Douglas G

Hi Grahame, I am really looking forward to seeing how the Journal develops with you at the helm. I seem to remember reading somewhere that you had been planning to do a review on using FiNetrax in the next issue of Nspirations. Is there any possibility that this might appear in the NGS Journal instead? D

Thanks for that information, Ben. I was trying to do it with one application of glue and one layer of fine turf sprinkled on top, and maybe trying to do it in one go was the problem. The scenic cement is very thin stuff, so I suppose with one layer underneath it would only be in contact with a small amount of the turf particles. Nevertheless, I am not impressed that it was so easy to rub the particles off the surface. It didn't help that there are virtually no instructions on the bottle, e.g. the drying time, how thick to apply it, etc. As this area of grass is to be a lawn, I don't see the need for any other layers to be applied on top. I may give the PVA a go as even if it dries shiny, it will be covered by the turf. I also think it would be a good idea to paint the surface a dark green rather than the brown I have used so it doesn't show through if the turf does rub off. From what you say I could also spray the Scenic Cement on top to help seal it all in place. For other areas, where I intend to use static grass, I will paint the base with acrylic just in case it is the enamel paint being too smooth and non-porous that is part of the problem. These areas will have a plaster and scrim coating on top of styrene insulation. I seem to be taking two steps forward and one step back a lot at the moment. It is all a learning process... Cheers, Douglas

Another bit of frustration. Yesterday I tried to stick down some Woodland Scenics fine turf for the lawn at the back of the hotel onto a coating of Woodlands Scenics Scenic Cement, which I have not used before. I brushed on the cement and sprinkled on the turf scatter through a tea strainer. I thought the cement seemed very thin when I applied it. Now after 24 hours drying, when I tapped off the loose scatter, the covering was very patchy and I found it was really easy to rub off the scatter with my finger. I did not use PVA as I was worried it might dry shiny, but I have found in the past on a test piece that the WS fine turf does stick well to PVA. The only thing I can think of is that the surface was plasticard painted with matt humbrol enamel paint- may be the paint was too smooth for the glue to stick? The adhesion is so poor that I can brush the turf off and start again, and this is what I am going to do. I then have a choice of Evo-Bond PVA, Green Scene Grass Masters Flock Cement or Woodlands Scenics Scenic Glue to use the second time round.

After a lot of fiddly work and the feeling I wasn't making any progress, I have finished the extension to the back of the section of board that will have the Carnarvon Arms Hotel and part of Brushford Cattle Market in the far left corner. It is now ready to add the grass and soil in the garden - the first bit of surface for the landscape apart from the concrete areas. As the lawn is very short and is situated at the back of the model I think using sieved Woodlands Scenics Fine Turf will be fine for the grass - static grass is too long and won't recreate the smooth, even effect of a lawn, I think. Here are some pictures of the real thing I took several years ago when the Carnarvon Arms Hotel was still open - my brother was helping me survey the hotel and station, and we had some fantastic cake with a cup of tea afterwards. It is a great shame the Hotel shut because of the foot and mouth crisis. These pictures are looking in the opposite direction to the ones I have just posted of my model. The first shows the sort of lawn effect I am trying to achieve in my model. The second and third shows the section of garden with tall conifer trees that is on the right of the pics of my model of this area. There was a path curving down from the parking area at the side of the hotel down beneath the trees to the lawn behind, and this is also in my model, although it will mostly be hidden by trees. Finally, this is a photo of the station and hotel access road at the front of the hotel, with the main road to Dulverton on the left on an embankment. This access road is at the front of the pictures of my model above - the embankment is on a separate section of board. Douglas

I have just ordered a turnout kit and a length of plain track to have a look at from the British Finescale website and had to pay £6-50 for postage (courier would have been £9-50, I think). It would be nice if it was possible to buy this track from the major exhibitions to save on postage, and to see the product in the flesh before committing to buying. Has anyone ever seen a stand for FiNetrax at exhibitions? I know that leaflets were being distributed at last years International N Gauge Show. Douglas

