C&L 'turnout-in-a-bag' kits in 7mm scale (O gauge)

[David Siddall]

Part 1: In which I discover just how little I know about turnouts and turnout construction!

 

For reasons which still confound me I've been asked to put together a digest of the turnout construction experiences which form a part of my rambling 'First tentative steps' thread in the '7mm+ modelling' section of RMWeb. If you do read on please understand that that which follows really is nothing more than the (slightly tongue-in-cheek) record of the thoughts and experiences of a complete beginner, from starting out to the point at which, (sorry... the pun is almost impossible to avoid) I'd actually built a couple of turnouts. One thing it absolutely is not is an attempt to encourage anyone do anything the way that I've done it. Neither is it an endorsement of any particular product or an indictment of any other. Hopefully though what follows might just add a little anecdotal information to a topic covered in far greater depth by some far more experienced and capable modellers than me.

 

For a kick-off, my conversion to 7mm scale (O gauge) is something that only happened recently. I've constructed numerous layouts in both 2mm and 4mm scale over the years, some small, some spacious (probably about half of them finished!) and some with which I've even been quite pleased. The common factor to all of them however was that they featured ready-to-lay track. Of course, I've always been aware of '7-mil' and hand-built track and I've frequently been inspired by some of the magnificent models produced in the 'senior' scale – but I've never felt sufficiently motivated to make the transition until recently.

 

So what was it that made me finally make up my mind to change? Well it goes like this... I wanted to 1) built my own track so that it looked right; and 2) surround it with prototypically accurate infrastructure, featuring loads of lovely visible detail that'll work in a prototypical manner. It was actually a YouTube video of a

that did it for me – a couple of views and I was hooked. Ditto a video of

(likewise on YouTube) which proved to me that a compact but operationally interesting layout, in the sort of space normally thought of as suited to the smaller scales, could be both an achievable and appealing proposition. I also had the feeling that in 7-mil scale there was at least a chance that my distinctly average modelling skills could realise some of the ideas which previously had only made it to the 'aspirational' stage, and that as my close vision really is now starting to suffer from a working lifetime over drawing-boards and in front of computer screens, I might actually be able to appreciate the outcome.

 

Anyhow... where to start? Well, to be honest, it had to be with a turnout didn't it? If I couldn't build one that worked properly then the whole idea of hand-built trackwork was a bit academic. Fortunately there are numerous forum threads and magazine articles on the subject but after extensive immersion in both I found myself inexorably beginning to suffer from information overload without any significant increase in my levels of understanding! With no disrespect intended it was all a bit too technical for my level of experience.

 

For the complete beginner – and that's precisely what I was (am) when it comes to track construction – I found an awful lot of the teccy stuff going straight over my head without even paying me the courtesy of knocking to see if there was anyone in on the way past! As a result, I started to get a bit disheartened so I decided to compromise – I'd have to rely on kits! Now I know this concept is considered unnecessary by some modellers but it was 'my' first big step forward. There was only one proviso... that any choice (for me), would need to minimise any requirement for soldering. If the future of the human race depended on my ability to join two pieces of nickel-silver I'm afraid folks that we'd all be in deep, deep trouble! So what were the choices? C&L, Exactoscale or Marcway? Well, Marcway point kits (though apparently economical by comparison with the others) ruled themselves out on the grounds that their rail is soldered directly to copper-clad sleepers. I wanted chaired track and I can't solder... so not for me (...though I've seen some superb formations constructed in this manner).

 

The Exactoscale approach, on the other hand, felt all a bit too teccy for me as a complete beginner as indeed did C&L's – until I discovered the latter's 'turnout-in-a-bag' kits! A complete kit which included all the components required and, most importantly, a ready-made crossing-vee (that's 'common crossing' to the cognoscenti and, in my opinion, the most important component in a turnout to get just right!). I subsequently discovered that a little bit of soldering 'was' required to construct the tie bars in these kits but more about that in due course. Everything else involved using adhesives to assemble supplied components, to a plan, using a bit of common sense. OK, in my case the latter might have been a challenge but fortunately not a lot was required! I also spent quite a fair amount of time on the phone to the C&L team who were incredibly patient and helpful – even though some of my questions must surely have suggested I was definitely erring on the side of the 'hard of understanding'!

 

Talking of 'plans' there is one aspect of this turnout construction business that I've chosen to avoid and that's designing them myself and creating my own templates. Whilst I seriously admire those who can and do, this still isn't for me – maybe one day but not yet! So far I've only created what are effectively 'stock' turnouts based on C&L's paper templates and they're straight. I did start with grand ideas involving curved turnouts but decided to adapt my trackplan to give the 'impression' of a curving formation.

 

 

The planning software I used was AnyRail and I found its C&L turnout library immensely helpful when it came to visualising my layout ideas to scale and choosing my turnout sizes. However I should make clear that if I'd wanted to create bespoke turnouts to suit individual locations I'd have needed to use Templot, the trackwork design software so ably developed and promoted by Martin Wynne.

