I think the hot weather has fried my brain. For N gauge standards we already have:
1:148 / 9mm gauge - British N
1:150 / 9mm gauge - Japanese N
1:160 / 9mm gauge - Continental / American N
1:152 / 9.42mm gauge - British 2mm Finescale
1:160 / 9mm gauge FS160 - US / European equivalent of 2mm Finescale
So of course what we need is another standard... Bear with me on this one. I think that the massive leap forward in quality of ready to run British "N" has changed everything. It looks beautiful, mostly runs very well, and the only thing that really lets it down now for me is the narrow-gauge appearance. 9mm scales up to around 4'1" at 1:148 which is OK if you are modelling the Padarn Railway. 2mm FS has the correct gauge, but there is about a 3% difference in size between 1:152 and 1:148, which is just enough to be noticeable. More problematic, the very fine wheel standards in 2mm FS mean that unless you are happy with diesels (or a Jinty), you are probably going to have to tackle etched chassis construction right at the start if you want to run any trains. That is not just a minor inconvenience.
So what I am thinking of doing, just for the fun of it, is combining British N dimensions (1:148) and modern N gauge wheel standards (i.e NEM, RP25 or something in between) with 9.42 mm gauge track. At 1:148 this scales up to around 4'7", still slightly narrow but a lot better than 9mm, and with a bit more clearance for valve gear etc than the correct 1:148 gauge of 9.7mm, bearing in mind that RP25 wheels are a fair way over scale width. This implies a back-to-back setting around 7.85 - 7.9mm, and I think most modern RTR will take this without major reconstruction, although driving axles might have to be shimmed to limit sideplay. Or, on a split-frame Farish chassis, maybe shim the spacers between the chassis halves and make a new keeper plate. I'd have to dismantle one and have a look. I have a rather battered and mauled J39 which would make an excellent guinea pig.
Obviously pointwork will have to be hand-built, although 2mm Assoc Easitrac will take care of the plain bits in between. Having said which I see the 2mm Assoc has just launched an Easitrac turnout range which looks similar in construction to the FineTrax products (pegged plastic chairs in pre-drilled milled bases), and it may be possible to use 2mm Assoc bases with FineTrax frog crossings and check rail chairs.
I think I might actually try this - build a B6 turnout to 9.42 gauge but using the FineTrax standards for check rail and crossing clearances, nail it to a bit of wood with some Easitrac, and see if I can get anything to run. On the other hand, the weather is due to get cooler, so perhaps my brain will stop overheating and let me go back to 1:148 / 9mm and be happy with it like everyone else :)
Richard
Quote from: belstone on May 09, 2016, 08:17:37 PM
I think the hot weather has fried my brain.
I think that first sentence said it all ;)
Paul
Quote from: Sprintex on May 09, 2016, 08:30:12 PM
Quote from: belstone on May 09, 2016, 08:17:37 PM
I think the hot weather has fried my brain.
I think that first sentence said it all ;)
Paul
Quite. There are more important things to worry about. Like buying stuff that works - whatever the minor scale differences. :hmmm:
I think we need another N gauge like a moose needs a hatrack........ :D
best of luck with that
i think reliability is the biggest issue though for the average person - esp. those starting out
more realistic ready built track can come after reliability is solved in my opinion
it seems like the european ho items i also collect run much nicer and smoother than the n gauge, as good as modern n gauge gas got
modern n gauge does look fantastic now though, so much progress has been made
tim
Quote from: belstone on May 09, 2016, 08:17:37 PM
I think the hot weather has fried my brain. For N gauge standards we already have:
1:148 / 9mm gauge - British N
1:150 / 9mm gauge - Japanese N
1:160 / 9mm gauge - Continental / American N
1:152 / 9.42mm gauge - British 2mm Finescale
1:160 / 9mm gauge FS160 - US / European equivalent of 2mm Finescale
You forgot to mention 1:140 /9mm gauge - Limas British 4F and 1:132 ish / 9mm gauge - Limas British Deltic ;) :D
Seriously though, someone else tried to reinvent the wheel 3 or 4 years ago except IIRC they came up with about 4 new sets of standards... That project seems to have pretty much sunk without trace...
You are of course at liberty to adopt whatever standards you wish, but for wider acceptance and interoperability, I see the best way forward as a finer profile track, but sticking with the universal 9mm gauge. We have that in the Finetrax range...
