YORK for York Show 2023

[queensquare]

21 minutes ago, kirmies said:

Finally the batch of 4 A3s and 4 A4s is completed.

I've posted on here before how batch building is a double edged sword - one the one hand you do end up with a whole batch of stuff built but......it takes ages.

When I first started building 'This is York' I divided the work up into 'modules' with a target completion date for each. This felt very efficient and positive at the time.

So first the good news: the 8 Gresley pacifics are completed......

And now the bad news, the target date for completion was the end of March 2021.

The best laid plans etc.

 

Thats less than a year behind. As you’ve put York’s appearance at York back by a whole year that makes you ahead of schedule. 

Result!

 

Jerry

[CF MRC]

Your comments about the differences between top end N and 2mm FS are very valid Pete.  I wound seriously question the advantage of the fine scale standings when modelling diesels, but steam engines with big wheels are a different ball game. 
 

Will your valve gear etches be available in the Association shop? They should be!

 

Tim

[Steven B]

21 hours ago, kirmies said:

Or, to put it another way, the first photo couldn't really be anything other than an N-gauge model whereas the second just might be a photo of a 4mm model.

 

Without the Rapido coupling, the RTR Dapol model could potentially be confused with a c.1970-80s Hornby model where as the second could compared to a current OO Gauge locomotive.

 

There's no doubting that the finer wheelsets and valve gear lift the model to another level, although I've seen N Gauge models to similar standards (albeit without the external valve-gear).

 

One thing I've often wondered about 2mmFS modellers is how they feel about the compromise in scale when using 1:148 body shells on 1:152 running gear and track?

 

The fine-scale 9.42mm track gauge is more accurate for the 1:148 body than the off-the shelf 9mm track but when put next to some 1:152 rolling stock, doesn't the scale difference become apparent?

 

Steven B.

[Bryn]

7 hours ago, Steven B said:

One thing I've often wondered about 2mmFS modellers is how they feel about the compromise in scale when using 1:148 body shells on 1:152 running gear and track?

 

A question which alway results in endless debate which could easily take this enjoyable thread off topic. So to wrap this up:

 

"At the time of creating your project use the best options given your; current modelling time allowance, skills and off the shelf models/kits available"

 

Not all 2FS modellers are the same, there is a very diverse range of skills and experience within this group of active modellers.

 

The idea of there being a hard line between N gauge and 2mm Finescale is where this conversation normally gets confused in translation. In my experience it truly is a grey scale all the way from code 80 Peco track with older 1:148(ish) Farish models through to hand crafted 1:152 brass locomotives on 2FS track. You just need to consider what is the best combination for yourself at the time of the project in hand.

 

As of today your basic scenarios are as follows.

 

Steam Era 

As mentioned above, a 1:152 kit on 2FS track is the best option visually.

 

An etched chassis under a 1:148 RTR body is still an improvement over N gauge if you don't have time to build a body or more likely you'll see new modellers in the scale using this option as a stepping stone on their modelling journey to full 1:152 (if time and skill allows... we can gain skill, but sadly not time).

 

Diesel (Green and Blue)

For the record there are a few 1:152 scratch built diesels around, the Association's 08 kit and a few etched scratch aid kits on the market. Not for the faint hearted, but they do exist out in the wild as running  models.

 

The discussion normally focuses around the fact that a rewheeled 1:148 locomotive on 2FS track doesn't really improve the model, which is fully correct. This is the situation I find myself in with Colwyn Bay Goods, I can't currently build a class 25 in 1:152 which would look better than my out of scale Farish model with drop in wheels. It is my best option at this moment in time given my skills and available time.  

 

You need to consider the bigger picture of all rolling stock of this era, I much prefer the etched kits such as the 16T mineral wagons and catfish which are only available in 1:152 currently. The wagons have very open underframes which show off the finer wheels to great effect and are a massive improvement on the current N gauge alternatives. 

 

I can't make the 3 way turnout with Finetrax as the over scale flangeways would overlap and clash (granted, Colwyn Bay Goods predated Finetrax by a decade).

 

With technology progressing well the concept of a 3D printed 1:152 diesel body becomes a closer reality I would like to explore, because I enjoy building kits and have recently started to learn about making my own 2FS chassis. 

 

In summary, this era is a grey area. No wrong answers but no easy perfect solution either way.