 

Now just quickly (because Templot seems to generate an awful lot of debate) I'm going to skim over this and move on. The reason I didn't use Templot was based on my complete lack of technical knowledge about turnouts (in either prototype or model form). It was a question of choosing my horse and my course. I felt (and indeed still feel having now built all of two turnouts), that I've got more than enough skill-building to do in the trackwork construction department without the need to add learning yet more software to the challenge. At the time I started this adventure I'd also just taken on a new suite of professional graphic design software and learning that was quite sufficient! Modelling, from my perspective, is about minimising the amount of time I spend in front of computers in favour of doing something enjoyable and practical. If you want to hear folks sing the wholeheartedly deserved praises of Templot, and admire the superb track formations they've built as a result of using it, then I'd encourage you search out their on-line content. You should also check out the Templot website thoroughly – the deeper you look the more you'll discover!

 

OK... so back to C&L's 'turnouts-in-a-bag'. These I discovered could be purchased in a range of sizes (more on that in due course too) with either individual moulded plastic sleepers or 'Timbertracks' laser-cut plywood sleeper bases – I chose the latter. Timbertracks bases seem to me to a be a straight-forward way of tackling the challenge and I like the idea of real timber sleepers, they are also fairly rigid but 'can' be flexed ...however, unless you're able to predetermine the final radius of the diverging track the result might end up too tight for anything other than a short-wheelbase wagon ...that's why I stuck to 'straight' ones! Timbertracks bases can also be fixed onto the baseboard – yet another way to plan track formations – and the track laid on top afterwards but I chose to build off-baseboard (...well I didn't actually have a any baseboards so the outcome was all a bit 'Hobson's Choice' as it happened!). I've subsequently found this off-baseboard approach to be a good call for me as the surrounding framework and webs between the sleepers proved to be robust enough to allow me to handle my turnouts during construction in all sorts of unforeseen ways ...including dropping them!

 

A key issue which I needed to consider prior to purchasing my first kit was the relationship between turnout size and the radius of the diverging track. If you understand how real life turnouts are designed and constructed, and the maths (which I absolutely don't) it's apparently all pretty straight-forward, however I'll try and summarise the very basic level of understanding I've garnered so far. Turnouts are classified 'A', 'B' (and quite possibly C to Z as well for all I know) with a numerical suffix. The classification seems to relate to their physical size which is basically determined by the radius of the diverging track. My beginners rule-of-thumb is that a B6, for example, will feature a gentler diverging radius than an A5 and that the 'B' turnout will be physically longer overall than the 'A'. Placing the paper templates for a pair of 7mm B6s together in the form of a cross-over revealed an overall length requirement of nigh on 40" (just over 1000 mm for those who think in metric) so it very quickly became apparent that my choice of turnout size would be important to ensure I didn't end up with a layout that was all turnouts and no running line. I can run to three 6' x 2' 6' baseboards and that's my lot (including fiddle yard)!

 

The following diagram was my attempt to create a super-simplified visual summary which highlighted the amount of space some of the most commonly discussed turnout sizes would consume. Lengths are for '7mm scale (O Gauge) but radii seemed to be a bit of a minefield so I relied on the C&L website which quotes A4s as 5' 7", A5s as 6' 7" and B6s as 8' 1" (all approx.). There are more turnout sizes and radii in their 7mm 'turnout-in-a-bag' section.

 

 

So what size turnouts did I choose? Well, in truth, my plan chose for me on the basis of the space constraints described earlier so I've gone with A5s throughout. Some folks say this'll be a bit tight radius-wise but I'm talking nothing larger than Bo-Bo diesels and 6-coupled motive power so I think (hope) they'll be OK? It would also appear (to my eyes anyway) that an A5 isn't a million miles away from Peco's 'O Gauge' medium turnout which serve countless successful layouts so fingers crossed. Again, a fair generalisation would be to describe my understanding as being that in real life 'A' series turnouts and anything with a suffix of less than '6' would have been for yard use only where space was at a premium, and that running lines would have featured the gentlest radius/largest size that could be accommodated within the available space. There are apparently hybrid turnouts and 'heel switches' (two-part blades) as well but since I'd have had to design them myself any such ideas were discounted in the search for the 'simples' approach. Standard turnouts sizes are available in both paper template form and as Timbertracks bases so that's what I settled for.

 

Now before I get on to the really interesting bit the following is a quick (but by no means comprehensive or all-encompassing) round-up of how I feel about some of the key issues I had to consider before I went ahead and placed my first order...

 

How much were these turnouts going to cost? A C&L turnout-in-a-bag kit isn't a cheap alternative to any other form of turnout (ready-to-lay included) however, in my opinion, a combination of their quality, completeness, the outcomes I've achieved and the helpfulness of the people at C&L makes them excellent value for money. Left-over components and the track gauges that came with my first turnout kit have been used for number two and so on and so on so the actual cost per turnout will reduce as I build more. If I was sufficiently confident to create my own 'vee's and file my own blades the cost would reduce still further.

 

How difficult could it be? I made some mistakes with the first kit but that was mainly due to failing to understand how prototype turnouts were put together and to ignoring a really important piece of advice concerning where to start in the supplementary 'Timbertracks' instructions. I decided to follow received wisdom from online sources but I shouldn't have! There's a reason that particular piece of advice is included – I'll describe why in more detail in a subsequent instalment – fortunately the error was reversible and the fact that I have completed two turnouts relatively quickly (by my positively glacial standards anyway), and to a standard with which I'm extremely happy should I hope speak for itself.