Quote from: PLD on May 09, 2016, 09:58:39 PM
You forgot to mention 1:140 /9mm gauge - Limas British 4F and 1:132 ish / 9mm gauge - Limas British Deltic ;) :D
Seriously though, someone else tried to reinvent the wheel 3 or 4 years ago except IIRC they came up with about 4 new sets of standards... That project seems to have pretty much sunk without trace...
You are of course at liberty to adopt whatever standards you wish, but for wider acceptance and interoperability, I see the best way forward as a finer profile track, but sticking with the universal 9mm gauge. We have that in the Finetrax range...
The Lima Deltic was N gauge? I thought it was TT ;D I agree that for 99% of people code 40 / 9mm is going to be fine, and a massive improvement on what we have seen up to now. I'm just trying to find a middle way between commercial British N with its slightly narrow-track appearance and 2mm FS with its non-commercial scale ratio and "make everything yourself" mechanical bits. It's just for me, and if I'm the only person in the world modelling in 1:148 / 9.42 / RP25 then fair enough. At least I won't have to put my locos on the club layout and be embarrassed when they derail, stop dead or burst into flames.
Quote from: belstone on May 09, 2016, 10:09:50 PMI agree that for 99% of people code 40 / 9mm is going to be fine
Surely, for 94.5% of people (arbitrary statistic, but I suspect "the vast majority") code 80 / 9mm is fine? And most of the rest are fine with code 55? Speaking entirely for myself, but I can't be alone in this, while code 40 looks great, unless the Time Fairy slips me a whole huge wodge of time, code 80 it will be, as I wish to have something approaching a working layout in the limited time I have available. Kudos to anyone going down the finer scale route though.
(What we really need is a time machine to go back to the 1830s and impress upon various early Victorian railway companies the benefits of a slightly larger loading gauge, would solve all kinds of real world and modelling problems...)
I actually agree with you that there is a need for more coherent standards for track and wheels in N, though I'm not convinced 9.42mm is the way to go (or at least not for points).
One of the great advantages that 2mm FS has is consistency of standards for track and wheels - something we sorely lack in N. More consistent and well-thought through standards would mean less issues with back to backs (manufacturers would know what to produce) and fewer issues with modern wheelsets falling into gaps on frogs. Will it suit everyone - no, but trying to please everyone is impossible!
Cheers, Mike
Quote from: red_death on May 09, 2016, 11:26:06 PM
More consistent and well-thought through standards would mean less issues with back to backs (manufacturers would know what to produce) and fewer issues with modern wheelsets falling into gaps on frogs.
Surely RP25 does this to some level?
The problem with frog drop is because Peco track (both code 80 and code 55) was designed to accept wheel standards of the older coarser variety. Remember, both were designed well before finer profile wheels came along. Maybe a new RTR track system is needed to accept finer wheels, but Easitrack exists for those willing to build it.
As for 0.42mm, I just don't see the point - will just give more work, for what benefit? Is 0.42mm really that noticable in N (given how many other compromises there are?) Remember 9mm internal may be narrow, but the outer edges of the rails are ~10mm. So the centre of the rails is actually about 9.5mm apart. Given they are much thicker than prototype, it seems a nice pragmatic choice from whoever first thought up the standards - open it out while retaining the same thickeness rail may actually make it look
too far apart.
Going for thinner rail, you might as well just go Easitrack or full 2mmFS IMHO, as you'd have to build the track anyway.
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: Dr Al on May 09, 2016, 11:50:19 PM
Quote from: red_death on May 09, 2016, 11:26:06 PM
More consistent and well-thought through standards would mean less issues with back to backs (manufacturers would know what to produce) and fewer issues with modern wheelsets falling into gaps on frogs.
Surely RP25 does this to some level?
The problem with frog drop is because Peco track (both code 80 and code 55) was designed to accept wheel standards of the older coarser variety. Remember, both were designed well before finer profile wheels came along. Maybe a new RTR track system is needed to accept finer wheels, but Easitrack exists for those willing to build it.
As for 0.42mm, I just don't see the point - will just give more work, for what benefit? Is 0.42mm really that noticable in N (given how many other compromises there are?) Remember 9mm internal may be narrow, but the outer edges of the rails are ~10mm. So the centre of the rails is actually about 9.5mm apart. Given they are much thicker than prototype, it seems a nice pragmatic choice from whoever first thought up the standards - open it out while retaining the same thickeness rail may actually make it look too far apart.
Going for thinner rail, you might as well just go Easitrack or full 2mmFS IMHO, as you'd have to build the track anyway.
