IanStock

I'm not sure what is meant by debating how to move it forward. I think that the only thing holding it back is preconcieved ideas that N (or 2mm looking from the outside in) is inherently less detailled due to its size and as such only suitable for an impression of a railway in a landscape for people who like to run long trains. This is not the case. It seems in fact to me that a lot of those that model N (not all) almost embrace this mentality and see it as an excuse to seemingly not have to worry about putting as much detail into the layout. How often do you hear this was omitted because in this scale its hard to see. Hence the toy like appearance and often unmodified rtr stock that is all too often seen. There has to be some kind of mental overhaul of the modelling masses to get N to the status it deserves I feel and the new levels of standards the manufacturers are shipping out stock wise does help but peoples mindset is where the issues lie. I was speaking to a chap at Pontefract last weekend with Brian Hanson and he was saying how he'd been speaking to someone who had commented that he shouldnt bother with 2mm scale detailling items because there was no call for it. This is the attitude we are up against as N gauge modellers. As far as the modelling is concerned an N gauge layout and its stock should be approached in no less a way as their bigger cousins and the techniques are 100% transferrable. Smaller doesnt mean an excuse to model badly. I think some of the new n gauge layouts being done on here such as par, horseley fields and hopefully Millers Dale if I can be so bold will help to show what can be done in the smaller scale. I agree Ian that colour is key with modelling i general and anything that is of scale size needs its colour muted slightly to avoid the look of a toy. Anyway I am hoping to get started on my 37 roof grilles later to show why Brian does need to keep producing detailing parts for N!

Oh I don't mean a formal conversation. They normally end in tears anyway! What I meant was more the sort of on-going questioning of all those false assumptions about 2mm that still endure. The best way to challenge them is to produce brilliant models - but there are also some specific issues that need to be tackled - track standards is a good example. I also don't think we've fully solved the coupling problem either - I don't find the Dapols that great. I think things like colouring and landscape techniques are worthy of further exploration - some of those larger scale techniques have yet to come fully across, and some are different anyway, for example is static grass useable and worth it in N? Or are there better ways?

There still seems to be a big unexplored area in terms of *how* we scale things down. One beef of mine is that many N gaugers still try to cram too much in - a misunderstanding of the spatial advantages we have, IMHO. In particular, the gains that can be had by *not* compressing distances. The incorrect proportions between the length and width of many models is more glaring than many realise. Or at least it is when you start avoiding doing it and see the benefits - which *is* a realistic proposition in 2mm. I think a greater realisation of how things scale to 2mm would help - one still sees things that are more grossly over scale in 2mm than in the larger scales - for obvious reasons, but it could do with tackling as an issue.

Then there is the lack of awareness of anything that even vaguely resembles real railway practice seen on many models - probably a consequence of the toy mentality again... I could go on!

All I really meant was something equivalent to the discussion that has gradually moved standards higher in the larger scales, but the majority seem content not to have it.

I agree. It really seems to be where its at at the mo. As Ive said though I think there is still the mindset that its not as detailled or realistic as larger scales which is poppycock given the new models available. There is absolutely no reason why an N layout cannot be appraoched as you would a larger scale one only with the benefit of having room to breath.

True. I think it is long-overdue that there should be a general debate on how to move the scale forwards. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be happening (much) inside the NGS. One would hope it wouldn't result in the splits seen previously in the 4mm world, but even then, for all that they caused ructions they did a great deal to improve overall modelling standards.

There are some approaches which are somewhat different in 2mm, for example the effect of colour, which tends to be far too saturated on most models. I also suggest that r-t-r rolling stock is always going to feature more heavily in 2mm due to its size - but there's much that can be done to stop it looking toy-like.

And I certainly agree that N is *the* scale if you're more interested in 'railway in the landscape'.

Hopefully pillar progress later.

 

I hope people will take N more seriously as its got so much potential. There seems to be the mindset in the modelling community that small scale means less detail. What we end up with is reams of N layouts that are barely more the trainsets with little in fine detail and stock pretty much out of the box. There are some cracking N layouts around but they are in the minority. I am trying to approach this project with no less concern with detail as I would 4mm or even 7mm for that matter. Hopefully it will show what is possible in the smaller scales and hope to dispell the myth that N is for long trains with less detail and it larger scales if you want something that looks like the real thing. Hopefully I can pull it off!

I completely agree. In my opinion, there is still too much toy-box modelling in N. There is absolutely no reason why it can't be as convincing as the larger scales, or even more so given its scale advantages of being able to fit much more into a given space. There is no excuse in technical terms - the detailing on the rolling stock and its running qualities is every bit as good as the larger scales. Even the problems with track appearance are now being dealt with. What it needs is a shift in mind set and this kind of work can only help! Well done.

Cheers guys. A taste of whats to come! Yes Mickey that truck was a bit more like what I imagined Ian was talking about.

Very nice bridge indeed - I do like a bit of plastikard 'gingerbread'... That R reg lorry is considerably younger than early 1980's - I forget exactly when R was but more like late 90's. The earlier ones would definitely be more like it for Stanley. Still wondering whether one might be made in plastikard, but knowing the dimensions is a problem.

Looking forward to seeing more progress on the bridge.

I'll give it a look. Not wanting you to take on loads of things like this - but as you asked, see here for pictures... Something like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/46315577@N04/6761918615 or more probably this:http://www.flickr.com/photos/57425719@N08/5816275710 I'm also still half-wondering whether I could hack it out of plastikard, Geoff Kent-style.

Cheers Andy, things are going well as you say. The 3D prints arent really any kind of business to be honest as Im just trying to give people the oportunity to have access to the stuff I make for myself really. However if anyone does want something special Im willing to design something up as I did with Jeremys lamps for instance.

Just to throw something into the mix, if you can stand the pun... one thing I've really been pondering is how to do a bulk cement powder lorry to go with my silo. I don't mean a mixer, I mean a powder transporter, early '80's style. I have a few collected photo's, but there seems to be nothing commercial available. I'm wondering whether 3D printing might be the way forward. Don't worry Cav, I'm not dropping hints ;-) as I suspect that would be a pretty involved job - but how do you go about producing an item and is the CAD side of things difficult to pick up? Is there any cheap, suitable software available? Anyone know anything - or have an other ideas for sourcing such a vehicle? It needs to be highi-fidelity.

I can parcel them up - can you send an address via the email on the about page of my blog?

Might take a day or two as work is hectic at present.

Thanks. The Mk 3 couplers would be excellent. Some of the Dapol ones don't even like being pulled! Pity as they're really good models otherwise. Not sure if I can assist in any way - how are you working out the optimal length for each type of coupler bar to be?

Some superb work on here - I've only recently joined and have been busy catching up with all 43 pages. Also prompted me to give my Peak 'the op' the other day. Those couplings look great - are they available for sale? Apart from anything else, I'm wondering whether they might be the solution to Dapol mk3's uncoupling in mid-HST rake. I'm looking forward to seeing this layout come together, Meantime, you might like the pics on my own recent gallery...