 

Could I get my head round the 'gauge preference' considerations? C&L's '7mm/O gauge Fine' kits are based on separating the running rails by 32mm. This gauge, even though I understand it to be the standard, can according to some modellers, result in smaller-diameter wheels dropping as they pass over the crossing gap and as a consequence they favour 31.5mm separation over the 'vee'. Now I've not experience the 'wheel-drop' problem to date and creating 31.5mm 'vees' would involve deploying a soldering iron so I haven't tried it – singed fingers and profanity are so not my favourite aspect of modelling! For anyone wanting to try, RMW contributor 'Debs' produces 31.5mm roller-gauges under her 'Speciality Gauge Products' branding which contributes to the 'Dogs' Trust' canine charity – this in itself, from a personal point of view, is almost sufficient justification for teaching myself how to solder properly ;-)

 

Would these apparently straight-forward kits fulfil my aspirations for prototypical accuracy? Even though I'm using A5s on running lines, and as a result my formations are rather more compact than some modellers would feel comfortable with, they look suspiciously like prototype turnouts to me. Whilst I'm still battling with the Ambis tie-bars, and have settled on a slightly simpler 'half-way-house' solution based on advice from RMWeb contributor 'dikitriki', even this feature of my turnouts looks considerably more 'prototypical' than anything I've ever modelled before ....so I think I can answer 'yes' to this question (thankfully :-)

[David Siddall]

Part 2: What came in my 'turnout-in-a-bag kit and what tools did I need to build it?

 

 

The photo above shows my first purchase after removal from the 'bag' (...if you're peering at the prices it was bought in December 2011), and it featured:

• Plain running rail
  
• Pre-planed blades
  
• A pre-assembled crossing 'vee'
  
• A paper template of my chosen turnout size
  
• A bag of standard and slide chairs
  
• A couple of sprues of C&L's two-part, cosmetic, moulded fishplates
  
• Ambis tie-bar components (these are the bits that need careful soldering!)
  
• Roller gauges (x4) to my chosen gauge – 'O Fine'.
  
• Sleepers: In my case a 'Timbertracks' laser-cut, A5 base in plywood. The kit can also be ordered with C&L's individual moulded sleepers but I haven't tried those yet.
  

To stick the chairs to the sleepers I added a bottle of liquid solvent to my order (C&L supplied a bottle of Butanone). Despite my initial misgivings, Butanone seems to bond moulded chairs to plywood remarkably well – particularly after I learned that pre-soaking the point of contact on the sleeper as well as the chair base really helped. The bond however isn't that strong that anything which ends up going a bit 'Pete Tong' can't be gently prized apart for repositioning using a sharp, rounded scalpel blade.

 

What C&L couldn't supply in 7-mil however are what are called 'bridge chairs'. These are square in plan, have four bolts, and are easily identifiable from the paper template. For my first turnout I created what I needed by cutting slide chairs in half to create the distinctive four-bolt look. I also used this 'cut-and-shut' technique to fabricate the various chairs which locate the 'vee' and check rails. In no way complicated but I suspect a fair few chair halves are still embedded in the carpet having pinged off into space during the chopping process – perhaps that's why C&L supply so many?

 

For my second turnout I bought a supply of 'bridge chairs' from 'Exactoscale' (photos courtesy of 'dikitriki' on RMWeb here) but in retrospect I'm not entirely certain it was 100% worth it – the fabricated variety on turnout number one look pretty good to my eye, particularly from normal viewing distance. The only thoughts I have are that: 1) the moulded 'slide chairs' from Exactoscale are probably a more accurate rendition of the prototype component; and 2) might hold the rail more securely than anything fabricated from two halves of a C&L chair ...but only time and use will tell about the latter. Exactoscale's bullhead rail profile is also (apparently) slightly different from C&L's and this 'can' make fitting their chairs and fishplates to C&L rail a bit of a fiddle. After breaking a couple of Exactoscale chairs I discovered that they needed care and gentle persuasion whereas the C&L variety slid onto the rail without too much fuss unless I encountered the occasional one with a bit of surplus flash on the moulding.

 

The only other thing it turned out I'd need was some really runny 'super-glue'! C&L chairs aren't such a tight fit onto the rail as to ensure that things can't move as construction progresses towards completion but prior to securing the turnout in place on a baseboard. Once I'd removed the surrounding ply framework AND the webs between the sleepers – because, in my opinion, the latter are too substantial to hide with ballast – some of the sleeper/chair combos needed securing in place. 'Super-glue' proved to be the perfect answer provided it was very thin and applied sparingly to the side of each chair so that it found its way into the joint by capillary action. I have a feeling, from reading accounts written by those who've built their turnouts using moulded sleepers, that 'superglue' might make an equally (or possibly more) important contribution during that particular method of construction too.