Cheers,
Alan
Having done some measuring I think Farish are aiming for NEM 310 rather than NMRA / RP25. I say "aiming for" because although the back to backs are very consistent within the same model, they aren't anything like between models. J39 - 7.39-7.42mm (NEM 310 is 7.4, gold star for whoever put that one together). Wagons - 7.35- 7.38. 2MT - 7.19-7.22! Maybe the postman stood on the box it came in.
As for the gauge difference - well, people said the same thing about EM/P4 versus OO. Peco track has under width sleepers as well as over-width rail: but on scale 8'6" sleepers with code 40 rail I reckon 9.42 looks better than 9.0. Given my proposed track plan I'm committed to hand-built track with code 40 rail anyway, there isn't a single straight section in the scenic portion. I think if you can get a bit closer to correct gauge track without getting into a world of lathes and stuff, then why not?
Quote from: Dr Al on May 09, 2016, 11:50:19 PM
Surely RP25 does this to some level?
The problem with frog drop is because Peco track (both code 80 and code 55) was designed to accept wheel standards of the older coarser variety. Remember, both were designed well before finer profile wheels came along. Maybe a new RTR track system is needed to accept finer wheels, but Easitrack exists for those willing to build it.
Going for thinner rail, you might as well just go Easitrack or full 2mmFS IMHO, as you'd have to build the track anyway.
No, RP25 is a set of wheel standards (IIRC there are various levels of RP25 anyway) and it is not at all clear that Dapol or Farish follow them anyway.
For it to work correctly you need track as well as wheels - Easitrac works because it is genuine 2mm FS, Wayne's Finetrax is cosmetically excellent but unfortunately a bit of compromise was made with the frogs and crossings to allow older wheels to be used.
I'm not sure why thinner rail requires Easitrac (which is 2mm FS) - Finetrax looks much better than Peco without the need to re-wheel everything.
Cheers, Mike
Quote from: belstone on May 10, 2016, 12:13:25 AM
I think if you can get a bit closer to correct gauge track without getting into a world of lathes and stuff, then why not?
Each to their own, but personally I think you'll just risk introducing a lot more unnecessary issues to rolling stock (I've dealt with enough locos that have had their running ruined by folks mucking about with this obsession with BTBs and the likes - good for me as cheap rebuilds....but clearly not for the original owner).
Personally, I'm not for building track as I like big-N projects and life is just too damn short - if it was a plank or end to end maybe, but those are not for me. Even then, I doubt I'd deviate from anything but regular standards and regauging every new rolling stock purchase is just a waste of valuable modelling time which could be better spent making something different IMHO, with risk of causing issues. Some (particularly current split chassis) will open big cans of worms. And you can't run them on your friends trainsets either...
One thing I've learned in this hobby is that sometimes you can set yourself too ambitious standards, and to actually achieve them only later you realise the sheer amount of additional time and effort it will take, for very little additional enjoyment. Everyone will have a different level on that, but this does remind me of those thoughts.
I do think the time has come for Peco (or competitor) to consider a new modern track system for modern RTR wheel standards; but given the number of folks using items with old wheel standards (seems like a lot still), I doubt this would be any time soon. Even now, I get the impression the majority still adopt code 80, even though Peco's code 55 is functionally identical, and visibly superior, so I can see why any new system may have a long genesis.
Why not just go 2mmFS and benefit from their super fine wheel standards too rather than some other non-standard-standard?
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: red_death on May 10, 2016, 12:41:55 AM
No, RP25 is a set of wheel standards (IIRC there are various levels of RP25 anyway) and it is not at all clear that Dapol or Farish follow them anyway.
Dapol and Farish clearly follow some standards. To perhaps head on a tangent slightly - I find the BTB thing overemphasised at times - I've bought nothing from Farish or Dapol in years that's needed anything adjusted in this respect for RTR trackwork - sure there'll be a tolerance, which they'll lie within, but I only re-gauge if a wheelset is really causing difficulties or running poorly. If a wagon is 7.1mm and a J39 is 7.4mm and both run fine, then, to be blunt, does it matter? Manufacturers can't be expected to work to a much more stringent set of standards that virtually none of their customers need or use, I'd have thought.
The most common complaint about wheelsets I've had are wobbly ones, which do occur at times.
Quote from: red_death on May 10, 2016, 12:41:55 AM
I'm not sure why thinner rail requires Easitrac (which is 2mm FS) - Finetrax looks much better than Peco without the need to re-wheel everything.
