2mmFS Long Melford

[justin1985]

Yes, the heavy lines are FPL's. Where possible companies used as few as possible due to the added complexity, and directional rather than bi-directional running helped in this respect.

 

I have only used versaline chairplates, and here is my latest attempt at a layout where I have reverted to soldered track using them and am just in the process of fitting the LNER style of economical FPL's. As it features both a single slip and obtuse crossing between plain turnouts and catch points I felt it was more than I could have managed with easitrac, although it would have probably looked a bit better. Hopefully when it finally gets ballasted it won't be too bad. At least it works ok, which is the main thing.

 

rmweb 01.jpg

 

Going back to the track layout your working on and the obtuse crossings I do wonder how you will switch the crossings for polarity. Could be an interesting challenge. As working my points has also reverted to purely mechanical means - simple Expo Tools DPDT slider switches working 0.9mm rod to tie-bars buried under the switches - I have used the catch point DPDT's to do this.

 

As I keep reminding myself, and you seem to be finding out, it's all good fun........

 

regards,

 

Izzy

 

Thanks Izzy, once again, really helpful! Your trackwork there looks amazing

 

Very good question about the wiring! Considering I'm planning to run the layout with DCC (in danger of opening a massive can of worms here, I'm sure ...) would one of the mythical hex frog juicers do the job here? I've never really understood how they actually work, but I have a vague sense that this is the kind of application they're designed for? 

 

Justin

[Izzy]

Thanks Izzy, once again, really helpful! Your trackwork there looks amazing

 

Very good question about the wiring! Considering I'm planning to run the layout with DCC (in danger of opening a massive can of worms here, I'm sure ...) would one of the mythical hex frog juicers do the job here? I've never really understood how they actually work, but I have a vague sense that this is the kind of application they're designed for? 

 

Justin

 

Thanks Justin, it doesn't look too bad and I'm happy with the compromise re looks.

 

Re 'frog juicers' I think the simple ones from Gaugemaster would be ideal here. I did think about using them but tried to find an alternative way as although the layout is wired for DCC, (so no sections except the catch points cut off power to the sidings as well as doing the obtuse crossings),  I can plug in a DC controller for loco testing purposes if I want, and non of these 'juicer' things is compatible with DC - I think it fries them if they are wired up to it. I did enquire via GM and they said no, along with the reason why, but I'm afraid I can't remember at the moment. So that is just something to bear in mind. Had I not found another way I would have used them and shelved running DC for testing. The GM ones seems good value against others.

 

I admire you for taking on Bill's layout. It's never easy taking on anything made by someone else, and especially when it's a project in progress, for everyone has there own preferences and ways of doing things.  Just keep asking questions. I am sure everybody is only too willing and pleased to be able to offer any help and advice they can.

 

regards,

 

Izzy

[Nigelcliffe]

Personal view - frog juicers are unnecessary and not sensible in 95%+ of situations. 

 

Looking at the track drawing a few posts back, there are three diamonds.  Two of them have turnouts at either end, and one sits in the middle of a crossing.

 

Now, if the turnouts are used so you don't (or ideally prevent) illegal routes being set (ie. both turnouts set to cross the diamond at the same time), then the diamond's frogs can all be switched from the position of the entry turnout's tie bars.  As follows:

 

 

 

 

In the above diagram, turnout A has a crossing which should be the same polarity as diamond crossing C.  And turnout B has a crossing which should be the same polarity as diamond crossing D.  Provided you never set both A and B to "thrown" at the same time (human operator rule, or some form of interlocking/switch control to stop it happening), then the polarities work out.   And work for DC or DCC, don't need electronics which only works in some situations (not on DC), relies on short circuits, etc..

 

 

 

 

In this situation, turnout E has a crossing which should be the same polarity as diamond crossing G.   Diamond crossing H should be opposite to the polarity of G  (so the switching which alters the crossing on turnout E needs to be double-pole, so it can also switch G).   As with the previous example, don't ever set turnouts E and F to both route through the diamond at the same time (human operator rule, or ideally something in the switch gear to stop it happening).   And, again it all works for DC or DCC. 

 

 

How to do the switching simply to stop error conditions ?   That depends on what sort of levers/switches are wanted, and to an extent how the layout is to be operated.  An interlocked lever frame with full signalling would do all the protection in the interlocking.  Without an interlocked frame, then...

If mechanical (eg. wire in tube), then its either mechanical interlock or human operator instruction (perhaps wire a big red light that comes on if both turnouts are pulled together ?).

If its electrical, depends on the switches in use - a three way switch could be deployed, or push buttons could be wired so that they automatically cancel the opposite turnout. 
There are about a zillion ways of dealing with that aspect, and until a clear "I want to use this type of switch and this method to move the tie bar" its difficult to give useful answers.  