 

At this stage, and for anyone wondering about the 'workshop skills and tools' side of things, I can assure you I have precious few of the former and illustrated below are the very basic tools (time-served in several scales already) which I found to be all I needed to build both my first two 7-mil turnouts. Did I say basic? Well, you can judge for yourself! The only requisite not shown is my soldering iron – mainly because this photo was taken before I'd started on any tie-bars or electrical bonds).

 

 

Coming next... how I built my first turnout (those moments when it all went a bit 'Pete Tong' included! ;-)

 

 

BFN... David

[RTJ]

David,

 

As one of the guys who encouraged you to do this - very many thanks.

 

Don't be too self-effacing!

 

BW

 

Richard

[David Siddall]

Cheers Richard.. though what I suspect you're generously taking to be 'self-effacement' could actually be better described as my being on a steeper learning curve than a first-time snowboarder contemplating a decent of Everest ;-)

 

David

[David Siddall]

Part 3: In which I make a serious gaff the minute I start and then compound the error by making assumptions – fortunately all cock-ups were reversible!

 

Now please bear in mind that what I'm describing here is the construction of a turnout kit built on a 'Timbertracks' sleeper base, not a kit supplied with individual moulded sleepers... this is important because, as I quickly discovered, the initial stages of construction stage are very different!

 

These differences are quite clearly described in the supplementary 'Timbertracks' instruction sheet but (and this is an unequivocal demonstration of my lack of experience at the time) I chose to ignore them on the basis of the sheer weight of evidence to the contrary to be found online and in print. I also made a couple of assumptions which compounded the cock-up still further (more on that later).

 

The advice I believed to be correct was that when constructing a turnout you start by positioning and securing the straight running rail ('stock' rail) after which you gauge everything else off that. Well, when using individual sleepers that may indeed be the case but when building on a 'Timbertracks' base using a pre-assembled 'vee' a different approach is required – all that was required of me was that I followed the instructions provided (duh!).

 

What I should have therefore done was start by positioning the ready-made 'vee' using the conveniently vee-shaped location guide provided on the timber base ...a bit of a clue had I thought about it! What I actually did however was assumed that the line of webbing between the sleepers was a guide to the location of the straight 'stock' rail and gleefully threaded a load of chairs, secured them in place and then positioned the 'vee' using the kit's roller-gauges. It was at this point I discovered that continuing much further would have resulted in a turnout where the whole formation was seriously off-centre on its sleepers!

 

My first attempt... how NOT to do it!

 

What I do now (having learned the hard way and having had a long chat with my old mate 'hindsight') is work to the paper template. If I had done so at my first attempt and carefully compared base and template it would have immediately become apparent that the webbing isn't a guide to rail positioning at all. I mentioned this to C&L at the 2012 Bristol show and they confirmed that this is something they're aware of and that they may change things in the future.

 

Anyway... whilst Butanone creates an excellent bond between the ply of the base and the moulded chairs it isn't so strong a bond that the two can't be separated by the application of gentle persuasion (I used a sharp curved scalpel blade). Fortunately in my case the chairs came up without damaging the ply surface but this wasn't the case with the 'vee' which I had secured with super-glue. The consequences of prising that off resulted in a minor repair being required to the ply surface – filler and sanding! I now use 'contact adhesive' to initially secure the 'vee' in place whilst the chairs are bonding to the sleepers.

 

Oh yes, and there's one more thing I noticed notice when I sheepishly laid my 'Timbertracks' A5 base over the equivalent C&L template – there's a sleeper missing from either end of the base! I have no idea why but I cut these from the surrounding timber and add them once all four running rails are securely in place. Fortunately the lengths of running rail supplied with my kits have been long enough to allow for the extra sleepers to be added!

 

Just a brief aside on the subject of templates... I have come across on-line correspondence during the course of my research which debates the prototypical accuracy of C&L's templates when compared to Exactoscale's. Not something I can comment on (lack of prototype knowledge again!) but I'm more than happy to carry on working with C&L templates as the turnouts they produce look fine to me – using 'Timbertracks' bases templates are also re-useable!

 

Of the assumptions I referred to earlier one was to take it for granted (erroneously it turns out) that my turnout's chairs would all have their 'keys' pointing in the same direction. Fortunately one of my on-line mentors, Martyn (a.k.a '3link') was able to post some photographs and diagrams of GWR practice which enabled me to produce a more accurate representation at the second attempt. If you're modelling another region hopefully you will be able to find similar assistance?

 

 

The photo above shows my second attempt... having this time followed that all-important instruction about starting with the 'vee' when working off a 'Timbertracks' base! The purpose of the webs between the sleepers is to hold them in their correct position – not to provide a guide for laying the stock rails (you can see how far adrift they are from the (correct-to-template) line of the curved 'stock' rail). Installing the first 'check' rail at this stage was not necessary but it allowed me to experiment with modifying standard chairs.

