Castle Aching

[Regularity]

Thanks, Don.

 

Since we are going to the trouble of largely hand-built track, perhaps we should make the effort to include dummy trap-points?

 

Would it be possible to supply a plan showing exactly what I would lay and where?

Why dummy? Why not working?

[Edwardian]

Why dummy? Why not working?

 

Well, I assume because for the purpose of model railway operation I do not need them to be working.

 

That could be an incorrect assumption, however!

[Hroth]

Why dummy? Why not working?

Ummmm...  Another set of points to forget to set. Another lever to provide. Life's too short.

 

Most people do without, so trap points at the correct location, working or not, give a richer, more prototypical appearance to the layout.  As an aside, Peco sell OO gauge trap points in code 75 and 100 rail. They take up 105 mm.  I wonder how popular a product they are?

Edited October 14, 2017 by Hroth

[Regularity]

Real Railways have them, often operated as a pair, like a crossover, so forgetting should not be an issue.

 

Why add them? Because it adds to the verisimilitude of operation.

 

I’ve said it before, and no doubt will say it again, but I find a 00 layout using Peco track and points, including catch and trap points, correctly signalled and operated to be more authentic than a P4 layout which has all that except for the catch point, or a catch point which doesn’t work.

 

There is always a cutoff point with detailing, standards, etc, but when it is possible to get closer to the prototype with little effort, then why not?

[Edwardian]

Real Railways have them, often operated as a pair, like a crossover, so forgetting should not be an issue.

 

Why add them? Because it adds to the verisimilitude of operation.

 

I’ve said it before, and no doubt will say it again, but I find a 00 layout using Peco track and points, including catch and trap points, correctly signalled and operated to be more authentic than a P4 layout which has all that except for the catch point, or a catch point which doesn’t work.

 

There is always a cutoff point with detailing, standards, etc, but when it is possible to get closer to the prototype with little effort, then why not?

 

Fair enough.  Though actually getting the thing built and running to any standard would be nice.

 

Where the interlacing of point sleepers and the placement and exact details of trap/catch points are concerned, I will defer to the West Norfolk's chief permanent way consultant, the estimable DonW.  

[runs as required]

To be flippant for a mo (from Malta) going back to W Heath Robinson: the two gents in Edwardian's toppers clutching one another in fright at the sight of a fox - could one of them be imagined as wielding a signal finial?

If so, that and a flag with GWR (sorry WNR) on it could be the two rail related objects required in the cake box challenge.

(My scarey grandfather always guffawed at WHR drawings in Punch - I found it difficult to be as enthusiastic.)

 

dh

[Edwardian]

To be flippant for a mo (from Malta) going back to W Heath Robinson: the two gents in Edwardian's toppers clutching one another in fright at the sight of a fox - could one of them be imagined as wielding a signal finial?

If so, that and a flag with GWR (sorry WNR) on it could be the two rail related objects required in the cake box challenge.

(My scarey grandfather always guffawed at WHR drawings in Punch - I found it difficult to be as enthusiastic.)

 

dh

 

Guffawing. Sadly a lost art. 

[nick_bastable]

Fair enough.  Though actually getting the thing built and running to any standard would be nice.

 

Where the interlacing of point sleepers and the placement and exact details of trap/catch points are concerned, I will defer to the West Norfolk's chief permanent way consultant, the estimable DonW.  

 good delegation is the key to success

 

Nick

[corneliuslundie]

"As an aside, Peco sell OO gauge trap points in code 75 and 100 rail. They take up 105 mm.  I wonder how popular a product they are?"

We have just installed one at the entrance to a small private yard on our current club layout - the genuine Peco version.

On Sarn, being goods only, I do not need any as far as I can work out, as it is essentially a goods yard with no passenger trains. That's my excuse anyway.

But Nantcwmdu will certainly need a couple as it will have carriages visiting.

Jonathan

[scotcent]

The top “dressing” was probably not ballast, per se, but a thin layer of much finer stones or even shingle to protect the wood. I think this has been covered already, but it is worth reiterating as modelling it may turn out to be simple.

