Steve Cook
Flying Squad
Fair enough 
Its only code 40 rail though, the hardest bit is holding it in position for filing
Its only code 40 rail though, the hardest bit is holding it in position for filing
2mm Cookie's 2mm exploits - Painting
- Thread starter Steve Cook
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2mm
JimG
Western Thunderer
Fair enough
Its only code 40 rail though, the hardest bit is holding it in position for filing
If your talking about Code 40 FB, I scored a slit in a bit of pine stock with a Stanley knife so that the base fitted in it and the upper part of the rail lay flat on the wood. I clamped the rail with a toolmaker's clamp to hold it steady. I then used a second cut, eight inch flat file, which took about three or four strokes on Code 40 FB.
Jim.
Phill Dyson
Western Thunderer
For the more discerning 2mm diesel types, Class 22,35,42 & 52 are available/will soon be available
Blue Pullman looks great too !
Phill
queensquare
Western Thunderer
Ha Ha Simon, he's mine now.........
In short, for diesels, most of the Farish range can be converted in minutes using drop in wheels. Dapol, which use a system of split axle and pinpoint pickups, take a little more work but are still pretty easy. The Association, via one of its members, offers a wheel turning service for not very much money at all. The Hymek below is Dapol with the wheels turned, body lowered, buffer beam detailed and weathered.
For all you Hydraulic fans, I have also converted a Farish Warship, and have almost finished a Teddy Bear. With a Western and a 22 promised in the new year there's never been a better time to go 2FS.
Keep it going Cookie, I think a few of them are ready to crack!!
Jerry
In short, for diesels, most of the Farish range can be converted in minutes using drop in wheels. Dapol, which use a system of split axle and pinpoint pickups, take a little more work but are still pretty easy. The Association, via one of its members, offers a wheel turning service for not very much money at all. The Hymek below is Dapol with the wheels turned, body lowered, buffer beam detailed and weathered.
For all you Hydraulic fans, I have also converted a Farish Warship, and have almost finished a Teddy Bear. With a Western and a 22 promised in the new year there's never been a better time to go 2FS.
Keep it going Cookie, I think a few of them are ready to crack!!
Jerry
28ten
Guv'nor
I think it is a question of what you want, if you are after the overall picture or you want to model a large station/ area then it is a good way to go, but if you want to get a bit more intimate then i think larger scales are more suitable. One thing you do get is proper depth to the scene, which you dont get in larger scales unless you can manage 6ft wide boards.
queensquare
Western Thunderer
Very true.
Not many years ago, that photo would've been assumed to be 4mm scale. Regardless of my own view about the actual size of the models, N has come a long way recently - I say N because as far as I can tell, that Dapol Hymek is unmodified R-T-R, except the change of wheels to 2mmFS. The FS trackwork speaks for itself.
Hi Jordan,
its not N. N refers to the gauge - 'N'ine mm. N scale is a variable beast depending on whether it is British, American, Continental or Japanese. The model is built to 2mm scale.
The Hymek body is to 1;148 but, as I say in the post, as well as the wheels being turned down, the body has been lowered and the buffer beam altered and detailed so it is far from being unmodified RTR. The difference between British N (1;148) and 2mm (1:152) is negligible and the vast majority of 2mm modellers simply ignore it. Therefore, to refer to the picture as N is like refering to a P4 picture as 00 simply because it is an RTR model that has been re-wheeled.
Sorry to go on but we go to a lot of trouble in 2mm to get away from that N gauge look.
Jerry
alcazar
Guest
Probably due to compatability and track standards.
Does it really matter though? Certainly NOT worth getting worked up about (at least on this thread
Yes, I think it does matter.
It certainly puts people off N Gauge, and surely, even with track compatibility in mind, such dimensional INaccuracies are way over the top?
Personally I could live with the track, it being closer to scale gauge than "OO", for example, but those wheels......and steamers are/look worse.
JimG
Western Thunderer
Yes, I think it does matter.
It certainly puts people off N Gauge, and surely, even with track compatibility in mind, such dimensional INaccuracies are way over the top?
Personally I could live with the track, it being closer to scale gauge than "OO", for example, but those wheels......and steamers are/look worse.
There is a way out for N scale modeller of US or European outline and that is to work to FS160 standards which is, basically, 2mmFS standards pushed in to 9mm gauge and using 2mmFS wheel standards. A lot of 2mmFS parts can be used to convert models, or you can turn down N scale wheels to suit the standard. There's a fair following for FS160 in Europe and they have a web site here.
jim.