 

So... step by step this is how I (now) tackle the initial stages – the 'vee' and stock rails. For steps 1–9 I don't find that the base needs to be positioned accurately over the template (I find it actually quite handy to be able to shuffle what I'm working on around). However for steps 10 and 11 I couldn't create and position the curved stock rail without template and base being securely and accurately aligned – the way I do things anyway! I also work on a flat, rigid surface which will accept pins for these two steps – I use a sheet of 10mm MDF, the dining-room table would not be a good idea ;-)

1. By looking at the template I work out exactly what type of chairs should go where (in my case remembering 'two bolts inside the rail, one bolt outside), and how the keys are going to be placed. I've found that numbering the sleepers on the template and base also helps at this stage. I now work out from '0' at the middle if there are more sleepers on the template than the base.
   
2. Next, I fit standard running chairs where shown on the template to the 'vee' (and 'bridge' chairs' now that I have some). For my first turnout however I was working with what came in the 'bag' and so used standard chairs throughout where they fitted, leaving gaps where I'd have to create modified versions to fit tight spaces..
   
3. I then secure the 'vee' in position using contact adhesive (once bitten, etc) on the soldered strips which hold it together underneath, The tip where the running rails join goes over the protruding vee-shaped guide on the base, making sure the straight (not the diverging) running rail of the 'vee' is at 90-degrees to the sleepers. I then flood all chair-to-sleeper joint with solvent and firmly press down for a few seconds to allow the solvent to do its work.
   
4. To ensure the 'vee lies flat (so important for smooth running) I add some card packing so that the ends can't tip and apply weight. It's then a case of resisting the temptation to do anything else until the 'vee' is set solid as everything from here on in will either be gauged off it or relate to its alignment.
   
5. Threading standard running chairs into the straight 'stock' rail comes next making sure the rail section is the right way up – thicker profile uppermost for British 'bullhead' rail – with the keys, in my case for a GWR terminus, opposing each other to minimise rail creep. I have however heard (apocryphally) of a ganger's instruction that the protruding ends of all keys should point in the direction of the river. Yep, ... I had to think about that, and I also got it wrong, see Martin Wynne's rather better explanation here. ;-)
   
6. Now... gauging off the 'vee' I secure the adjacent end of the straight 'stock' rail using a single chair. I then use a steel rule to ensure this rail runs straight down to the other end of the turnout (the 'toe' end) and secure it, again using a single standard chair, to the last sleeper.
   
7. Next I secure all the intervening chairs in place with the steel rule against the inside of the rail to ensure the straight stock rail remains absolutely 'straight' – I also fit the slide chairs and any that I can subsequently chop in situ to make into other varieties at this stage too. I'm not 100% sure that this is the best way to do things but it does ensure (especially as I run thin super-glue into the outside rail-to-chair joints for added security) that I've got a straight running rail that's going to stay where I've put it!
   
8. I've found pre-curving the curved 'stock' rail to be good advice. I do this by holding one end of a piece of straight rail in my left hand and drawing a tightly gripped piece of cloth along it using my right. Adding a little gentle thumb pressure with 'both' hands as I go encourages the rail to adopt a smooth and even curve. Several gentle passes work better for me than one hefty one and I make sure that I compare the curve I've produced to the template as I go (...it's easier to add a bit more curve than eliminate too much!).
   
9. I then add chairs to the curved 'stock' rail using the same principle as step 5.
   
10. The next bit is a lot easier to do than explain but I start by securing the base over the template because I haven't yet been able to figure out a way of correctly positioning the curved 'stock' rail without being able use the template as a guide. To get the rail into the correct position and following the correct curve I set the gauge from the straight stock rail over the first sleeper at the 'toe' end of the turnout and again over the last sleeper at the 'vee' end, finalising the curve in between by adding two more gauges off the 'toe' end of the 'vee' ­ – the photo at the start of this bit shows where I place the four gauges. To ensure the rail between the gauges follows the curve shown on the template I trap it between pairs of Peco track pins driven lightly into the supporting board between the sleepers. I find lumps of BlueTak are also particularly handy at this stage for keeping things in place as the pins only help form and position the curve, they can't stop the rail shuffling back and fore or up and down.
    
11. Once happy with the curve I start securing chairs to sleepers with solvent, working inwards from the both ends. C&L recommend 'sloshing' Butanone around liberally but I've found that whetting the sleepers and making sure solvent can run under the chairs is enough otherwise it's amazing how quickly a bottle of solvent gets used up! Having learned this lesson one bottle of Butanone has so far done me for two turnouts, a pair of 60' plain track panels and two-and-a-half wagon kits with plenty left over! A little gentle pressure on the railhead above each chair once in place will encourage the joint below to form and a little patience (to ensure nothing's going to move) should then be all that's required before adding weight across the full length of the turnout and leaving to set for at least 24 hours – I use a selection of hefty books (of the 'coffee-table' variety) to apply weight evenly over the whole formation. Even after the chair-to-sleeper bonds are set the rail will probably still be free to move lengthwise so this is the point at which I run superglue into the outside rail-to-chair joints – I've found this particularly important with slide chairs on the curved 'stock' rail where the rail can attempt to escape as there's no 'jaw' on the inside of the chair to hold things in place.
    

This the point (sorry, that pun is really unavoidable!) at which a selection of turnout components actually start to look something like a turnout. Next up, how I added the blades and check (wing) rails.