Maybe what I was really trying to convey was that it's all into the realms of self build track though - a seemingly minority activity - not that there's anything at all wrong with that, but most aren't going to go down that route, which by definition kind of makes another set of standards a bit unnecessary.
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: Dr Al on May 10, 2016, 12:44:49 AM
Why not just go 2mmFS and benefit from their super fine wheel standards too rather than some other non-standard-standard?
Cheers,
Alan
Mainly because every new Farish loco comes with a very pretty set of NEM wheels free of charge. The 2mm FS wheelsets are split axle with very small journals and large muffs, and don't readily lend themselves to rewheeling RTR locos. 2mm is 1:152, only 3% smaller than 1:148 but when you are trying to squeeze motors into strange old Scottish locos you need all the room you can find. Older readers will remember British Trix, 3.8mm/ft, not much smaller than OO but it looked terribly undersized, so I'm not keen on mixing ratios, and life is too short to be kit or scratchbuilding mundane stuff like 12 ton vent vans. And also because I'm just awkward and difficult.
Maybe what is needed is simply a start on finer N gauge points.
I wonder if a true crowd funded medium l/h or r/h (or another in produced radius) would be the answer here.
After all, lots of us have new stock and we all, I would hope, hate wheel drop on the frogs of our points, making even the smoothest running train 'dip'.
This could be engineered out right at the start.
Maybe sold with a warning that it won't necessarily like older stock as well for those that have them?
I think conquering the point frog drop problem is the first way forward.
Sell a new radius and then if successful follow it up with a more common used version, only newer?
Just an idea
Dave
Quote from: belstone on May 10, 2016, 01:01:01 AM
Mainly because every new Farish loco comes with a very pretty set of NEM wheels free of charge.
Well.....hardly free....you pay for them as part of the loco...... ;)
Quote from: belstone on May 10, 2016, 01:01:01 AM
The 2mm FS wheelsets are split axle with very small journals and large muffs, and don't readily lend themselves to rewheeling RTR locos. 2mm is 1:152, only 3% smaller than 1:148 but when you are trying to squeeze motors into strange old Scottish locos you need all the room you can find.
To me the obvious, and more elegent solution to this already exists - the coreless motor by Farish - this is way smaller than anything else, is circular in cross section, and will easily fit in any boiler I can think of (it's that small I think it'd even fit in a Crosti 9F preheater boiler just about..... :laugh:). It's also a beautiful runner, way superior to the older cans. This seems to be the way things are going for the top two manufacturers (and DJM), so hopefully these will become more widespread and available as useful spares in due course.
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: Dr Al on May 10, 2016, 09:25:48 AM
Quote from: belstone on May 10, 2016, 01:01:01 AM
Mainly because every new Farish loco comes with a very pretty set of NEM wheels free of charge.
Well.....hardly free....you pay for them as part of the loco...... ;)
Quote from: belstone on May 10, 2016, 01:01:01 AM
The 2mm FS wheelsets are split axle with very small journals and large muffs, and don't readily lend themselves to rewheeling RTR locos. 2mm is 1:152, only 3% smaller than 1:148 but when you are trying to squeeze motors into strange old Scottish locos you need all the room you can find.
To me the obvious, and more elegent solution to this already exists - the coreless motor by Farish - this is way smaller than anything else, is circular in cross section, and will easily fit in any boiler I can think of (it's that small I think it'd even fit in a Crosti 9F preheater boiler just about..... :laugh:). It's also a beautiful runner, way superior to the older cans. This seems to be the way things are going for the top two manufacturers (and DJM), so hopefully these will become more widespread and available as useful spares in due course.
Cheers,
Alan
I've been looking at these coreless motors on Alibaba, but haven't yet found one to exactly the spec I am looking for in terms of voltage, body size and shaft length. I'm actually quite impressed with the performance of the flat can in the J27 and 2P. It's a little sweetie really, and putting it in a different chassis shows up just how lousy that J39 tender drive is.
Richard
Quote from: belstone on May 10, 2016, 11:29:26 AM
I've been looking at these coreless motors on Alibaba, but haven't yet found one to exactly the spec I am looking for
Have you asked Bachmann if you can buy a spare from them direct?
Quote from: belstone on May 10, 2016, 11:29:26 AM
I'm actually quite impressed with the performance of the flat can in the J27 and 2P. It's a little sweetie really, and putting it in a different chassis shows up just how lousy that J39 tender drive is.
It's not perfect, but I don't know that the J39 is
that bad. The motor is nothing special - it feels of reasonably good quality materials, but it's a 3 pole high revving short lifespan unit. The coreless is a step up from that.