 

 

- Nigel

 

[justin1985]

Many thanks both, the more thoughts people are chipping in, the better understanding I'm building.

 

I understand Nigel's objection, that a frog juicer is a fundamentally "lazy" way to do the job. I certainly appreciate that waiting for a short isn't an optimal way of running things.

 

However when you factor in the fact that each of the routes needs to work from either direction, I struggle to get my head around the wiring that would be required to do that. We're kind of back to the issue of appreciating the idea behind Bill's original wiring, but not understanding sufficiently to fix it. The simplicity of the frog juicer is seductive!

 

But I've never seen a particularly clear explanation of how they actually WORK. As far as I can figure out, the frog is fed ONLY from the juicer? Presumably, when you power it on, it gives the frog an arbitrary polarity, perhaps +ve, then waits for a train to come along. If the train that approaches the frog, if the polarity works with the other rail for that route, then all good. Otherwise, it produces a short with the other rail, then the juicer springs into action and switches the polarity of the frog to the binary opposite. And this happens quickly enough that the controller/booster cut out isn't triggered, and the loco decoders shouldn't be damaged?

 

In terms of control, it seems the problem with the design of the layout is the front/back distinction. The physical controls, as they are, are all concentrated at the rear of the layout, but if the backscene is fitted, you can't see front and rear at the same time. That wouldn't be so much of a problem at an exhibition with separate operators covering the return tracks/fiddle yard and the scenic section, but still I think would need the controls for the scenic section to be front-facing.

 

So, even though it's something that had never previously appealed to me, I'm starting to consider whether DCC point control might be the most flexible way of making it controllable from front or rear, or by one or two operators. In that case, presumably the multiple frog switches could be set as part of routes in software. But I imagine that would be much harder using my normal normal Roco multimaus, rather than a PC/tablet?

 

Anyway, one step at a time! Need to build the track first ...

 

Justin

[Donw]

Justin I could easily do you a diagram of how I would connect it up to work with the turnouts but I presume you would rather work out something for yourself. If however a diagram of someone else's thoughts would help let me know.

As far as the frog juicers are concerned there will be no adverse effects to the decoders if the frog is the wrong polarity then the frog is the same polarity as the opposit rail and the decoder will receive no power. The 'short' occurs as a wheel bridges across the track gap. Once the juicer switches the decoder will recieve power normally.

 

I had a layout were the switches for the turnouts were mounted in a box which was connected to the layout by a plug in wander lead. In my case I could walk up and down with it and the controller hand held., but you could make a mimic type control panel which could clip on to either side of the baseboard.

On mine I used tortoise point motors driven by either pos or neg half cycles so I needed a single wire for 15ac feed two diodes in the panel provided the pos and neg half cycles a changover switch for each turnout or crossover pair would switch to pos or neg and by feeding the single wire to the tortoise through a bi-poler LED it gave a visual indication of how the switch was set. All the frog switching was done by the tortoise motors. I can do you diagrams if you want.

 

Don

[2mmMark]

Bendy sticks - I've just remembered an old magazine article which mentioned using Swish curtain rail. This is about 9mm wide.

[justin1985]

I finally got around to unbolting the track section from its board and moving out of the dimmer corners of the garage, where the whole board is currently crated, and onto the bench. In better light, I had the pleasant surprise that there was rather more geometry traced onto the board than I had initially appreciated! 

 

 

Under bright light, it is obvious there have been some changes, but it seems like the long rails had actually been tack soldered on to act as a "Bendy stick". Working from these, I could work out which of the pencil and pen marks are relevant and I've started to mark them out a bit more clearly. It seems like red marker pen indicates turnout operating locations and isolating breaks. Dark pen seems to be the centre lines, and pencil lines the rail alignments (although there seems to be some divergence from this). There are notes of the crossing angles in black biro, most of which have a clear mark of which sleeper the nose is meant to sit on (one or two have question marks).

 

I used a strip of dense foam as a bendy stick as well as more offcuts of rail and pretty much figured out which marks are "current" and have drawn over them to make them clearer.

 

I imagine that as the angles are marked in degrees, rather than ratios, Bill simply measured these off with a protractor? Taking the crossing that I've posed with an offcut of rail and jig in the picture as an example, it looks like it was first planned as 11 degrees, to the left, then rejigged to be 12 degrees to the right. Then another adjustment one sleeper to the left. With the stock rail tack soldered in between the two sections of plain track at the board joins, and the offcut of rail held to gauge, it looks like the farther left 12 degree mark is the one that suits.

 

I've forgotten more than I think I ever actually learned from GCSE maths, but an online calculator tells me that 12 degrees is 1 in 4.7 - obviously not a standard crossing angle (and does seem very sharp!). There was a rather nifty little jig in the box of layout parts which seems to be for soldering crossing vees at any angle. I imagine it might be better to use this, rather than round up to 1 in 5 and use a normal jig? 