 

Apologies if you find the numbered list above a bit 'heavy' going... so far I have failed to work out how to add a line of space between each one to make it less so. 'Shift + return', which creates a line break in HTML, doesnt seem to work on this board :-/

[hayfield]

I was asked to build an 00 gauge Timber Track kit, there was a couple of problems with the fret supplied in the kit. As you stated the first problem is that the fret did not match up with the C&L plan. Then without checking I assumed that the V mark on the fret was in the center, which is was not.

 

Thirdly once I fitted the stock rails I found that the longer sleepers were not long enough. I think this was a problem with this size and gauge the fret I was using only, as I have not heard of this problem before. On checking the fret / sleeper size, there seemed to be too many of the 1 st 3 size sleepers so the larger sleepers were out of register and the longest ones were therefore missing. However whilst I had to return it the system is first class. But I also prefer to fit the common crossing first which differs from the instructions

[martin_wynne]

I have however heard (apocryphally) of a ganger's instruction that the protruding ends of all keys should point in the direction of the river.

 

Hi David,

 

The rule of thumb for driving keys to resist rail creep is to drive them "towards the rail joint, towards the station, towards the river" -- the latter meaning downhill on a gradient.

 

Note that this means the direction in which the tapered keys are driven (hammered) into the chairs. This means that the protruding end remains sticking out in the opposite direction.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Donw]

You are doing well David. Don't get hung up about small differences there were differences between different railways and probably between different gangers not to mention changes of practice over the years so as long as it looks reasonable and works you could probably find a turnout somewhere to match it! The important bits are the crossing area and where the blades meet the stock rails. The curved blade should have one radius from the end of the planned section known as the switch radius and the closure rail another (apart from certain turnouts where the two match called naturals) but so long as there is a reasonable curve from the end of the planning to the crossing with no kinks it will work. It is more important that the switch and closure rail are to correct gauge from the stock rail than correct to the template. The other important bit if that the blades should fit snuggly against the stock rails.

I wouldn't worry too much about the position of the keys it is cosmetic for us and could be reversed if keys kept falling out.

Don

[bcnPete]

Thanks to set up this separate thread David - its going to come in use in the next couple of months so I will keep re-reading from now on...

[martin_wynne]

Hi David,

Your account didn't make any reference to "setting" the curved stock rail at the switch. I don't know how fully this is covered in the C&L notes, but it's an important detail for beginners to get right, which isn't immediately obvious. Without a proper set in the stock rail, it is almost impossible to align the switch blades to gauge.

Here are some notes of mine about setting the curved stock rail for REA undercut switches which I've posted before, but worth perhaps repeating.

The best picture I can find is this one of 10800's. Here I have marked up the picture:



The common REA bullhead A, B, etc. switches are "semi-curved" designs. For an ordinary straight turnout, that means there is a straight portion over the length of the tapered planing (machining) on the switch blade, and only beyond that the switch rail is curved. Here's a diagram to explain it:



Straight turnout:

To make a size B curved stock rail for a straight turnout, do this:

1. Make two marks on the rail with a fine felt-tip pen, 51.3mm apart in 7mm scale, 29.3mm apart in 4mm scale.

2. At the first mark make the "set", a sharply-defined shallow bend. Sharply-defined means that it is very clearly in one particular place on the rail, a kink, not a curve. Shallow means it is a very slight angle (1:32). It's very easy to overdo the angle, but you can flatten it back by squeezing the rail in flat pliers. Here's a simple way of making the bend:


3. Make sure the section of rail between there and the next mark is dead straight. Don't inadvertently curve it.

4. Beyond the second mark you can gently curve the rail between your fingers.

5. Lay the rail on the template. If it is a Templot template the two marks will be on the template. You can align the rail over the template and check that the set angle matches the template. Time spent at this stage checking and adjusting will be well repaid later. If you have stuck the timbers on the template, it is worth printing off another one to check the rail against more easily.

6. Fix the straight stock rail first, it is just plain rail.

7. Start fixing the curved stock rail at the switch front, gauging from the straight stock rail in the usual way. Don't go beyond the set yet.

8. Transfer your attention to the second mark, location X in the diagram above where the rails begin to diverge. Measure the "stock gauge", that's the distance between the two stock rails at this location, i.e. between X and Y in the diagram. It should be exactly one rail width greater than the track gauge.

For 7mm scale that means, assuming scale rail section 1.6mm wide (2.3/4" scale):

0-MF stock gauge = 31.5 + 1.6 = 33.1mm

GOG-F stock gauge = 32.0 + 1.6 = 33.6mm

S7 stock gauge = 33.0 + 1.6 = 34.6mm


For 4mm scale that means:

00-SF stock gauge = 16.20 + 0.92 = 17.12mm

EM stock gauge = 18.20 + 0.92 = 19.12mm

P4 stock gauge = 18.83 + 0.92 = 19.75mm

If you don't have a suitable means of making this measurement, you can improvise by combining an oddment of rail with your track gauge tool.

9. If the stock gauge is correct, you can fix the stock rail at X. If it isn't, you may be able to adjust the set bend slightly in situ. If it is a long way out, you should remove the stock rail and correct the set bend angle. Don't try to correct the stock gauge by curving the rail, the section between the marks must be dead straight as shown.

