Not Quite Snape Goods Station, Suffolk

[Nigelcliffe]

One of the Scalefour layouts with torsion bars for long range transmission was Laxfield by John Watson.  MRJ number 0 if you have a copy.   I don't recall whether the torsion bars were described in the MRJ article.  

The cross-baseboard links were cranked away from the main torsion bar with bolt-together plates.  It wasn't too bad a system for exhibition setup/breakdown, and would certainly be OK for a rarely moved domestic arrangement.

 

One thing I'm thinking of adding to a Scalefour Soc lever frame is a servo based interlocking on each lever.  Its been described by someone (name mislaid at present) and was very simple/elegant, using very thin servos below each lever with a simple "crown" with a slot in it on the actuating shaft of the servo which either allows passage or blocks the movement of the lever.   The interlocking could be easily switched on/off at the control circuitry.  

 

That would work with mechanical linkage to the actual turnouts. 

 

 

- Nigel

[Middlepeak]

If I recall, John Watson used torsion rods on his excellent P4 rendition of Laxfield MSLR - MRJ issue 0 I think.

 

Regards,

 

Geraint

[justin1985]

I've been getting very frustrated indeed trying to get the points working mechanically with the lever frame. The closest one is still fine with the piano wire rods and spare tufnol crank from an Easitrac TOU kit (to throw the Easitrac TOU). But with wire in tube there just isn't anywhere even near the throw to operate the Easitrac TOU - I guess I would need to  double the length of the arm on the TOU or build in extra long armed cranks just to amplify the movement - either of which would get tricky in the space available.

 

I'm wondering whether to ditch the cam-based Easitrac TOUs in favour of a brass section affair in order to use the lever frame, or again think about moving over to point motors.

 

The Association 3D printed TOU also seems to have a lot of friction, so I'm a bit dubious about driving it by wire in tube. Has anyone tried it?

 

Justin

[queensquare]

I've been getting very frustrated indeed trying to get the points working mechanically with the lever frame. The closest one is still fine with the piano wire rods and spare tufnol crank from an Easitrac TOU kit (to throw the Easitrac TOU). But with wire in tube there just isn't anywhere even near the throw to operate the Easitrac TOU - I guess I would need to  double the length of the arm on the TOU or build in extra long armed cranks just to amplify the movement - either of which would get tricky in the space available.

 

I'm wondering whether to ditch the cam-based Easitrac TOUs in favour of a brass section affair in order to use the lever frame, or again think about moving over to point motors.

 

The Association 3D printed TOU also seems to have a lot of friction, so I'm a bit dubious about driving it by wire in tube. Has anyone tried it?

 

Justin

 

Must admit I've always stuck with a wire coming up to work a moving sleeper. Highbury had, indeed still has, the rail soldered direct to the sleeper which despite dire warnings that it wouldn't work has managed about 18 years and seventy odd shows with only one failure - which took less time than it took for the soldering iron to heat up to repair. TM has the refinement of rail soldered to track pins coming through the moving sleeper to provide a pivot and so far has proved 100% reliable. Highbury used wire in tube, TM has point motors.

 

Jerry

[Izzy]

Sorry you're having so much trouble. How much initial movement is there at the lever frame? I have always found I needed at least 2-3 times what I wanted at the tie-bar to allow for loss along the way, whatever actual mechanical system I used, with usually, more needed the further the distance. Any excess movement is much easier to absorb at the tie-bar by way of tensioning the blades which has the added bonus of keeping them hard up against the stock rail.

 

I would agree with Jerry that moving sleeper type tie-bars are better/easier to install/repair besides giving strong/positive movement and now use the alternative design quite a few have adpoted of a point sleeper turned on edge and fitted with loops of wire (fine soft iron) through drilled holes to which the blades are soldered. Althought they perhaps don't look quite as neat as under-baseboard ones they aren't too bad as these couple of shots might show. But cheap and easy to make, these ones being driven by the servo type stall motors seen in another thread on here.

 

 

 

These are on my latest roundy-roundy and you will have to forgive the lack of ballasting, yet to do, the track still being tested/bedded in.

 

I hope you mange to find something that works for you.

 

Izzy

 

 

[Caley Jim]

I would agree with Izzy that you need much more movement at the lever end than you require at the turnout. I've found that, especially when using the PTFE tubing from MSE, you have to ensure that the tubing is well secured to the baseboard at frequent intervals, especially at curves, otherwise it flexes and you lose a lot of movement.

Jim

[justin1985]

Finally, after a few months when the day job utterly took over, I've managed to get back to a bit of modelling. Helping out with operating Copenhagen Fields at Ally Pally certainly gave me a bit of a spark again.

