of places between manufacturer, shop and end-user which could lead to changes in the back-to-back measurement.

 

Solder construction turnouts with Easitrac plain line is a good combination in my opinion. 

 

- Nigel

[Izzy]

I'll add a couple of comments if I may, based on my experience of travelling the same basic route some few years back. Firstly for baseboard construction you might like to consider using a layered construction of foamcore sandwiched between mount board for better strength without adding too much weight, and giving you a better more solid surface layer on which to mount things.

 

As far as DG's go then you may find, as I did, that the standard height setting of under the wagon headstocks is too high for bogie stock of any kind, diesels/coaches/wagons, and using the top of a coach bogie as the basic height to use for all your stock might be a better option. This does mean the height is roughly 1mm lower, and you can't couple to other peoples stock, if this matters.

 

Izzy

[Rammstein2609]

Another 2mm Association item which I think everyone needs is their book 'Track'. It's an excellent read with loads of techniques, materials and ways of doing things. It also describes how to build a few tools for filing the switch rails and making joggles where the switch rails meet the stock rail to ensure perfect running. I've read through it several times so far but everytime I read it again I find something new.

 

Cheers

 

Martin

[Branwell]

I've just converted one of the new 25s, and it's very straightforward - pop the bogies out of the chassis, separate the two parts of the bogie, replace the existing wheelsets with the finescale ones, put the bogie back together again and adjust the pickups as necessary and then pop the bogies back into the chassis.

 

As somebody's already said, back-to-back gauges are essential - I'm building a replacement chassis for the Farish J94 at the minute and thought I'd got the back-to-backs about right. Then I put the gauge to the wheels and found out all three sets were out by a couple of mil. Squeezed them up to the correct gauge but then a free running chassis became a very stiff one. Off with the wheels and open up the muffs. Wheels back on and now free running again, but buggered up the quartering!

 

Tis true the only way to learn is to try ... and the only way to really learn is to get it wrong!!

 

Good luck!

[PatB]

Well, I just put my order forms in the post. Once the echange rate and P&P are sorted it's going to be the thick end of $400  . On the bright side that should get me more than enough track tools and materials to build my initial project and a fair whack towards the next one, enough wheelsets to convert the 46, the 25 and my 108 DMU (which also gives me an unpowered bogie vehicle for track testing), B-to-B gauge to suit, some DG couplings to play with, "Track" and the magazine archive on USB.

 

Should keep me out of trouble for a while .

 

Thanks again everybody for your input. It's all appreciated.

 

Just to pick up on Izzy's points, I was contemplating laminating the foamboard with itself, but using mounting card for the second layer sounds eminently sensible. Indeed I suspect that a card/foamboard/card sandwich would be surprisingly stiff and strong. MrsB, being an artist, has mountains of offcuts, if only I can get usefully sized ones into my luggage without damaging them.

 

As to coupling heights, looking at my stock, I suspect that the locos may be the determinant of what I have to use. I'm much more reluctant to hack their nicely moulded bogie frames/buffer beams around than I am the rather dubious bogies on my older Farish coaches (which I may yet decide to replace with Association etched items anyway, in spite of the scale discrepancy) or the headstocks of relatively inexpensive 4-wheeled stock. Interoperability isn't really an issue as, based on my impression at the Australian gathering of what everyone is modelling, BR Blue era 2mm FS is something of a minority interest here. I'm not just in the minority; as far as I can tell, I am the minority .

[Izzy]

Well, I just put my order forms in the post. Once the echange rate and P&P are sorted it's going to be the thick end of $400  . On the bright side that should get me more than enough track tools and materials to build my initial project and a fair whack towards the next one, enough wheelsets to convert the 46, the 25 and my 108 DMU (which also gives me an unpowered bogie vehicle for track testing), B-to-B gauge to suit, some DG couplings to play with, "Track" and the magazine archive on USB.

 

Should keep me out of trouble for a while .

 

Thanks again everybody for your input. It's all appreciated.

 

Just to pick up on Izzy's points, I was contemplating laminating the foamboard with itself, but using mounting card for the second layer sounds eminently sensible. Indeed I suspect that a card/foamboard/card sandwich would be surprisingly stiff and strong. MrsB, being an artist, has mountains of offcuts, if only I can get usefully sized ones into my luggage without damaging them.