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: belstone on May 09, 2016, 08:17:37 PM
I think the hot weather has fried my brain. For N gauge standards we already have:
1:148 / 9mm gauge - British N
1:150 / 9mm gauge - Japanese N
1:160 / 9mm gauge - Continental / American N
1:152 / 9.42mm gauge - British 2mm Finescale
1:160 / 9mm gauge FS160 - US / European equivalent of 2mm Finescale
So of course what we need is another standard... Bear with me on this one. I think that the massive leap forward in quality of ready to run British "N" has changed everything. It looks beautiful, mostly runs very well, and the only thing that really lets it down now for me is the narrow-gauge appearance. 9mm scales up to around 4'1" at 1:148 which is OK if you are modelling the Padarn Railway. 2mm FS has the correct gauge, but there is about a 3% difference in size between 1:152 and 1:148, which is just enough to be noticeable. More problematic, the very fine wheel standards in 2mm FS mean that unless you are happy with diesels (or a Jinty), you are probably going to have to tackle etched chassis construction right at the start if you want to run any trains. That is not just a minor inconvenience.
So what I am thinking of doing, just for the fun of it, is combining British N dimensions (1:148) and modern N gauge wheel standards (i.e NEM, RP25 or something in between) with 9.42 mm gauge track. At 1:148 this scales up to around 4'7", still slightly narrow but a lot better than 9mm, and with a bit more clearance for valve gear etc than the correct 1:148 gauge of 9.7mm, bearing in mind that RP25 wheels are a fair way over scale width. This implies a back-to-back setting around 7.85 - 7.9mm, and I think most modern RTR will take this without major reconstruction, although driving axles might have to be shimmed to limit sideplay. Or, on a split-frame Farish chassis, maybe shim the spacers between the chassis halves and make a new keeper plate. I'd have to dismantle one and have a look. I have a rather battered and mauled J39 which would make an excellent guinea pig.
Obviously pointwork will have to be hand-built, although 2mm Assoc Easitrac will take care of the plain bits in between. Having said which I see the 2mm Assoc has just launched an Easitrac turnout range which looks similar in construction to the FineTrax products (pegged plastic chairs in pre-drilled milled bases), and it may be possible to use 2mm Assoc bases with FineTrax frog crossings and check rail chairs.
I think I might actually try this - build a B6 turnout to 9.42 gauge but using the FineTrax standards for check rail and crossing clearances, nail it to a bit of wood with some Easitrac, and see if I can get anything to run. On the other hand, the weather is due to get cooler, so perhaps my brain will stop overheating and let me go back to 1:148 / 9mm and be happy with it like everyone else :)
Richard
Hi Richard
Before going too far down the route of re defining track standards just one small erm, point (sorry!).
00 Gauge (16.5mm) at 4mm/ft scales out at 4ft 1 inch.
British N Gauge (9mm) at 2 1/16mm/ft (or 2.0625 in metric) scales out much better at: -
9 / 2.0625 = 4.36ft or in imperial a tad over 4ft and 4 inches. In other words it scales out at a shade over 4 inches too narrow or in N about 0.4 of a mm.
Personally I think it's close enough!!
Kind Regards
Roy
I can't get excited about a 0.42mm error in the track gauge. Proportionately it's less than half the error in 00 gauge, everything's smaller and harder to see in N, and the rails are probably a bit over-width which takes up some of the difference anyway.
I've come to the conclusion that a lot of the "narrow gauge" look of British N is to do with people using the manufacturer's standard track spacing, which gives a rather wider "six foot" than most prototype double tracks. I've seen pictures of sections of Peco points being removed (not affecting the moving parts) to make a crossover between closer tracks, and I now wish I'd done this before I laid my track!
Quote from: Roy L S on May 10, 2016, 06:20:45 PM
Hi Richard
Before going too far down the route of re defining track standards just one small erm, point (sorry!).
00 Gauge (16.5mm) at 4mm/ft scales out at 4ft 1 inch.
British N Gauge (9mm) at 2 1/16mm/ft (or 2.0625 in metric) scales out much better at: -
9 / 2.0625 = 4.36ft or in imperial a tad over 4ft and 4 inches. In other words it scales out at a shade over 4 inches too narrow or in N about 0.4 of a mm.
Personally I think it's close enough!!