 

I spent a good few more hours at the weekend trying to get the Scalefour lever frame working with the various under-baseboard TOUs, but trying to squeeze in wire-in-tube runs in and around everything else thats already stuck down, on what is a very small and especially narrow layout, proved to be like a very frustrating 3D game of whack-a-mole. Adjust the tension at one spot, something starts moving in another direction. More than once tensioning the linkage to the tie-bar slightly too much resulted in the sliding "shoe" of the lever frame buckling, resulting in no movement at all.

 

So, I've given up on the lever frame. It is a beautiful and very neat piece of kit, and I'm sure I'll use it on a future layout - but only where I can either design in nice clear wire runs from the start, or just use the microswitches inside it to fire point motors.

 

For Snape, I've gone back to the original slide-switch and piano wire way of operating the turnouts. But hopefully slightly better executed this time around. To keep it simple I've mounted the switches directly onto the glue blocks within the framing of the front of the layout (although I realise this means they will become buried under scenery when the gap at the front is covered over - slide switches are pretty reliable though - right?) 

 

 

I replaced one of the Easitrac TOUs which had been a little problematic with one of the sliding 3D printed ones - I was careful to sand down the rough texture of the print before building it this time - and it is much more successful with wire droppers (as it was designed for) than the one I adapted for filed-down bolts. As the point with the bolts as droppers needs so little movement, I've used a simple lever to reduce the throw from the slide switch by connecting the TOU to the innermost hole and the slide-switch to one of the outermost. This gives a good positive action, both on the switch and the blades, and doesn't leave them under too much tension the whole time. In future I'll stick to moving sleepers though!

 

 

I've also now fitted the little wagon turntable that Mark F very kindly turned for me. The electrical feeds are set up and its nicely levelled so stock travels across it smoothly, but I haven't added the extra track going off up the road yet, or indeed the rod with a worm to turn it. Fingers crossed that shouldn't be too much problem though! 

 

 

There is a mockup of the goods shed posed on the layout there, and I've printed a "kit" for the station master's house which I'll also mock up soon. I did make a start on a set of drawings for the maltings building, but I'll have to look onto getting window frames laser cut before finalising that. 

 

Justin

[Donw]

Slide switches are pretty reliable as a sliding switch is somewhat self cleaning. However I would still make the piece of scenery which will cover it removable probably of a base of scrap ply. This is on the highly technical principle of not tempting the gods. If there is access to something you probably wont need it but no access makes it more likely you will need it.

Don

[DLT]

 

For Snape, I've gone back to the original slide-switch and piano wire way of operating the turnouts. But hopefully slightly better executed this time around. To keep it simple I've mounted the switches directly onto the glue blocks within the framing of the front of the layout (although I realise this means they will become buried under scenery when the gap at the front is covered over - slide switches are pretty reliable though - right?) 

 

IMG_20170403_230620.jpg

 

Justin

 

 

Slide switches are pretty reliable as a sliding switch is somewhat self cleaning. However I would still make the piece of scenery which will cover it removable probably of a base of scrap ply. This is on the highly technical principle of not tempting the gods. If there is access to something you probably wont need it but no access makes it more likely you will need it.

Don

 

Covering the switches with scenery should not be a problem, as long as they are still accessible from underneath.  Looking at your photo I would make a new mounting for them away from the edge, so that were clear of the baseboard framing, and therefore accessible.

 

I have used slide-switches in many configurations, the latest being this:

 

 

On our club demo/test track, mounting them on their side gives them a much lower profile and they are better protected when in storage.

 

Hope this helps,

All the best, Dave.

[justin1985]

Covering the switches with scenery should not be a problem, as long as they are still accessible from underneath.  Looking at your photo I would make a new mounting for them away from the edge, so that were clear of the baseboard framing, and therefore accessible.

 

I have used slide-switches in many configurations, the latest being this:

 

On our club demo/test track, mounting them on their side gives them a much lower profile and they are better protected when in storage.

 

Hope this helps,

All the best, Dave.

 

Thanks Dave, I don't know why I didn't do it that way to begin with? (because I was lazy and just reused the blocks that happened to be there already)

 

I added some extra blocks to screw the switches on so that they project out into the gap. It look a bit more adjustment but all is working again now. I'll make a start on filling in the foundations for the scenic sections next.

 

Justin

[bcnPete]

Only just found this Justin.

 

Looks like a nice project - staying tuned for more

[justin1985]

Only just found this Justin.

 

Looks like a nice project - staying tuned for more

 

Hi Pete, thanks for the comment. Since taking on Bill Blackburn's Long Melford, I had still intended to try and get this little layout finished first. However, discovering that the problematic front turnout derails my newly converted J39 (I'd only previously tested it with a Jinty and a J94 - much shorter wheelbase) I'm starting to wonder.

 

Tempted to treat it as lessons learned, and maybe re-use the board / cameo box for a small industrial type scene using Finetrax for my collection of 1980s/1990s diesels and freight stock to run on - considering either a sand loading point based on Middleton Towers, OR a distillery scene compressed from Dufftown ... 