Funnily enough, I have just been wondering the same thing, so am very interested in the answer from those in the know. I would imagine that over time the fast flick of a solenoid point motor such as the Seep or Peco ones could weaken the tiebar or even break it. There are also comments that Seep motor can be hard to set up in 2mm points. A slow action Tortoise point motor or similar, or perhaps servos or wire in tube, might be best? Douglas

I'm thinking of building my first layout supplement, so this article will be very useful

I agree with Jamie. That conversion of the signal has worked really well. It is a really clever way to shorten the Dapol signals that never occurred to me - I have been thinking on the lines of raising up the ground level around the post. Douglas

Thanks for that information. However, I think you misunderstood something I said. I won't need a diamond crossing. I used the term "crossing" as this is what the precision milled frog was described on the US site. It is two very long turnouts that I would need to produce. It does sound from the N Gauge Forum that a diamond crossing is imminent in Finetrax. Douglas

Hi Joseph, Thanks very much for that information. This is the link: http://www.proto87.com/n-scale-track.html Those ready made crossings/frogs look very good and I see they include a very shallow angle one suitable for a high speed point. The rail itself in the crossing doesn't look too different in appearance (at least from above) from the bullhead of Finetrax. Interestingly these US components are described as precision milled, while I think I read somewhere that the Finetrax ones are cast. It does look like the components do exist to make a range of finescale N points without having to resort to soldering rail to the sleepers. Looking at the design of the Finetrax turnouts I wonder if it could be recreated for a bespoke turnout by a solid piece of plastic card cut to the point outline for the base and half thickness plastic sleepers stuck on top with solvent, to create something similar to the Finetrax and Easitrac point bases. The Finetrax chairs could then be glued on or inserted into holes drilled in the correct positions. Lots of food for thought... Douglas

Unfortunately only one of the Easitrac turnout bases is illustrated in the 2mm Society shop. However, I was wondering if it might actually be possible to drill holes into the sleepers of an Easitrac base and then use the Finetrax chairs with the alignment pegs to produce 9mm gauge points. I was also wondering if the existing Finetrack cast frog could be used for a longer point, although I can see there might be issues with the angle of the frog. Douglas

Judging from the lengths of the B6 and B8 turnouts on the Finetrax website forum, it sounds as if they are almost the same lengths as the Peco Code 55 Medium and Long points. Can they be seen as more or less equivalent? I do realise that the angles will be different, with Peco designed to give the same turnout angle from different length points. I have decided to give more thought to Finetrax for my Dulverton model. Almost all the points can be done with Peco Medium and Long code 55 turnouts, so I am guessing that the Finetrax B6 and B8 turnouts would substitute. I would also need two very long, high speed turnouts for the passenger loops - if using Peco I was going to fudge by using the Long points and modifying the track layout accordingly, but it would make quite a difference to how it looked. It would be nice to make, or have made, something to match the originals. Finally I would need an asymmetric 3-way point. The Peco one happens to be an almost exact match for the one at Dulverton, and was the main reason I had decided to use the Peco Code 55 track. The thought of making something like that myself scares me silly. Douglas

