Paul Boyd
Member
- Location
- Loughborough, UK
You may be aware that I'm currently building a layout to a track standard I'm calling S4n2 - 7.83mm gauge, using 2mm Scale Association track and wheel standards. This is going well, except... I'm simply not getting locos finished fast enough because of the time taken modifying kits to these standards - something I enjoy but we all have a finite lifespan! Also, when I started this project 20+ years ago (!!), the idea that one day there would be excellent RTR 009 stock available would have been laughable. I'm reluctant to even attempt to modify the RTR 009 I do have to S4n2. So, I'm doing a feasibility study on effectively starting again but using N gauge standards...
Ok, there aren't any! Well, there seem to be two actual standards - NMRA and NEM. I've downloaded and digested both standards for track and wheels for 9mm gauge. Essentially, NMRA B-B is 7.55-7.7mm, span 7.44-7.52mm (they don't really like mm, but inches to 3DP gives equally silly numbers). NEM-310 B-B is 7.4-7.6mm, span 7.2-7.3mm. Flange thickness for both is (or can be) 0.5mm. Measuring wheels seems to suggest the following:-
Bachmann 009 is nearly NEM, depending on the loco and specific wheel set.
Heljan 009 is NMRA-ish (but large variations across five axles of the same loco!)
Peco 009 bugboxes - none of the above.
Dapol N gauge seems to be NMRA (and they state this for newer models)
Farish N-gauge is sort of NEM-ish.
Dundas etc 009 kit wheels can be adjusted for NMRA or NEM.
Backwoods Miniatures loco kits have a mixture of wheels even between different boxings of the same kit - fortunately I kept the kit wheels but some are too coarse.
Most flanges are 0.5mm thick. Some are 0.6mm which complies with NEM but not NMRA.
I intend to build my own track as there's no way I want flangeways and crossing gaps you could lose a loco in. This will almost certainly mean NMRA standards, and I'm going to grit my teeth over the gauge discrepancy for 2ft narrow gauge. It will also mean that much unmodified RTR 009 won't run on it because of the too tight back-to-back gauge.
How do the N-gauge people handle this utter mish-mash of different track and wheel standards? Does anyone build their own track to either of the above standards? If so, it looks like NEM might be the better option. I've not yet joined the N Gauge Society although I intend to for another project. I've browsed this forum and the archive, and I'm aware of the Finetrax standards used but I'd prefer to use a recognised standard. I'm also quite happy turning my own gauges as necessary.
I'm not averse to shoving wheels out on axles for RTR stuff, and more gritting of teeth to rebuild those locos and chassis that I've built to S4n2. Some of the built S4n2 track will get reused on a small 'Borth-y-Gest' style layout I have in mind so I won't abandon that scale altogether.
Finally, if I go ahead with this using NMRA 9mm gauge standards, it isn't 009! Calling it 009 implies I could take an RTR 009 loco out of the box and run it, but that may not be true except on plain track. What should it be called? I feel there should be a '4' in the name somewhere!
Cheers,
Paul
Ok, there aren't any! Well, there seem to be two actual standards - NMRA and NEM. I've downloaded and digested both standards for track and wheels for 9mm gauge. Essentially, NMRA B-B is 7.55-7.7mm, span 7.44-7.52mm (they don't really like mm, but inches to 3DP gives equally silly numbers). NEM-310 B-B is 7.4-7.6mm, span 7.2-7.3mm. Flange thickness for both is (or can be) 0.5mm. Measuring wheels seems to suggest the following:-
Bachmann 009 is nearly NEM, depending on the loco and specific wheel set.
Heljan 009 is NMRA-ish (but large variations across five axles of the same loco!)
Peco 009 bugboxes - none of the above.
Dapol N gauge seems to be NMRA (and they state this for newer models)
Farish N-gauge is sort of NEM-ish.
Dundas etc 009 kit wheels can be adjusted for NMRA or NEM.
Backwoods Miniatures loco kits have a mixture of wheels even between different boxings of the same kit - fortunately I kept the kit wheels but some are too coarse.
Most flanges are 0.5mm thick. Some are 0.6mm which complies with NEM but not NMRA.
I intend to build my own track as there's no way I want flangeways and crossing gaps you could lose a loco in. This will almost certainly mean NMRA standards, and I'm going to grit my teeth over the gauge discrepancy for 2ft narrow gauge. It will also mean that much unmodified RTR 009 won't run on it because of the too tight back-to-back gauge.
How do the N-gauge people handle this utter mish-mash of different track and wheel standards? Does anyone build their own track to either of the above standards? If so, it looks like NEM might be the better option. I've not yet joined the N Gauge Society although I intend to for another project. I've browsed this forum and the archive, and I'm aware of the Finetrax standards used but I'd prefer to use a recognised standard. I'm also quite happy turning my own gauges as necessary.
I'm not averse to shoving wheels out on axles for RTR stuff, and more gritting of teeth to rebuild those locos and chassis that I've built to S4n2. Some of the built S4n2 track will get reused on a small 'Borth-y-Gest' style layout I have in mind so I won't abandon that scale altogether.
Finally, if I go ahead with this using NMRA 9mm gauge standards, it isn't 009! Calling it 009 implies I could take an RTR 009 loco out of the box and run it, but that may not be true except on plain track. What should it be called? I feel there should be a '4' in the name somewhere!
Cheers,
Paul
message ref: 5857