GWR Scale Track Components

[Stephen Freeman]

Hi Martin,

 

Don't know about Slaters, never used it. C&L is definitely code 125, measured it this morning. Normally I use C&L but if it's something he  doesn't do then next port of call is Marcway.

 

I suspect that height compatability with Peco was possibly an overriding consideration at the time.

[Greenmodelmonkey]

Hi Stephen,

 

That's unfortunate. I know they used to supply a scale section, and here is a scan from their track-making handbook:

 

slaters_track_book.jpg

© 1987 Slaters (Plastikard) Ltd

 

I don't have a copy of the latest issue, which may have been revised. It would be worth asking them the question.

 

It would also be worth actually measuring the current rail from C&L and Slaters. 

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Thanks Martin I had not appreciated this rail height issue as I just assumed it would have been right for 7mm scale. Oh dear and I thought return to scale modeling in 7mmscale was going to be easier and surprised that it's not as well supported as 4mm by the look of it.

 

So I assume even Scaleseven is not able to represent a true scale apearance if the only available rail is actually undersize by such a large amount.

 

Looks like I'm going to have to settle for modeling rail that's worn the rail head over the years. Looking at the HS&E report on worn rail for historic Railways in the uk the good news is that Code 124 & 125 is within tolerances of acceptance (which is well over 5%).. this means my model layout of a GWR branch line in the 50's maybe be more authentic than I first thought (I'm starting to feel a little better!).

 

 

However since the discussion has started I have made myself a cutting jig for slicing Exacoscale plain chairs so I can now accurately join two together two halves to make chec rail chairs. I know I have to make one check rail jaw vertical to accept a vertical rail so this is my next step (more about this later...)

 

Regards, Mick

[Greenmodelmonkey]

Does anyone know if 'Debs' still supplies track gauges as I can't get a reply to my emails?

 

Ta.

[martin_wynne]

Looks like I'm going to have to settle for modeling rail that's worn the rail head over the years.

 

Hi Mick,

 

This is a special fishplate for connecting worn bullhead rail (on the left) to new or unworn rail (on the right). (This is REA pointwork, not GWR.)

 

You can see how much the head depth of the rail has been worn down -- the stepped fishplate brings it back up level with the unworn rail. It's unusual to see this within pointwork. It means the chair supporting the worn rail needs a thicker base than the near one, as they are both on the same timber. Special chairs were made with thicker than the standard 1.3/4" base thickness for this type of situation.

 

 

It may possibly be 85lb rail on the left, rather than worn 95lb rail. The radiused top corner on the rail does suggest original rail rather than worn. Anyone? However the difference in head-depth between 85R and 95R is only 1/8", and this looks rather more than that. The fishplate is clearly marked for 95R BH WORN / NEW.

 

BS-85R bullhead rail was originally intended for branch lines, sidings and yards, etc., but in practice very little was used. In most cases the rail used in such situations was worn rail cascaded down from main-line use. The difference in overall rail height was 1/4".

 

BS-95R 95lb/yd rail height = 5.23/32nds (5.719) inches. Scales to 0.131" at 7mm/ft scale.

BS-85R 85lb/yd rail height = 5.15/32nds (5.469) inches. Scales to 0.125" at 7mm/ft scale.

 

I wonder if somewhere along the way someone measured 85 lb rail by mistake in designing the tooling for the current rail?

 

Here is another pic. L1 bridge chairs on the left because of the restricted space:

 

 

The above is REA, not GWR. If you are wanting to model GWR track accurately, you need this book. Ignore the reference to 4mm scale in the title, 90% of the book is prototype information (in great detail):

 

From: http://gwsg.org.uk/GWSG_Publications.html

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[roythebus]

Thanks Martin I had not appreciated this rail height issue as I just assumed it would have been right for 7mm scale. Oh dear and I thought return to scale modeling in 7mmscale was going to be easier and surprised that it's not as well supported as 4mm by the look of it.

 

So I assume even Scaleseven is not able to represent a true scale apearance if the only available rail is actually undersize by such a large amount.

