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.

I think we need another N gauge like a moose needs a hatrack........ 

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   

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   

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  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.