 

Ballast “normally” to the sleeper tops, but don’t worry particularly about the size/colour of the stones: any cheap, fairly coarse ballast will do. When this is nicely set, and all the detail painting, etc, is done, apply the top coat using something carefully selected for size, shape and colour. Could be fine granite, aquarium sand, or cinders/ash. Worth splashing out on the best materials for this!

 

I  have  always  understood  that  where  horses  were  used  for  shunting,  it  was  necessary  to  cover  the  sleepers  with  ballast  to  avoid  the  animals  tripping  up.

 

Allan  F

[Hroth]

Guffawing. Sadly a lost art. 

The trouble with a full-blooded guffaw (esp on Public Transport) is that the mothers with uncontrolled squealing children, the idiots with the perpetual tizz-tizz-tizz earbuds and the smartphone users on hands free either telling a friend that "THEY'RE ON THE TRAIN" or sharing the most intimate details of their private lives, tend to look askance at you for intruding upon their personal aural space.

[Donw]

On Bob Harpers Maristow layout he has fitted working trap points. At the buffers end the engine release turnout and the turnout for a goods siding look like a crossover but are worked independantly, between them is a trap point operated by a separate lever. I often forget that one when operating. True I do not operate it very often so  haven't mastered the box ( it all work from proper interlocked levers). However had I been the engineer building it I would have either made the the two turnouts to be a proper crossover worked from a single lever or just made the trap worked from the same lever as the turnout. I would probably have used tortoise motors and it is easy to operate two from one lever.

 

However our host is a novice at trackwork and is currently on a small budget. So I suggested dummy trap as it would be less to do, would save a little on costs for something that is not essential. If he was going for a fully interlocked system worked from a lever frame I would suggest the traps should be working but to be honest I would think that a step too far. Hands up how many of you handbuilt turnouts and working traps for your first layout?

 

As always the choice is his.

 

Don

[Donw]

The trouble with a full-blooded guffaw (esp on Public Transport) is that the mothers with uncontrolled squealing children, the idiots with the perpetual tizz-tizz-tizz earbuds and the smartphone users on hands free either telling a friend that "THEY'RE ON THE TRAIN" or sharing the most intimate details of their private lives, tend to look askance at you for intruding upon their personal aural space.

 

That is absolutly the best reason for the guffaw 

 

Don

[Guy Rixon]

Well, I assume because for the purpose of model railway operation I do not need them to be working.

 

That could be an incorrect assumption, however!

 

 

Given that you've chosen hand-built turnouts for the rest, I see working traps as an opportunity. It's a chance to practice making the points without having to build a crossing. If it doesn't work then you can always fix the points in the running position.

[Edwardian]

"As an aside, Peco sell OO gauge trap points in code 75 and 100 rail. They take up 105 mm.  I wonder how popular a product they are?"

We have just installed one at the entrance to a small private yard on our current club layout - the genuine Peco version.

On Sarn, being goods only, I do not need any as far as I can work out, as it is essentially a goods yard with no passenger trains. That's my excuse anyway.

But Nantcwmdu will certainly need a couple as it will have carriages visiting.

Jonathan

 

I suppose if they introduced a version in their new range, with BH rail and more convincingly spaced sleepers, I could consider them.

 

 

Why dummy? Why not working?

 

Ummmm...  Another set of points to forget to set. Another lever to provide. Life's too short.

 

Most people do without, so trap points at the correct location, working or not, give a richer, more prototypical appearance to the layout.  As an aside, Peco sell OO gauge trap points in code 75 and 100 rail. They take up 105 mm.  I wonder how popular a product they are?

 

Real Railways have them, often operated as a pair, like a crossover, so forgetting should not be an issue.

 

Why add them? Because it adds to the verisimilitude of operation.

 

I’ve said it before, and no doubt will say it again, but I find a 00 layout using Peco track and points, including catch and trap points, correctly signalled and operated to be more authentic than a P4 layout which has all that except for the catch point, or a catch point which doesn’t work.

 

There is always a cutoff point with detailing, standards, etc, but when it is possible to get closer to the prototype with little effort, then why not?