 

Looks like I'm going to have to settle for modeling rail that's worn the rail head over the years. Looking at the HS&E report on worn rail for historic Railways in the uk the good news is that Code 124 & 125 is within tolerances of acceptance (which is well over 5%).. this means my model layout of a GWR branch line in the 50's maybe be more authentic than I first thought (I'm starting to feel a little better!).

 

 

However since the discussion has started I have made myself a cutting jig for slicing Exacoscale plain chairs so I can now accurately join two together two halves to make chec rail chairs. I know I have to make one check rail jaw vertical to accept a vertical rail so this is my next step (more about this later...)

 

Regards, Mick

 

Surely rails on a branch line would be as new after 75 years of use due to the light traffic using it??

[Greenmodelmonkey]

Looks like I will have to make my old GWR branch line model with worn track and perhaps this is more authentic with 5% reduced height (and also quiet acceptable from a full size point of view).

 

So... I assume even Scaleseven can't achieve true scale standards if all the commercial rail is undersize to start with (quiet a surprised to me at least)

 

In the meantime, I have made myself a hardened steel cutting jig so I can accuratly cut Exactoscale chairs to any length to enable me to fabricate check rail chairs and other point chairs which need joining together. Works a treat and jig also allows me to slice a slither off the chairs wooden key to remove 1/20 inclination so that check rails are now At least I'm starting to make progress whilst the rail situation is looked at and resolved.

 

Just off to measure my rail section as suggested...

 

Regards,

Mick

[Greenmodelmonkey]

Surely rails on a branch line would be as new after 75 years of use due to the light traffic using it??

Hi Mick,

 

This is a special fishplate for connecting worn bullhead rail (on the left) to new or unworn rail (on the right). (This is REA pointwork, not GWR.)

You can see how much the head depth of the rail has been worn down -- the stepped fishplate brings it back up level with the unworn rail. It's unusual to see this within pointwork. It means the chair supporting the worn rail needs a thicker base than the near one, as they are both on the same timber. Special chairs were made with thicker than the standard 1.3/4" base thickness for this type of situation.

It may possibly be 85lb rail on the left, rather than worn 95lb rail. The radiused top corner on the rail does suggest original rail rather than worn. Anyone? However the difference in head-depth between 85R and 95R is only 1/8", and this looks rather more than that. The fishplate is clearly marked for 95R BH WORN / NEW.

 

BS-85R bullhead rail was originally intended for branch lines, sidings and yards, etc., but in practice very little was used. In most cases the rail used in such situations was worn rail cascaded down from main-line use. The difference in overall rail height was 1/4".

 

BS-95R 95lb/yd rail height = 5.23/32nds (5.719) inches. Scales to 0.131" at 7mm/ft scale.

BS-85R 85lb/yd rail height = 5.15/32nds (5.469) inches. Scales to 0.125" at 7mm/ft scale.

 

I wonder if somewhere along the way someone measured 85 lb rail by mistake in designing the tooling for the current rail?

 

Here is another pic. L1 bridge chairs on the left because of the restricted space:

 

 

The above is REA, not GWR. If you are wanting to model GWR track accurately, you need this book. Ignore the reference to 4mm scale in the title, 90% of the book is prototype information (in great detail):

 

From: http://gwsg.org.uk/GWSG_Publications.html

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Thanks for this information Martin its very interesting an informative. Just goes to show how difficult modeling the prototype can be, but at least it does provide some modeling flexibility.

 

Also apologies you might find one of my posts are similar subject this is because I could not see my original one so wrote the post again then I noted the original one that you responded to (wow I'm myself now....!!!).

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Greenmodelmonkey]

Hi Stephen,

 

That's unfortunate. I know they used to supply a scale section, and here is a scan from their track-making handbook:

 

slaters_track_book.jpg

© 1987 Slaters (Plastikard) Ltd

 

I don't have a copy of the latest issue, which may have been revised. It would be worth asking them the question.

 

It would also be worth actually measuring the current rail from C&L and Slaters. 

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martin, I called Slater's today and they confirmed they have never ever made any Code 130 rail it's always been code 125 (even though it's quoted in their track making handbook).

 

Regards

Mick

[Greenmodelmonkey]

Hi Martin, I called Slater's today and they confirmed they have never ever made any Code 130 rail it's always been code 125 (even though it's quoted in their track making handbook).