I have been having a frustrating week or two trying to work out how best to do the back left corner of my layout behind the hotel where it will butt up against the backscene. The problem comes from the outbuildings to the left of the hotel, which I think were the former Brushford cattle market. These will need to be partly cut off at the back for the backscene to pass behind, and I don't want this to be obvious. This is how this section was originally in my model: As well as accommodating the backscene, the other problem I have is that I have hardly any information about how this area actually looked in 1962. This is the only photo which shows part of the wing that used to be at the back of this area, running across towards the hotel: http://www.francisfrith.com/dulverton/photos/carnarvon-arms-hotel-c1960_d60055/ At some time in the mid-1960s I know that the wall at the front and the wing at the back were demolished to make an access lane, I think when the hotel built stables at the back. This was shown in an aerial photo I have from 1967. This picture shows how it looked when I visited a few years ago after the Hotel had closed - it had became known as the Clock Tower Complex for obvious reasons (it is now converted to housing): The hotel is out of sight to the right and I am standing on the road to take the picture. Just behind the lorry and skip there used to be a wall that ran across from the building on the left across towards the hotel but this was demolished for the access lane. I am not sure what this area actually was - there are various chimneys and small outbuildings shown in the Francis Frith photographs. For my model I will have to do a bit of guessing, and I wish I could find more photos dating from the early 1960s. Anyone know of any? To solve the problem of the backscene, I eventually I hit on the solution of extending the base of the layout scenery back by a couple of cm or so. This sunken section below the main plywood board level is made from Sundeala board, and I have been able to stick on some extra material: All I now need to do is add a new surface with black plasticard. Now the buildings in the corner will appear to be complete, with the cut through the roof sections being hidden behind the ridges. Hopefully I can now make a bit more progress. Douglas

Does anyone know of any completed layouts on the exhibition circuit that use Finetrax track, preferably with the Finetrax points as well as the plain track? I would be very interested to see just how this track looks on a layout at normal viewing distance, especially compared to Peco Code 55 and 2mm finecale track. I have also been wondering, is there actually any wheel drop at the points with Finetrax? The lack of wheel drop due to the narrow flangeways and fine wheel standards is one of the advantages claimed for 2mm FS points over commercial N track. Douglas

I am looking at the Finetrax option at the moment as well, and sympathise with your quandary, Rob. In the thread about Finetrax some time ago, I raised the question of whether the gaps at the crossovers were as wide as in Peco Code 55, and was told that this appearance was an optical illusion. Will modern N gauge wheels actually drop on a Finetrax point, as seems to be implied above? If not, there is no advantage to 2mm FS in this respect, and the main advantage of 2mm scale is the slightly finer flangeways. Am I right about that? To me the issue with 2mm FS is that if you convert commercial N models, as opposed to building your own stock to 2mm scale, the wheels will still not be the correct scale gauge for the model, unlike with P4 conversions. Plus the cost of the replacement wheelsets, as you say Rob, is a major consideration. One extra cost with Finetrax I was wondering about is if you have wagons with Peco plastic wheels. These may have to be replaced by finer flanged metal wheels to get good running, I think, especially the older solid, non-spoked wheels, which seem to have bigger flanges than the spoked ones. Douglas

That looks fantastic. If you could Photoshop it against a real background, it would look real. Amazing that it is N gauge. The variations in colour of the wagons is so convincing. I will be following with great interest as the layout progresses. Douglas

I have just had a quick search of "teddy" (no, not THAT sort of teddy!) and "faux" (for faux fur, the other name for teddy bear fur). I found these two very informative threads from a while ago: Teddy bear fur for OO scenery http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/12146-teddy-bear-fur-for-oo-scenery/ Faux fur grass (RMweb Archive) - I see you started this, Anglian, when you were doing your own experiments http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7643 The first article includes some interesting discussion and opinions about faux fur, and discussion of lint as an alternative. The second article has useful photos and more discussion of alternative techniques. I am going to give both threads a read in detail. Isn't RMWeb wonderful for sharing information and answering questions in this way? Douglas

Hi, It was the type of paint I was wondering about mainly - was it emulsion? If so, I'm surprised it coloured the teddy bear fabric, as I think it is water based. Most people seem to be using acrylic paints of one sort or another (although that is also water based, it does adhere to smooth, shiny surfaces). With dyeing, I see it only as an initial way to get a base colour, and then would want to introduce variation and more precise colouring with paint or inks. I have also wondered about dripping on the dye after the main dyeing, to try to get variations in colour in patches like you get in real grass. I think your results are so good that it would be worth you starting a new topic on teddy bear grass under the Scenery section, to spread the word. I think many larger scale modellers will miss it here under a 2mm scale topic. There have also been some posts and useful information about teddy bear fabric recently in the 2mm "What's on your workbench" thread, and again it would be good if it could be pulled together in a dedicated thread. Cheers, Douglas PS I couldn't get the link to the UK Plushfelt supplier to work last night either after I posted my message - as you say perhaps it was getting too many hits!