 

As to coupling heights, looking at my stock, I suspect that the locos may be the determinant of what I have to use. I'm much more reluctant to hack their nicely moulded bogie frames/buffer beams around than I am the rather dubious bogies on my older Farish coaches (which I may yet decide to replace with Association etched items anyway, in spite of the scale discrepancy) or the headstocks of relatively inexpensive 4-wheeled stock. Interoperability isn't really an issue as, based on my impression at the Australian gathering of what everyone is modelling, BR Blue era 2mm FS is something of a minority interest here. I'm not just in the minority; as far as I can tell, I am the minority .

 

I suggested the board/foamcore sandwich as I am currently experimenting with multiple layers for baseboard use (two foamcore with board between/outside), having built three 2mm layouts using just layered board, two of which still exist with the second still to be completed senic wise. You can cut either just using a standard scapel and steel ruler and glue together using PVA. Although not quite as strong in longer lengths/larger areas, it is possible to layer larger areas using small sizes by offsetting the joints - does that make sense?

 

With the DG's I don't find the need to hack any bogies at all, you can either bend the DG's to fit/glue into the coupling pocket or onto the flat of the bogie top and adjust to suit. My idea on coupling height fitment was to be able to fit them in place of the standard N coupling on the bogies and get the stock around the silly tight curves I have to use.

 

When I get the chance ( I have my son & daughter-in-law here from Sydney/Aus so quite occupied) I will post a few pics to illustrate the board sandwich and couplings just in case it might help give anybody some ideas.

 

Izzy

[Anglian]

In your initial post you mention that it's only the appearance of N gauge track that puts you off using R-T-R N gauge. Have you considered the recently developed fine scale N gauge track?

 

http://www.britishfinescale.com

 

This would save you needing to re-wheel your stock and building the point work might be less of a burden and something that can be done on your travels. Of course I appreciate that you might want track that is the correct 9.42mm gauge.

[PatB]

In your initial post you mention that it's only the appearance of N gauge track that puts you off using R-T-R N gauge. Have you considered the recently developed fine scale N gauge track?

 

http://www.britishfinescale.com

 

This would save you needing to re-wheel your stock and building the point work might be less of a burden and something that can be done on your travels. Of course I appreciate that you might want track that is the correct 9.42mm gauge.

 

I did consider finer scale N but figured that, if I'm going to be building track, I might as well go to a closer to scale gauge. Not that I can pick 0.42 mm by eye, and not that it's correct for the N gauge stock I intend to use, but there you go. The older Farish coaches would need rewheeling with something less reminiscent of Lima c1970 anyway.

 

Besides, I'm something of a contrarian so doing something that nobody* else is has some appeal.

 

*As a percentage of the number of people  working in the mainstream, commercially available scales/gauges, the number working to any of the "finescale" standards is going to be zero to within several decimal places .

[Donw]

Although the Fine N track uses small rail section (same as ours) the flangways are larger which doesn't look so good to some of us. True it would save re-gauging your stock. But so things seem to need some attention anyway.

B6s are fairly tight but should be okay I would suggest B7s would be better for main line use. But make sense in a test bed.

 

This is my portable work bench on a TV table

 

 

and it packs away into here

 

 

I also use this for 0 gauge but obviously you cannot carry much 0 gauge stock.

 

An extra strong pair of reading glasses provides some magnification useful in 2mm

 

Don

[PatB]

Well the stuff from the 2mm Association arrived (some time ago, actually) and circumstances have dictated that, from the end of May, I'll be back at home base with time on my hands. Better yet, one of MrsB's latest art projects has resulted in a surfeit of offcuts of good quality 4mm ply. More than enough to produce a 3-fold baseboard for a Minories. On the down side, though, I'll be skint. No matter. Most of the heavy expenditure is now done with only some extra rail and sleepers likely to be required. All up, things may start happening in the not too distant future.

 

Mind you, I've got these to finish too .

[AndyID]

Unless you have a lot of money, it depends on what interests you the most.

 

If you like to see a lot of detail, a larger scale like O might be best. If you want a more panoramic view, N might be a better choice. Trying to do both at the same time will consume a lot of energy. It's simply a question of how much time you are willing to put into it.

[PatB]

At the moment there's not much question of where my energies will go. The Johnson twins need to be completed to at least a primered and running state so as not to leave me with another unfinished project. Then they can go into storage with my other 7mm odds and ends for that "one day" project. After that it'll be on with the 2mm activity as the more economical option.