Regards

Mick

I have just found the label that wrapped my old Slater's track and it says it is code 130 but measured at code 125.

 

I have also worked out a method to modifiy PECO code 124 bullhead rail to a section which is more accurate in scale shape including making the overall rail height 0.1mm taller (and equivelent to code 128) which is much closer to scale height.

[wagonman]

There is a bloke who does 3D printed chairs via Shapeways – mostly LNER/REA but some GWR – and allows for different flangeways for check rail chairs etc. 

 

http://www.shapeways.com/designer/drrayner/creations

 

 

I don't know why you are agonising so much about a few thou on the rail height when you are happy to permit a much larger discrepancy in track gauge and flangeway... but it's your train set.

[Greenmodelmonkey]

There is a bloke who does 3D printed chairs via Shapeways – mostly LNER/REA but some GWR – and allows for different flangeways for check rail chairs etc. 

 

http://www.shapeways.com/designer/drrayner/creations

 

 

I don't know why you are agonising so much about a few thou on the rail height when you are happy to permit a much larger discrepancy in track gauge and flangeway... but it's your train set.[/quote

 

Thanks for your observations but suggest you read and understand what the main issues are make sure you look at the photos I uploaded showing my inability to fit exactoscale slide chairs onto C&L rail, then tell me if you think few thou makes a difference or not. This topic is more than just rail height. However thanks for link and I have been looking into these also.

Thanks for

[hayfield]

There is a bloke who does 3D printed chairs via Shapeways – mostly LNER/REA but some GWR – and allows for different flangeways for check rail chairs etc. 

 

http://www.shapeways.com/designer/drrayner/creations

 

 

I don't know why you are agonising so much about a few thou on the rail height when you are happy to permit a much larger discrepancy in track gauge and flangeway... but it's your train set.

 

The GWR chairs from Off The Rails are the crossing nose chairs (I think they are called slab and bracket). May well be worth buying as the sprue has quite a few on, for GWR purposes most of the parts would have to be discarded as designed for LNER 3/4 bolt style of chair, only the cetrral parts of the check rail and block chairs would be usable

[Greenmodelmonkey]

The GWR chairs from Off The Rails are the crossing nose chairs (I think they are called slab and bracket). May well be worth buying as the sprue has quite a few on, for GWR purposes most of the parts would have to be discarded as designed for LNER 3/4 bolt style of chair, only the cetrral parts of the check rail and block chairs would be usable

Many thanks John, yes I think I will try as suggested they certainly look very good.

[Greenmodelmonkey]

Hi Stephen,

 

That's unfortunate. I know they used to supply a scale section, and here is a scan from their track-making handbook:

 

slaters_track_book.jpg

© 1987 Slaters (Plastikard) Ltd

 

I don't have a copy of the latest issue, which may have been revised. It would be worth asking them the question.

 

It would also be worth actually measuring the current rail from C&L and Slaters.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

After a long break I am returning to add some further information....

 

Not any noticeable differences between Slater's and C&L track. Although Slater's state Code 130 in their track making leaflet, they confirmed its always been Code 125 even though leaflet mentions Code 130 and Code 130 was was quoted on my invoice .... but is still really Code 125. They stated they have never ever made Code 130 rail.

[martin_wynne]

They stated they have never ever made Code 130 rail.

 

Well they should know. But I have a clear recollection of mixing Peco rail and Slaters rail, and being aware of the difference in rail height. That would have been in the early 1980s. There is probably plenty of that old rail still around on layouts, if anyone is in a position to measure it?

 

You have to wonder how the 130 figure came to be used in several places in their paperwork if they never ever supplied it.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Greenmodelmonkey]

Well they should know. But I have a clear recollection of mixing Peco rail and Slaters rail, and being aware of the difference in rail height. That would have been in the early 1980s. There is probably plenty of that old rail still around on layouts, if anyone is in a position to measure it?

 

You have to wonder how the 130 figure came to be used in several places in their paperwork if they never ever supplied it.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

For info. I found some old Slater's track from the 80's in my loft but only after I had ordered a new pack from Slater's recently. Both packs are the same section at code 125 although the label on wrapping of the old batch said it was code 130. That's when I contacted Slater's and the owner stated they had had never produced code 125.