That teddy bear fabric looks great - the range of colours is very subtle and realistic. What sort of Dulux paint did you use? And what colour was the original fur? The iDye says the fabric should be boiled with the dye for 30-60 minutes, so perhaps I could get better results with a longer dyeing time and a light coloured fur, which I assume you used. I totally agree with what you say about observation - it is the key. Art teachers always say "paint what you see, not what you think you see". I think that sometimes people accept an unrealistic colour and appearance in a commercial landscaping product just because it is that, a commercial product. DIY techniques allow you to copy reality viewed from a scaled distance, and if it looks right compared to the real thing, it IS right. So working from colour photographs is very important. Regarding Easitrack, I have been giving it a lot of thought. You're right that the points at Dulverton only had a slight curve, if at all, and straight points will look fine. And at the entrance to the passenger loops there were very long high speed turnouts that are far longer than the Peco Long code 55 points. But there is something about making points that just doesn't appeal to me, and I do appreciate the robustness of the Peco Code 55 points, despite their foibles. I know that the track at Dulverton was Bullhead and that Easitrack would recreate this, but at normal viewing distance from the side, would it be obvious? And there is the issue of the three-way point at Dulverton , for which the Peco three-way is ideal. How easy would this be in Easitrac, I wonder? By concentrating on the buildings and landscape I am putting off the final decision on the track, and am half hoping some finer scale ready made points in N will appear.

Hi Anglian, Having tried Dylon dyes and finding they don't work with artificial fibres, I came upon a dye for polyester artificial fibres called iDye Poly, an American product but available from this supplier in the UK: http://www.thedyeshop.co.uk/acatalog/Polyester_Dyes.html You have to boil the dye up with the fabric, so the other night I got a little cauldron bubbling up on our cooker with some samples of teddy bear fur, and also an alternative I have been trying out called Plushfelt. I used iDYE Poly Green. The Plushfelt took up the colour up within a couple of minutes, so I took all the fabrics out, rinsed and dried them. The colour in the Teddy bear fabric was not very strong so I think it could have done with dyeing for longer. I tried the Treemendus fur with the dye and it didn't look too bad, just a bit dark and rather shiny. The Treemendus fibre is quite brown. especially at the tips, so the grass came out rather brownish when the dye is used. I also tried some yellow teddy bear fabric which strangely came out blue. I have found that the fur can be coloured with marker pens and marker pen ink to vary the colours in patches, as well as using acrylic paints, which can clog the fibres up a bit. For me a big issue with teddy bear fur is that if you trim it down to scale length for 2mm models, the weave of the fabric backing becomes very obvious. It has to be left quite long. However, I got very interesting results with the Plushfelt using the cashmere tan coloured version as the base fabric. The colour is not as intense as I would like - it looked too dark when in the pan but dried much lighter. However, the method definitely seems to have promise. Here is a quick photo done with my desk lamp: In the corner you can see where I tried colouring with different green Letraset Promarkers, which also shows promise. To me Plushfelt has several advantages. Firstly, it is already shorter than teddy bear fabric, so needs less cutting down. And secondly, as the backing is felted fibres, not fabric, the backing is never obvious, even when you cut the fibres quite short. A third advantage is it is cheap - a piece 110 X 50 cm cost me just £3-50 here: http://www.k-craftteddies.co.uk/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=10_12 As I said, it was the cashmere tan that gave the best results. I also tried the smoky brown, but this came out too dark once dyed. The shop owner also gave me samples of the white and cream, but they came out a bright bluey-green. Perhaps combining with a yellow dye would help with these colours. When I have time, I will start a thread on Plushfelt with more pictures and information. I will come back later to your other interesting comments. Regards, Douglas