 

Diesel and Electric (The air braked era)

Unless you need to model complex trackwork (where the wider clearances of Finetrax will always be a limiting factor) then it makes sense to use 1:148 models on code 40 N gauge track.... but not for the reasons we all assume.

 

- 1:152 Track has a correct track spacing for the scale, 9.42mm

- 1:148 Finescale track should be to 9.69mm

- Finetrax is 9mm

 

Why? Because UK N gauge is running on European/American 1:160 track which is where the 9mm comes from. So technically you would be nearer to scale to use N gauge stock on 2FS track.

 

So not only does Finetrax have have over sized flangeways the gauge is still wrong. 

 

So why did I state Finetrax as the best option for modern diesel/electric? It's back to "the best option at the current time" as it looks right and is cost effective. Why rewheel stock if you can't see the benefit behind bogie side frames?

 

Also, I can't think of any modern 1:152 kits (currently).

 

Conclusion 

Sometimes the overall effect is more important than dimensional accuracy. Unless your're rewheeling 1:148 N gauge locos to run on hand made 9.69mm track it's always going to be a compromise which suits your current situation.

 

If mixing 1:152 stock with 1:148 try not to use combinations which obviously visually clash. For instance, mixed freight wagons hide the scale difference well but a rake of similar coaches should be of one scale. Current situation etc. 

 

Which is why the majority of active 2mm Finescale modellers rewheel N gauge. We just like building and tinkering with stuff. Nothing more, nothing less. The satisfaction of this is greater than exact dimensional perfection. This will always be a soft target for people to call foul play and it's not really 2mm Finescale, but hey! It makes us happy and who knows maybe a few of us will progress slowly towards pure 1:152.

 

Hats off to the pure 1:152 modellers, we all truely look up to them, but the rest of us are just plodding along that grey scale line away from code 80 and pizza cutters at our own speed

 

 

[Ian Morgan]

I first tried 2mm finescale in the late 1980's. I soon discovered that in addition to looking better, there was also improvement in reliable, slow running through pointwork that finescale provided. Since then, N gauge has improved considerably, and looks a lot better, but short wagons still rock and roll through pointwork, and short locos still hesitate.

 

I am flexible when it comes to scale, but try to avoid parking similar vehicles of different scales too close to each other. It is the running performance that keeps me from straying from finescale track standards.

 

[kirmies]

On 31/01/2022 at 14:58, queensquare said:

 

Thats less than a year behind. As you’ve put York’s appearance at York back by a whole year that makes you ahead of schedule. 

Result!

 

Jerry

Thanks Jerry.

That's the sort of positive thinking I love:

I'm now so far behind........I'm ahead!!

Peter

[kirmies]

23 hours ago, CF MRC said:

Your comments about the differences between top end N and 2mm FS are very valid Pete.  I wound seriously question the advantage of the fine scale standings when modelling diesels, but steam engines with big wheels are a different ball game. 
 

Will your valve gear etches be available in the Association shop? They should be!

 

Tim

Tim,

The valve gear etch can definitey be made available but I'd like to wait until some of the loco fitted with it have done some proper miles. It's very delicate (drawn to the recommended limits by the etchers PPD but still over scale) so I'm slightly concerned about wear and handling damage.

I'm thinking of getting some etched in mild steel for the next batch as it should be more robust. This is perfectly okay for soldering using decent strength phosphoric acid flux, it's just vital to wash part thoroughly at the end of each session to avoid rust.

Peter 

[kirmies]

I've finally got started on the back wall of the train shed:

The first two sections, a combination of layered 10 thou plastikard (cut and scored with my Silhouette craft cutter) and Evergreen styrene strip.

Not all the arches are infilled with brickwork: there are doors, windows and, of course, open arches to allow access to the far platforms. The LNER plan I have (seen in the background) will enable me to work out which goes where.

Just SEVENTY NINE more sections to go...........

Edited May 10 by kirmies
Photo had disappeared

[Barry O]

That looks splendid!

 

Baz

[Not Jeremy]

I have just caught up with this absolutely stunning project via a conversation with Jerry Queensquare Clifford.

 

Everything you'd expect in terms of artistry, originality and skill from the man who brought us Blea Moor and Laramie.

 

In fact I think it might just be genius, pure and simple.

 

Simon