Kind Regards
Roy
Mostly right, except that the difference between 9mm and true 1:148 gauge is actually 0.7mm, so it's about 9% undersize. That's actually quite a bit. 1:148 / 9.42 only goes just over half way to bridging that gap, so you're probably right in that it's not enough of an improvement to be worth the hassle for most people. 9.7mm gauge would be possible with self-built track but not with NEM wheels, would have to be 2mm FS to get the clearances, and I'm not that mad (yet). I might still give 1:148 / 9.42 a go, just for fun. It strikes a balance between true scale appearance and commercial availability, and it advances the realism of British "N" if only a tiny bit. (0.42mm to be exact.)
Richard
Quote from: belstone on May 10, 2016, 10:48:58 PM
and it advances the realism of British "N" if only a tiny bit. (0.42mm to be exact.)
To be offset again the potential realism lost if mucking about with the wheels results in wonky running of the locos - and it's well known that this has happened to folk adjusting BTBs on various models (some are specifically vulnerable to monkeying around with the wheels), only for them to loose quartering irrepairably soon after.
And given the good asthetics of Easitrack, Finetrax, nobody'll notice whether they're done to 9 or ~9.4 mil (as I doubt you'll be able to measure to 9.42 mm with micron level accuracy anyway - +/-10 microns?!! ~1/10 the diameter of a human hair? Really? This is getting silly................. :doh:)
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: belstone on May 10, 2016, 10:48:58 PMit advances the realism of British "N" if only a tiny bit.
A laudable aim, but "Realism" is about far more than how wide apart your rails are... I fear you risk falling into the trap that so many P4 modellers do by becoming fixated on the wheels/track. That alone does not make a good or "realistic" layout...
For many layouts the quickest and easiest way to improve "realism" is in how they are operated, and the majority of track plans are improved not by .4mm in the track gauge but by a .4 metres increase in curve radii...
...and the ability to have tight curves is one of the benefits of N, provided they are off-scene or disguised. If any finescale standard increased the minimum radius then this would make it more difficult to hide curve that are often still much tighter than scale (a 60mph curve scaled to N would be about 6m radius).
Some good points: my layout plan combines a nice sweeping 2' radius curve through the scenic area with tight 9" in the bits you can't see. I think 9.42 on NEM wheels at 7.85mm back to back would cope with 9", not so sure about 2mm FS. It's asking a lot of scale depth flanges. I'm not really fixated on gauge, otherwise I'd go for 9.7mm and do absolutely everything myself starting with track gauges. I guess my thinking is that if I'm going to have to build my own pointwork anyway, and most of the locos I need want will be scratchbuilt (J27, J21, J35, J36, D34, D30, G5), then pushing the gauge out half a mil or so doesn't add massively to the workload. And just try finding track gauges for 9mm code 40.
DJM Dave - I dunno. Ready to lay finescale track sounds good in theory, problem is that it ends up being yet another skill that people no longer need to acquire. I just revived my long-abandoned blog with an extended rant on this subject, which as an RTR manufacturer you are free to disagree with entirely :)
http://belstone9mm.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/were-doomed.html (http://belstone9mm.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/were-doomed.html)
Quote from: belstone on May 11, 2016, 02:39:25 PM
DJM Dave - I dunno. Ready to lay finescale track sounds good in theory, problem is that it ends up being yet another skill that people no longer need to acquire. I just revived my long-abandoned blog with an extended rant on this subject, which as an RTR manufacturer you are free to disagree with entirely :)
http://belstone9mm.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/were-doomed.html (http://belstone9mm.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/were-doomed.html)
Personally I'm disgusted that self-styled "scratchbuilders" aren't winding their own motors, rolling their own rails, processing the crude oil required for plastic parts or mining the copper for their layout wiring. Yet more skills that are falling victim to mass production... We're doomed, I say, doomed.
Or look at it the other way... all this RTR (or in the case of tracks, scenery etc. Ready-To-Plonk) stuff could be drawing people into the hobby who might otherwise give up in frustration at the effort involved. Personally, speaking as someone who reentered the hobby not long before a very time-consuming baby came along, I remember setting up a loop of Kato track and being amazed by the ease I could run trains with (especially compared to childhood OO gauge), and from that has developed an interest which is - despite limited time - diversifying towards kitbashing stuff, modifying/repairing RTR stock, putting "make my own track" on the long-term todo list should I ever reacquire the mythical "free time at weekends" etcetera. Had the requirement to run trains been "build all my own stuff from lumps of coal and old tin cans like Bill Pringles did in 19thirtyeighteen", I wouldn't be a member of this forum (heck, the forum probably wouldn't exist, there'd probably just be a group of real modellers sending mimeographed bulletins to each other).