Steph Dale
Western Thunderer
Jim,
Aah, that's much more like it; proper hydraulics rather than the Western region rubbish... !
Steph
Aah, that's much more like it; proper hydraulics rather than the Western region rubbish... !
Steph
Steve Cook
Flying Squad
Fair enough, you have your opinion and I have mine - I doubt we shall ever agree with each others viewpoint so we'll have to agree to disagree
Steve
Steve Cook
Flying Squad
Put the spoon down Steph
Phill Dyson
Western Thunderer
I'm not bitingPut the spoon down Steph
Phill Dyson
Western Thunderer
While I very much admire the skill involved in 2mm trackwork (those points look wonderful SteveFair enough, you have your opinion and I have mine - I doubt we shall ever agree with each others viewpoint so we'll have to agree to disagree
Steve
) , for a larger diesel layout I think I would be tempted to go with N gauge
S
Simon Dunkley
Guest
Steve Cook
Flying Squad
Go for itWhile I very much admire the skill involved in 2mm trackwork (those points look wonderful Steve
If you need a little nudge let me know
D
David Long
Guest
Yes but up to a point. To take examples from my own chosen mid-1960s period:
16T Mineral Wagons - three main options. Stephen Harris etched kit, 2mmAssoc plastic body/etched u'frame (both 1:152) and BachFarish RTR (1:148). First two ok to run together and the BachFarish (with a wheel change) version could be used exclusively but it would be inadviseable to mix the 1:152 wagons with the 1:148 versions as the difference in size would be obvious.
12T vans - an obvious feature of the mixture of BR and 'Big Four' is the differing heights and roof profiles. In order to maintain these characteristics I would suggest not mixing scales within a collection of these vehicles. In my case I have standardised on 1:148 vehicles for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the quality of body kits produced, mostly by Parkside, for the NGS and Parkwood Models are vastly superior to those produced by Cambrian for the 2mm Association. Secondly is the not insignificant fact that for my time period the range of 1:148 body kits enables me to replicate more accurately the mix of van types prevalent at the time. All these bodies are combined with the excellent range of etched underframes produced by the 2mm Association.
I run the 1:152 mineral wagons in the same consist as the 1:148 vans and the difference in scale is not noticeable. The answer is, I believe, to be pragmatic and examine the options of vehicles available but also be careful about the combinations of vehicles that you use together.
David
alcazar
Guest
Does anyone know if HO modellers have the same "problems" as UK OO modellers: the many choices of gauge/scale?
And do foreign modellers of "N" gauge have our mix of scales/gauges?
I went over to 7mm becfause I thought it was simple: coarse or fine scale. Not any more...
Is this a UK thing?
And do foreign modellers of "N" gauge have our mix of scales/gauges?
I went over to 7mm becfause I thought it was simple: coarse or fine scale. Not any more...
Is this a UK thing?
D
David Long
Guest
There are three international scales that are recognised as N scale. Most of the world uses 1:160 which equates to a true track gauge of 8.97mm, hence the rounding up to 9mm (Nine millimeteres). Japan uses 1:150 on 9mm track and the UK uses 1:148 on 9mm track which is the worst combination. The 2mm Scale Association, founded in 1960, which pre-dates all this messing about is 1:152 on 9.42mm track. It does, of course, have similarities to the HO/OO and 3.5mm/4mm farce which baffles most of the rest of the world. As far as I know HO always uses the scale of 1:87 but there are various track and wheel standards with P87 being the equivalent of our own P4.
I think that you will also find that your treasured 7mm scale of 1:43.5 is interpreted in North America as 1:48. So much for standardisation.
Wherever two or three or more males of the species be gathered together there will always be pleasant joshing about the one true way . . .
David
Steph Dale
Western Thunderer
No, we HO modellers don't. It's 16.5mm gauge, 1:87.1, 3.5mm/ft, whichever standard is used. I can happily run P87, RP25-110 and RP25-88 stock on the same layout if care is taken with set up.
Steph
alcazar
Guest
The American standards didn't bother me, since I have no interest in modelling US stuff.
the plethora of scales, gauges, etc in 2mm, 4mm and 7mm is driving me bonkers, and so far, I've produced nowt.....at least not in my chosen 7mm scale, simply because I cannot decide what gauge to use, (or combination of gauges, since that seems to be the problem now).
the plethora of scales, gauges, etc in 2mm, 4mm and 7mm is driving me bonkers, and so far, I've produced nowt.....at least not in my chosen 7mm scale, simply because I cannot decide what gauge to use, (or combination of gauges, since that seems to be the problem now).