10. If all is well, you can now fix the rail between the marks, checking with a straight-edge that it is dead straight. Then work forward over the curved section, aligning to the template.

For an A switch, the dimension between the marks is shortened to 38.5mm (7mm scale) or 22.0mm (4mm scale) (i.e. the set angle is 1:24). The stock-gauge remains the same as before.

A bit of practice helps of course. Don't expect to get it perfect on your very first turnout. You will soon discover the importance of checking the rail against the template before starting to fix it down.

11. If you get it right you will find adding the switch blades later is dead easy. They will seat properly along the full length of the planing and almost gauge themselves.

More diagrams and notes about all this at: http://www.templot.c...s_realtrack.htm

which also shows the modified joggled arrangement used on the GWR, and for REA straightcut switches in facing locations.

Curved turnout:

For a curved turnout the procedure is essentially the same, and it's a good idea to prepare the stock rail first as if it was for a straight turnout. The difference is that the dead straight section should then be curved to match the outer radius for the turnout. In other words the orange-coloured sections on the diagram above are all either straight or all curved to the same radius. The smaller turnout radius (the inner radius) begins only where the rails diverge. The stock gauge and lengths remain unchanged. To get this right, it's a good idea to print a rails-only copy of the template on tracing paper, and lay it on top of the rails during construction to check the alignments.

Two more pictures showing the "set" bend on an LNER switch, these kindly supplied by Mick Nicholson:





regards,

Martin.

edit: to add dimensions for 7mm scale, fix typo.

[Donw]

I will write this quietly in case Martin reads it. He is quite correct about the set and it does help but for my first turnout I didn't know about the set but I did realise the planned section needed to be snug against the stock rail especially at the tip so I filed the blade and adjusted the stock rail till I was satisfied and my tests wagons did not bump or ride up on the blade. I have also never measured the stock gauge. This is one of those things that once you understand the real thing it makes it easier and quicker to achieve the desired result.

Don

[David Siddall]

Thanks to Martin Wynne for his incredibly detailed explanation of the 'set' in a prototypical curved 'stock rail' and how it helps the adjacent blade align and guage correctly. This is was a feature of the prototype I wasn't aware of, however both my turnouts (happily) seem to allow stock to take the straight-ahead route without a bump even though there's no 'set' present (I used the same technique Don describes above).

 

At the start of this ramble I alluded to the fact that I would I'd be happy to accommodate a compromise or two if it actually allowed me to produce my first hand-built turnouts and this is still the case. Now that I know what 'setting' is however, why it's there and how to create it I have a strong suspicion it'll give it a try in my next one. None the less, since the precise position and length of the set in an A5 turnout aren't something I can accurately determine from the templates I'm using I suspect that keeping a spare length of rail by just in case I get it wrong might be prudent. ;-)

 

David

[Donw]

One point Martin suggests fixing the stock rail at the start and end of the set. If you are using C+L chairs the slide chairs do not hold the rail but will only stop the rail from moving out. A small dab of superglue or expoxy may help. Alternatively at these points a rivet or brass pin could be used to hold the rail This would allow some adjustment and a chair could be cut and fixed either side for cosmetic looks. I never found this necessary myself but did find a brass screw under the crossing to which it was soldered held it in place whilst I fixed the chairs round it. It also stopped the crossing sliding through the chairs when using flangeway gauges. I now use scrap brass strips to hold the crossing and wingrail assembly then expoxy these strips onto the timbers giving a firm fixing. However for complex pointwork the odd brass screw holding key points in place makes sense once ballasted and painted these are not noticeable.

Don

[RedgateModels]

I will write this quietly in case Martin reads it. He is quite correct about the set and it does help but for my first turnout I didn't know about the set but I did realise the planned section needed to be snug against the stock rail especially at the tip so I filed the blade and adjusted the stock rail till I was satisfied and my tests wagons did not bump or ride up on the blade. I have also never measured the stock gauge. This is one of those things that once you understand the real thing it makes it easier and quicker to achieve the desired result.

Don

Ho ho, I stumbled across Martin's method just before the Mansfield Show, glad I did too as the double slip would not have been right without the sets. His method is both practical and effective too, teamed up with Brian Harrup's "Easy Frogs" method I can now tackle a hand built point from scratch without too much worry!

[marc smith]

David, thanks for posting such a comprehensive report on your findings

I think a good many of us steer clear of pointwork construction

I have in the past, built pointwork in EM, OO, and O

And although I achieved what I thought was a satisfying result,

it always took longer than anticipated

 

Perhaps because at the time I read instructions, rather than the findings of someone who,

like many of us, don't fully understand all the complexities of real trackwork,

and has decided like yourself, to report all their findings...

 

I'm watching this thread with interest

keep it coming, and good luck

You're doing a grand job, honestly.....

 

BTW. The Marcway method is, as you say, a quicker method of turnout construction

I also found that the soldering was not too demanding, for me personally

but I have to say, it's easy to get carried away with adding too much solder,

and the solder "creeping" along the rail sides - resulting in too visible solder patches....