Quote from: railsquid on May 11, 2016, 03:29:22 PM
Personally I'm disgusted that self-styled "scratchbuilders" aren't winding their own motors, rolling their own rails, processing the crude oil required for plastic parts or mining the copper for their layout wiring. Yet more skills that are falling victim to mass production... We're doomed, I say, doomed.
Or look at it the other way... all this RTR (or in the case of tracks, scenery etc. Ready-To-Plonk) stuff could be drawing people into the hobby who might otherwise give up in frustration at the effort involved. Personally, speaking as someone who reentered the hobby not long before a very time-consuming baby came along, I remember setting up a loop of Kato track and being amazed by the ease I could run trains with (especially compared to childhood OO gauge), and from that has developed an interest which is - despite limited time - diversifying towards kitbashing stuff, modifying/repairing RTR stock, putting "make my own track" on the long-term todo list should I ever reacquire the mythical "free time at weekends" etcetera. Had the requirement to run trains been "build all my own stuff from lumps of coal and old tin cans like Bill Pringles did in 19thirtyeighteen", I wouldn't be a member of this forum (heck, the forum probably wouldn't exist, there'd probably just be a group of real modellers sending mimeographed bulletins to each other).
I'm not saying there is any requirement to build everything or indeed anything yourself. If your main aim in building a layout is to see trains run, great. The problem I see there is that on the average layout it doesn't take too long to exhaust all the operational possibilities, and what then? Well, you could always buy more trains... I volunteered a couple of times as an operator on a club exhibition layout. Great, spend the whole day running trains, what could be nicer? After an hour I was bored. Two hours in and I was so bored that I even started talking to members of the public. After three hours I was hoping that a member of the public would turn up with a dog on a lead, so I could talk about dogs rather than trains. And there were still three hours to go.
(Vision of hell: operating a diesel depot layout with DCC sound and LED lighting at a two-day show. Bring Migraleve. And whisky.)
You're right, I'm sure the desperately pretty little models in the glass display cases draw new people into the hobby, and it is vitally important that they aren't put off by stuff that doesn't work, is too fiddly or needs skills they have yet to acquire. But how do we make sure those people stay in the hobby for life? That's what I mean when I talk about encouraging people to develop new skills. The question is, how do you do that when, as you say, most people have very limited free time and will happily take any short-cut they are offered? I don't know the answer to that.
Richard
Quote from: belstone on May 11, 2016, 02:39:25 PM
Some good points: my layout plan combines a nice sweeping 2' radius curve through the scenic area with tight 9" in the bits you can't see. I think 9.42 on NEM wheels at 7.85mm back to back would cope with 9", not so sure about 2mm FS. It's asking a lot of scale depth flanges. I'm not really fixated on gauge, otherwise I'd go for 9.7mm and do absolutely everything myself starting with track gauges. I guess my thinking is that if I'm going to have to build my own pointwork anyway, and most of the locos I need want will be scratchbuilt (J27, J21, J35, J36, D34, D30, G5), then pushing the gauge out half a mil or so doesn't add massively to the workload. And just try finding track gauges for 9mm code 40.
My understanding is that the minimum radius for 2mm FS is 24 in if you want to run things like 0-6-0s, which is quite a drawback as my Peco 55/80 layout which I'm thinking of converting to 2mm FS standards also has 9in curves in the hidden sections. i've currently been playing around building copper clad sleeper points to 9.42 mm gauge, but with the flangeways & checkrails set to support N gauge stock, with the idea that these could converted to support 2mm FS standard stock by adjusting the position of these to narrow the clearances. The main reason I'd want to convert is because it seems a lot easier to get reasonable looking steam loco wheels to allow me to build my own locos
Richard
Quote from: Ricardus Harfelde on May 11, 2016, 10:32:16 PM
My understanding is that the minimum radius for 2mm FS is 24 in if you want to run things like 0-6-0s, which is quite a drawback as my Peco 55/80 layout which I'm thinking of converting to 2mm FS standards also has 9in curves in the hidden sections. i've currently been playing around building copper clad sleeper points to 9.42 mm gauge, but with the flangeways & checkrails set to support N gauge stock, with the idea that these could converted to support 2mm FS standard stock by adjusting the position of these to narrow the clearances. The main reason I'd want to convert is because it seems a lot easier to get reasonable looking steam loco wheels to allow me to build my own locos
Richard
After the hassle I've had this evening with the 2P's wheels I'm starting to wonder if 2mm FS might actually be easier. That locking compound I used to secure the wheels is rubbish, so the quartering slipped again. Farish push-fit crankpins, as I have now found, don't like being removed and refitted multiple times. They go wonky. Then I dropped a crankpin on the floor and can't find it. I can't decide whether to do an all-nighter and get the thing to work, or go to bed in a bad mood. And everything was going so well until I fitted the coupling rods...