 

 

However our host is a novice at trackwork and is currently on a small budget. So I suggested dummy trap as it would be less to do, would save a little on costs for something that is not essential. If he was going for a fully interlocked system worked from a lever frame I would suggest the traps should be working but to be honest I would think that a step too far. Hands up how many of you handbuilt turnouts and working traps for your first layout?

 

As always the choice is his.

 

Don

 

Right, thanks Chaps.  I shall attempt to reason this out.

 

First, apologies to DonW for the fact that the track plan has become such a moveable feast, first with the change of point timbering to interlaced sleepers and, second, with the addition of trap/catch points.  This is my fault, of course, because if I had acquired sufficient knowledge of prototype practice generally and pre-Grouping practice in particular, I could have anticipated these features from the start.   

 

Now I have to decide whether to make the trap points working or not.

 

I freely confess that I am not looking for further complications at this stage! The presence of trap/catch points seems essential, now that this aspect of prototype practice has been pointed out, but whether they must work or not is quite another matter. 

 

My reaction to the choice is, therefore, to ask "would I use working trap points?"  Obviously I need working turnouts for locomotives to travel around the layout, just as I will need a working (by some means or other) TT.  I think, equally obviously, I will need working signals.  Not, in this case, because of physical necessity, but because the illusion is compromised if signals are wrongly set relative to what's happening.

 

So, the question I have to ask myself, is "is it physically necessary to have working trap points, and, if not, is it visually necessary?"

 

In terms of physical necessity, the answer appears to be "no", inasmuch as, as a novice, I am unlikely to build an interlocked system, worked like the prototype with all the bell codes and whistles.  (Well, no whistles in either case, as there will not be DCC sound!).

 

Assuming that is correct, is it visually necessary?  This is subjective, but, the question here, I would have thought, is "how far do you go?"

 

In that context, it might be worth considering ground signals.  Strictly, they, along with taller post-mounted semaphores, should work.  But is this practical or really necessary?

 

But how far do you go?  I would expect to fit point rodding in due course, but I wasn't expecting it to move when a point or signal lever is released. 

 

So, how much, if anything, would working trap points add to the layout, when balanced against the additional complexity that they would introduce?

 

In the meantime, I think the feature that Don W describes on Maristow is captured on these shots:

[Regularity]

If it helps, when facing this conundrum, Trevor Nunn of “East Lynn and Nunnstanton” fame has working traps, but non-working ground signals, on the simple basis that you really can see the former, but not the latter.

 

If it’s good enough for him, then I reckon it’s good guidance for us lesser mortals!

[BlueLightning]

James,

 

I wouldn't want to be accused of trying to put pressure on you, but Oak Hill has both a working trap point and working ground signals!!!

 

Gary

[St Enodoc]

If it helps, when facing this conundrum, Trevor Nunn of “East Lynn and Nunnstanton” fame has working traps, but non-working ground signals, on the simple basis that you really can see the former, but not the latter.

 

If it’s good enough for him, then I reckon it’s good guidance for us lesser mortals!

 

Very interesting. I have the exact opposite.

[Edwardian]

Conundrum indeed.

 

I should probably wait to see if I mange to build any kind of track, or,indeed, working points!

[Regularity]

Well, if your first attempt is the traps, you can see how you on with fixing point blades, and not gave to worry about crossing vees!

 

Joking aside, I commend the advice of Ian Futers in the mid 70s (I think for “Saughtree”) which is to basically accept that the first half dozen might be rubbish and throw them away. (You can unsolder the rails and re-use most of it, so only the point blades and/or crossing vees will be trashed: cost of throwing away 6 turnouts is about two one-yard lengths of rail, plus some time.)

 

When filing blades and vees, it is easier if you have some form of clamp to hold the rail down firmly, but apart from some scrap wood for this purposes, you only really need a first-cut flat hand file (6” should do - fnarr, fnarr!) for most of the work and a flat needle file to finish off. But you do want to get the end of a blade to a knife edge, if possible. One late friend used to prod the end of his fingers with the blade tip, and if he didn’t draw blood, it wasn’t sharp enough! (Extreme Railway Modelling!)