Hi Andy, Many thanks for that. I have been looking at "Adventures in Code 55" quite regularly, but don't remember seeing the bit about static grass, perhaps because I was not thinking about it at that stage. I have got samples of various 1-2mm static fibres to try out and am waiting for some of the Polak fibres, which are supposed to be very matt. Some of the fibres I have got so far are looking very shiny. Cheers, Douglas

As Which? magazine wouldn't do one, I have started a lint grass "supertest" thread in the Scenery, Structures & Transport forum: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81391-lint-grass-supertest/ Enjoy! Douglas

Hi Carl, I had always thought you must have used either lint or static fibres on Vale of Oxbury. However, looking again at your excellent article in September's Model Rail, I can see now that it is fine scatter you used. It looks really excellent and the colours you have used are suitably muted to represent the effect of grass seen from a distance. Many thanks for the offer of a sample of the lint you used. I think it must be the same as one of the products I got today, Europlast brand by Frank Sammeroff Ltd, Glasgow. I bought it from a seller on eBay who is selling a remaindered batch of 15g packs (best before date June 2013!): http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/4-Boxes-of-15g-EUROPLAST-Absorbent-LINT-Dressing-Hypoallergenic-Latex-Free-60g-/190925923161 It seems this company went bankrupt in 2010 and was taken over by Reliance Medical who produce the product called Relilint I mentioned earlier. In case anyone is thinking of buying some of this product from eBay for grass, the fibres on the Frank Sammeroff Europlast lint are extremely thin and so I wouldn't recommend them. Nevertheless I will give it a go dyeing it and then sticking down the fibres along with the other makes. Douglas

Hi Justin, Thanks for the information - I will try to get to see Copenhagen Fields again with the new grass covering. The first few samples of absorbent lint arrived in the post today, and so far things are not looking good. The ones I have received so far seem to have even sparser and shorter fibres than the Robinson Fastaid I have already tried. I doubt they are going to work well with the technique of sticking down the fibres and pulling off the backing. Tim may well be right that the old sort of lint just isn't available any more. And when it comes to the technique you describe being used on Copenhagen Fields, leaving the lint whole with the backing side down, I can't see it working at all with these lints - the weave of the backing is just too obvious beneath the fibres. I will report further and try dyeing and using the lints on a test sample once I have got them all plus the "vintage" Boots surgical lint I have bought for on eBay comparison. Cheers, Douglas

As there seem to be issues with supply and suitability of the absorbent lint types currently available for making grass, I have decided in a spirit of research to buy small samples of as many different types as possible to see how well they work. I have found around 6 different ones - it is possible some are the same under different brand names. Apart from Amazon and eBay, the best place I have found is Mistry's online pharmacy (sounds like a website for little blue pills!): http://www.mistrys.co.uk/catalogsearch/result/?q=lint I think the Robinson brand they sell is the Fastaid that I have already tried (I am sure the listed prices for the smaller sizes must be wrong). Mistry's do have two other brands, Alvita and Clini, available as 500g packs, which would be suitable for large areas of model railways grass. I assume these large packs would have the lint in rolls, like the Robinson Fastaid 500g I have bought previously. For comparative purposes, to answer the question of whether lint ain't what it used to be, I have also managed to buy on eBay an old but unused roll of Boots "Surgical lint", which I hope to receive later in the week. I think this is the stuff that many modellers have described using in the past. It will be interesting to see if it has a longer and denser nap than the currently available absorbent lints. Watch this space... Having seen in the flesh layouts such as Jerry/Queensquare's Tucking Mill and Stephen Harris's Ynysarwed Sidings that use surgical lint, I am convinced that lint may be the best way to represent grass in 2mm scale, if you can get the right type. Douglas