 

However, re the lack of a gap between rail and sleeper

I used cosmetic chairs, and once the rail is weathered and ballasted,

I really couldn't see any difference between my PCB constructed pointwork and plain track,

which did have a difference in height

 

I found this true of 4mm and 7mm scales...

 

Cheers again, and good luck with the project

 

Marc.

[David Siddall]

Thanks Marc (et al)... am being temporarily diverted by the garden and a new caravan, however part three will follow once we get back after the forthcoming Jubillee long weekend ...or if it honks with rain (as it tends to over Bank Holidays) it'll get written on a touring site a few miles from Buxton ;-)

 

David

[3 link]

Without meaning to upset the applecart, if your building GWR turnouts they will also need a joggle in the stock rails.

 

ATB,

 

Martyn.

[David Siddall]

If you're reading this with a mind to trying your own turnouts and you own (or even aspire to own) one of Heljan's 7-mil Hymeks I'd encourage you to take a look at what's developing on my other thread. I've discovered a little late in the game that even if you build your 32mm gauge turnouts with great care and using highly accurate proprietary back-to-back gauges Hymeks (and possibly Heljan's 47s???) may not run through the crossing without climbing the checkrails. The issue appears to be one of wheel profile (and possibly back-to-back settings).

 

I will continue here once I've come to some sort of resolution to this issue – he says hopefully, as a modeller who's sole form of motive power to date just happens to be a... yes you've guessed it, Hymek!).

 

D

[greenglade]

Hi David

 

I did see your dilemma in the other thread earlier today and sympathise with it, I'm not sure where you are located but if close to North London your more than welcome to pop over with your Hymek's wheels and your C&L turnout. I'm sure between us we can work out what machining work needs doing for the Hymek to run smoothly over your turnout. My workshop is well equipped for doing such things, I would say just use my C&L turnout for the trial but iirc your's is set at 32mm gauge whereas I went the 31.5mm route.

Regards

 

Pete

[David Siddall]

What an incredibly generous offer Pete, thank you! Unfortunately North London might be a bit more of a trek than a 'pop' from my little corner of rural South East Wales - hey ho!

 

However Howes may have come up with a solution - I'll post again when I've tried it. They phoned (yes, they phoned me!) this morning in response to my email (send yesterday Sunday!) about the Hymek's split primary drive gear - my other little 'issue. Your generosity and their attitude to service says great things for human nature :-)

 

David

[keidal]

This is fascinating practical information on how to do the job correctly and I'm wondering if it is the "correct" method of constructing points / turnouts in 2 mm Fine Scale please ?  Is there a formula etc for determining the various lengths, say for a B8 ?

Thank you,

Keith 

[Happy Hippo]

This is fascinating practical information on how to do the job correctly and I'm wondering if it is the "correct" method of constructing points / turnouts in 2 mm Fine Scale please ?  Is there a formula etc for determining the various lengths, say for a B8 ?

Thank you,

Keith 

Very basically:

 

A,B,C etc refer to the length of the switch rail.

 

The number is the divergence angle of the crossing nose, ie 6 is 1 in 6, 9 is 1 in 9 etc.

 

The higher the letter and number, the longer the turnout becomes.

 

Martin Wynne's Templot (free to download) is your friend, as it calculates everything exactly, in more gauges than you can shake a stick at!

[hayfield]

This is fascinating practical information on how to do the job correctly and I'm wondering if it is the "correct" method of constructing points / turnouts in 2 mm Fine Scale please ?  Is there a formula etc for determining the various lengths, say for a B8 ?

Thank you,

Keith 

 

Just to add to Hippo's reply, with Templot you can not only select the gauge (2 mm finescale in your case) but have an almost unlimited combination of both switch lengths, crossing angles and geometry of the turnout or crossing.

 

In simple terms you may find the following informative and I have tried to simplify the titles, like everything modellers will have their own thoughts. The lengths are for 2 mm finescale

 

A5 small (radii)

 

A is one of the shortest switch lengths and 1-5 crossing angle in modelling terms is the smallest angle used for all purposes, A Radii of 28" and is 132 mm long

 

B7 medium (radii)

 

B is one of the medium switch lengths and 1-7 crossing angle in modelling terms is one of the most common angles used for all purposes, A Radii of 53" and is 165 mm long

 

C9 large (radii)

 

C is one of the larger switch lengths and 1-9 crossing angle in modelling terms is one of the larger angles used, A Radii of 81" and is 197 mm long

 

Now we could discuss all day which sizes should fit into what category's,  so take these as just an example for general information

 

The other thing to consider is, if curving a turnout the secondary exit radii will reduce. For example if the C9 turnout is curved to 2400 mm radii the secondary exit radii will drop from 81" to 44"

[keidal]

Thank you everyone for generously providing this information.

I'm wondering if it would be "correct" to make a set in the rail in 2 mm Fine Scale, followed by a short length of straight, as per the prototype, or is this going too far ?

[hayfield]

Thank you everyone for generously providing this information.

I'm wondering if it would be "correct" to make a set in the rail in 2 mm Fine Scale, followed by a short length of straight, as per the prototype, or is this going too far ?

 

 

Its a must !!