 

When filing, if you can clamp one end of the rail and file along, rather than across, the rail (laid on its side), then you will get a smoother and straighter outcome. Also worth cutting a groove into your scrap wood piece with a hack saw, so that you you file the head only on the inside of the blade, and then flip the rail over to put the foot of the inside face into the groove, and then can file the outside face which mates with the adjacent stock rail flat with no difficulty.

[Donw]

Well, if your first attempt is the traps, you can see how you on with fixing point blades, and not gave to worry about crossing vees!

 

Joking aside, I commend the advice of Ian Futers in the mid 70s (I think for “Saughtree”) which is to basically accept that the first half dozen might be rubbish and throw them away. (You can unsolder the rails and re-use most of it, so only the point blades and/or crossing vees will be trashed: cost of throwing away 6 turnouts is about two one-yard lengths of rail, plus some time.)

 

When filing blades and vees, it is easier if you have some form of clamp to hold the rail down firmly, but apart from some scrap wood for this purposes, you only really need a first-cut flat hand file (6” should do - fnarr, fnarr!) for most of the work and a flat needle file to finish off. But you do want to get the end of a blade to a knife edge, if possible. One late friend used to prod the end of his fingers with the blade tip, and if he didn’t draw blood, it wasn’t sharp enough! (Extreme Railway Modelling!)

 

When filing, if you can clamp one end of the rail and file along, rather than across, the rail (laid on its side), then you will get a smoother and straighter outcome. Also worth cutting a groove into your scrap wood piece with a hack saw, so that you you file the head only on the inside of the blade, and then flip the rail over to put the foot of the inside face into the groove, and then can file the outside face which mates with the adjacent stock rail flat with no difficulty.

 

If you are using C+L chairs you will also be wasting the chairs most likely I have moved them fairly soon after applying the solvent by using something sharp and then re-fixing them but I wouldn't want to cut all the chairs off a rubbish turnout for re-use.  The cutting of a groove is really only needed with FB rail although Geoof Jones auther of the Track book recommends fixing down something of the appropriate thickness so that when the rail is held against it, it supports the rail head.

Often is it not the blades themelves that are faulty either the set in the curved rail does not match the planning of the blade or the alignement and length of the closure rail does not bring the blade at the correct angle.

 

When I built my first turnout in EM using ply and rivet. I happened to see Ian Futers at a show and mentioned that I had found it tricky. Oh it took me five before I made a satisfactory one was his response.

 

In answer to your earlier comment about working traps being more visible than working ground signals. I think it is a matter of viewpoint if you are looking from above whether the trap blade is open or closed is quite visible but the rotation of the ground signal less so move to a low level view  and the position of the trap blade is hardly visible but the rotation of the ground signal is much clearer.

 

In practice it would be easy to make a trap so the blade was capable of being moved and temporary fix it closed. It would then be possible to fit a below baseboard method of moving it  later if one so desired. My suggestion of it being a dummy was in part the fact that if it ends up being a seperate lever you may well end up leaving thrown all the time because it is a nuisance otherwise.

 

 

Don

[Edwardian]

Reference Post 5847, showing track and ballast at the M&GN's Cromer Beach station.

 

I notice that what I see as a very similar treatment - top dressing over the sleepers, but with these showing through - on Trevor Nunn's exquisite East Lynn & Nunnstanton.

[mullie]

I do the first bit of point blade filing using the trusty Dremel to speed things up then finish by hand but then I don't use jigs because I often build in situ.

 

Martyn

[Donw]

Oh one of the things I forgot to mention the ground signal on Maristow in Edwardian's photos is not an independant one but linked to the turnout mechanism. Its purpose is to show the driver which way the switch is set as he may not be able to see it clearly enough.

If Edwardian wanted ground signals this sort would be suitable for 1905. Progressive railways were installing independant ones by then but plenty of the others remained in place unless the trackwork was being altered and the turnouts replaced

Don

[Compound2632]

There was discussion elsewhere of the distinction between ground signals, miniature signals controlling egress from a sidings onto a running line, and ground or point discs, which indicated the setting of a point giving trailing access to a siding from a running line. It was shown that this practice that went back to the 1880s.