 

C&L know of my findings.

[Stephen Freeman]

I know there is interest in producing 3D prints of GWR turnout chairs amongst others, I believe the problem, is in finding suitable prototype castings to scan. So I'm waiting hopefully and not fitting slide rail chairs to my own project just yet.

[Greenmodelmonkey]

I know there is interest in producing 3D prints of GWR turnout chairs amongst others, I believe the problem, is in finding suitable prototype castings to scan. So I'm waiting hopefully and not fitting slide rail chairs to my own project just yet.

For info I'm having to make my own from a mixture of C&L and Exactoscale Slide chairs. Cobbled together by using half an inside 2 Bolt C&L slide chair joined to half an outside 3 bolt exactoscale slide chair and removing the two outside bolt heads and bonding one of them to the centre of the chair. Sounds complicated but it's ok. Unfortunately still having to use PECO Code 124 rail as C&L rail still won't fit unless you undercut C&L/exactoscale chair rail profiles with a scalpel blade (not easy on running rail chairs though, hence my move to PECO profile which is a perfect fit).

[Stephen Freeman]

I believe the prototype has now been scanned, so perhaps the wait is nearly over?

[Chrisbr]

I believe the prototype has now been scanned, so perhaps the wait is nearly over?

 

That sounds intriguing, please share more, or at least promise to reveal the outcome when it is made public?

[Stephen Freeman]

Not for me to say of course as it's not me doing it but you will get to know asap.

[Greenmodelmonkey]

GWR Point now finished using Templot (great tool!!!!) for template, David J Smith book on GWR pointwork, a mixture of C&L and Exactoscale Chairs and PECO code 124 nickel silver rail section as C&L rail did not fit chairs as explained earlier in this thread. Took about a week and huge amount of chairs cut to make the non running chairs, etc.

 

Interesting project but have to say when I put a PECO point next to the scratch built one you would be very hard pushed to notice much difference if you were not familiar with he prototype. My wife could not tell and couldn't work out why I had spent so long making something that you could buy, plus PECO point was much cheaper.

 

For info I have fully taken apart a PECO point and modified it to improve looks and running properties with no drop in vee and still running at 32mm throughout

[ROSSPOP]

Interesting project but have to say when I put a PECO point next to the scratch built one you would be very hard pushed to notice much difference if you were not familiar with he prototype. My wife could not tell and couldn't work out why I had spent so long making something that you could buy, plus PECO point was much cheaper.

 

 

 

Really ??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don`t think so..........

 

 

John

[Greenmodelmonkey]

Really ??

 

 

 

DSC02325.JPG

 

 

 

 

DSC02324.JPG

 

 

Don`t think so..........

 

 

John

My modified PECO version looks more like your scratch built version and uses Ambis stretcher bars similar to yours. Vee has been remade an extended by 1.5mm to overcome vee dropand entry angles are prototypical to Vee and check rails. Other plastic parts were removed, so no not the same as your photos which are showing an unmodified point. I know it's not prototypical but it's a great improvement on a very good basic product.

[Greenmodelmonkey]

My modified PECO version looks more like your scratch built version and uses Ambis stretcher bars similar to yours. Vee has been remade an extended by 1.5mm to overcome vee dropand entry angles are prototypical to Vee and check rails. Other plastic parts were removed, so no not the same as your photos which are showing an unmodified point. I know it's not prototypical but it's a great improvement on a very good basic product.

 

Scratch Built v Peco Modified (Note:  Ambis stretchers not shown in these photos, they are being reworked, and yes I still have the odd angled sleepers, so no need to comment on this as I know... LoL) 

 

Hope the photos show what can be done to improve a Peco O gauge point to make it look more prototypical.  When painted and weathered it should will look the part even further.

 

It was quicker to modify than to scratch build (and cheaper) and I do still have a preference for my scratch built version.  Again if you don't know the prototype in detail and are not as concerned about fidelity then it is good enough for most (I hope!).

 

Hope you find photos interesting as a comparison....