Richard
[/quote]
Removing wheels repeatedly from Poole axles is not recommended (as I said earlier, though it was more aimed at early Dapol) - the Poole wheels originally are heat treated onto the axles and therefore never loose quartering. Taking a wheel off breaks this, so you can refit, but only limited number of times. I've neve used locking compound, mainly as I'm sure it's of little value given the tiny size of the contact surface area between axle and wheel - it would need a more potent adhesive (never good) or a new splined axle.
Generally Poole quartering from that era (early 80s) is spot on anyway, so it's rarely necessary - the late Poole production (mid to late 90s) was more variable, or substituting different parts produced at different times can give issues, even if they are nominally the same.
Cheers,
Alan
Having converted a Farish Jinty and 4F to 2FS using the 2mm SA conversion parts the smallest radius I have been able to persuade them to cope with is 12" minimum. This is 9.42 gauge widened soldered track (produced using a 3-point track gauge). Without gauge widening the minimum is about 15-16". As these are just simple inside cylinder 0-6-0's the minimal 24" radius figure is a good basic guide for most steam locos and especially larger/outside cylinder ones. I haven't had issues with any 2FS diesel/DMU down to 12" radius (non-gauge widened). I don't know as I have never tried, but I would think 9" radius might be a problem for some.
I do not believe the N wheel and track standards using 9.42 would work overall because it might prove difficult to widen the b-t-b of all N gauge stock - particularly the newer designs - by 0.42, as there often isn't the clearance needed between the solebars. Conversion of stock to use 2FS wheels generally works as the thinner wheels offset the wider b-t-b used. Indeed 2FS wheelsets are about 11.2mm to outside faces while Farish/Parkside Dundas N are 11.4/11.6mm.
As the N gauge track and wheel standards were primarily arranged to allow all loco types to cope with very small radius i.e. down to 9" and sometimes smaller, I would suggest that you face a choice between sticking with N standards on 9mm track, and using 2FS with the restrictions that apply.
Izzy
Quote from: Izzy on May 12, 2016, 09:41:59 AM
Having converted a Farish Jinty and 4F to 2FS using the 2mm SA conversion parts the smallest radius I have been able to persuade them to cope with is 12" minimum. This is 9.42 gauge widened soldered track (produced using a 3-point track gauge). Without gauge widening the minimum is about 15-16". As these are just simple inside cylinder 0-6-0's the minimal 24" radius figure is a good basic guide for most steam locos and especially larger/outside cylinder ones. I haven't had issues with any 2FS diesel/DMU down to 12" radius (non-gauge widened). I don't know as I have never tried, but I would think 9" radius might be a problem for some.
I do not believe the N wheel and track standards using 9.42 would work overall because it might prove difficult to widen the b-t-b of all N gauge stock - particularly the newer designs - by 0.42, as there often isn't the clearance needed between the solebars. Conversion of stock to use 2FS wheels generally works as the thinner wheels offset the wider b-t-b used. Indeed 2FS wheelsets are about 11.2mm to outside faces while Farish/Parkside Dundas N are 11.4/11.6mm.
As the N gauge track and wheel standards were primarily arranged to allow all loco types to cope with very small radius i.e. down to 9" and sometimes smaller, I would suggest that you face a choice between sticking with N standards on 9mm track, and using 2FS with the restrictions that apply.
Izzy
The solebar clearance isn't as bad as you might think. as 2mm FS has a much wider back to back compared to N than the difference in track gauge would suggest. 9.42 on NEM wheels would be around 7.85mm B to B compared with 8.51mm for 2mm FS. I tried regauging a couple of Farish wagon wheelsets to 7.85 and there was still plenty of clearance, but this might not apply to all models. Thanks for the input on 2mm FS and sharp curves. I do wonder whether it would work if you narrowed the B to B and widened the check and wing rail clearances to compensate, but those wheel treads are pretty narrow and I suspect you can't shift the dimensions too far before the wheels start dropping into the middle of the frog, which kind of defeats the whole point of the 2mm FS wheel and track standard. Given a choice between 2mm FS and a continuous run I'll take the latter. I'm bored with building branch terminus layouts.
Richard