 

Lessons learned would definitely be:

• Soldered pointwork is infinitely preferable when you're a bit of a bodger - tweaking and adjustment has been essential. I haven't yet tried one of the new pegged Easitrac turnouts, but I'm prepared to give Finetrax a go as the cast\milled crossing should avoid the kind of issues I've had to tweak on entirely scratchbuilt Easitrac turnouts.
• I'm much happier with stuff that is electrical or binary, rather than mechanical - point motors with a predictable throw make sense to me, rodding and cranks confuse me, and offer too many ways for things to go wrong (unless you're used to that way of working enough to intuitively know exactly where to brace, restrain, or pivot)

The last point makes me chuckle - as a kid in the 1990s I always remember my dad complaining about new cars, appliances etc having too much electronics, and its "just something to go wrong". I don't think I'm alone in my generation in now thinking entirely the opposite - anything mechanical in any consumer product is "just something to go wrong".

 

Justin

[Caley Jim]

 I don't think I'm alone in my generation in now thinking entirely the opposite - anything mechanical in any consumer product is "just something to go wrong".

Ah! But when something mechanical goes wrong, you can generally pin-point where it's gone wrong and fix it, or replace one part.  If some piece of electronic circuitry goes wrong you haven't a clue and have to chuck it all away and get a new one!

 

Jim

[justin1985]

Ah! But when something mechanical goes wrong, you can generally pin-point where it's gone wrong and fix it, or replace one part.  If some piece of electronic circuitry goes wrong you haven't a clue and have to chuck it all away and get a new one!

 

Jim

 

I'm sure that's true a lot of the time Jim, but one thing I'm coming around to more and more is just focusing on what works for me when it comes to modelling.

 

When I was at school, "Design Tech" classes were all about designing circuits with 555 timers and the like, etching PCBs, and soldering them up. At my school (a grotty comp. in Suffolk) you only did any metalwork at all if you were in the bottom set. In retrospect, that's a real shame. But I don't think there is any point fighting the fact that this is the way I've been trained to think.

 

Obviously I've had to fumble my way around enough mechanical and metalworking skills for locos and stock in 2mm (and this is undoubtedly the hardest aspect for me), but if I can shortcut those kind of challenges (for me) by using point motors or servos rather than rodding to operate points and signals etc, that appeals! 

 

For example, the level crossing gate mechanism that I inherited from Bill on Long Melford is a masterpiece of gears, cams, and the like - if it went wrong, I'd obviously start by trying to replace any failed parts like for like. But if I wanted to build another level crossing mechanism, I'd start with servos.

 

Intriguingly, Bill had actually stocked up on PECO "Smartswitch" servo based point motors for all of the points on the layout that are remote from the control panel board (actually, these seem an over-complicated solution for points, to me - I'll probably use normal Tortoise/Cobalt/Fulgurex motors in the end).  

 

Justin

[queensquare]

I'm sure that's true a lot of the time Jim, but one thing I'm coming around to more and more is just focusing on what works for me when it comes to modelling.

 

When I was at school, "Design Tech" classes were all about designing circuits with 555 timers and the like, etching PCBs, and soldering them up. At my school (a grotty comp. in Suffolk) you only did any metalwork at all if you were in the bottom set. In retrospect, that's a real shame. But I don't think there is any point fighting the fact that this is the way I've been trained to think.

 

Obviously I've had to fumble my way around enough mechanical and metalworking skills for locos and stock in 2mm (and this is undoubtedly the hardest aspect for me), but if I can shortcut those kind of challenges (for me) by using point motors or servos rather than rodding to operate points and signals etc, that appeals! 

 

For example, the level crossing gate mechanism that I inherited from Bill on Long Melford is a masterpiece of gears, cams, and the like - if it went wrong, I'd obviously start by trying to replace any failed parts like for like. But if I wanted to build another level crossing mechanism, I'd start with servos.

 

Intriguingly, Bill had actually stocked up on PECO "Smartswitch" servo based point motors for all of the points on the layout that are remote from the control panel board (actually, these seem an over-complicated solution for points, to me - I'll probably use normal Tortoise/Cobalt/Fulgurex motors in the end).  

 

Justin

 

Hi Justin, pm sent

 

Jerry

[Donw]

Justin 

I find that things that need adjusting to set up are troublesome. My enthusiasm for tortoise motors if that the adjustment is rough the stall principle takes care of fine adjustment and copes with temperature changes. I found them much easier than mechanical linkage when on my 0 gauge layout all the movement seemed to be absorbed in the linkage little of it was left to actually move the blades. Fitting and wiring the tortoises in took less time than fiddling with the linkage. I suggest you read Mick Simpson's article in the latest 2mm Mags he has adapted a servo motor to act as a stall mech which will hold when the power is off. Looks a very promising solution to me.

 

Don

[queensquare]

Hi Justin, pm sent

 

Jerry