 

Staying with the same crossing, the tack soldered rail is already filed as a switch rail, and runs through to the beginning of the existing chairplates on the top right. This alignment seems to take it VERY close to the ends of the sleepers through the diamond. I know it will have to come off anyway as it will have to become the switch rail and knuckle of the first turnout - I'm sure it is only there as a bendy stick. But should I also replace those sleepers with ones that come a bit wider? I'm not at all certain about prototype practice through a diamond, but it doesn't look like there is any space for a chair!

 

It looks like the sleeper alignments through that diamond would have been more comfortable if the bottom turnout had its crossing at the 11 degree mark, but that doesn't seem to fit the alignments through the top right turnout. Or could it?

 

On the chairplates question, although there is a reasonable stock of Bill's chairplate etches in the layout box, I'm thinking I'll probably go with Versaline versions with cosmetic chairs. The main thing that pushes me this way is the fact that most of the sleepers are already down, and therefore the jigs can't be used. The simpler flat chairplates should allow a bit more wiggle and adjustment potential. Many of the few existing chairplates that are down already are broken, unfortunately. Does this sound reasonable?

 

I figured I'd start with the diverging Lavenham/Bury St Edmunds branch (bottom in picture) first, as it seems less daunting, and should allow the creation of a functional through line before any of the diamonds have to be tackled! 

 

Justin

 

[Donw]

I finally got around to unbolting the track section from its board and moving out of the dimmer corners of the garage, where the whole board is currently crated, and onto the bench. In better light, I had the pleasant surprise that there was rather more geometry traced onto the board than I had initially appreciated! 

 

IMG_20180711_125126.jpg

 

Under bright light, it is obvious there have been some changes, but it seems like the long rails had actually been tack soldered on to act as a "Bendy stick". Working from these, I could work out which of the pencil and pen marks are relevant and I've started to mark them out a bit more clearly. It seems like red marker pen indicates turnout operating locations and isolating breaks. Dark pen seems to be the centre lines, and pencil lines the rail alignments (although there seems to be some divergence from this). There are notes of the crossing angles in black biro, most of which have a clear mark of which sleeper the nose is meant to sit on (one or two have question marks).

 

I used a strip of dense foam as a bendy stick as well as more offcuts of rail and pretty much figured out which marks are "current" and have drawn over them to make them clearer.

 

I imagine that as the angles are marked in degrees, rather than ratios, Bill simply measured these off with a protractor? Taking the crossing that I've posed with an offcut of rail and jig in the picture as an example, it looks like it was first planned as 11 degrees, to the left, then rejigged to be 12 degrees to the right. Then another adjustment one sleeper to the left. With the stock rail tack soldered in between the two sections of plain track at the board joins, and the offcut of rail held to gauge, it looks like the farther left 12 degree mark is the one that suits.

 

I've forgotten more than I think I ever actually learned from GCSE maths, but an online calculator tells me that 12 degrees is 1 in 4.7 - obviously not a standard crossing angle (and does seem very sharp!). There was a rather nifty little jig in the box of layout parts which seems to be for soldering crossing vees at any angle. I imagine it might be better to use this, rather than round up to 1 in 5 and use a normal jig? 

 

Staying with the same crossing, the tack soldered rail is already filed as a switch rail, and runs through to the beginning of the existing chairplates on the top right. This alignment seems to take it VERY close to the ends of the sleepers through the diamond. I know it will have to come off anyway as it will have to become the switch rail and knuckle of the first turnout - I'm sure it is only there as a bendy stick. But should I also replace those sleepers with ones that come a bit wider? I'm not at all certain about prototype practice through a diamond, but it doesn't look like there is any space for a chair!

 

It looks like the sleeper alignments through that diamond would have been more comfortable if the bottom turnout had its crossing at the 11 degree mark, but that doesn't seem to fit the alignments through the top right turnout. Or could it?

 

On the chairplates question, although there is a reasonable stock of Bill's chairplate etches in the layout box, I'm thinking I'll probably go with Versaline versions with cosmetic chairs. The main thing that pushes me this way is the fact that most of the sleepers are already down, and therefore the jigs can't be used. The simpler flat chairplates should allow a bit more wiggle and adjustment potential. Many of the few existing chairplates that are down already are broken, unfortunately. Does this sound reasonable?

 

I figured I'd start with the diverging Lavenham/Bury St Edmunds branch (bottom in picture) first, as it seems less daunting, and should allow the creation of a functional through line before any of the diamonds have to be tackled! 

 

Justin

 

I think you are right Bill probably intended it to be a bit further over when he laid the timbers but perhaps found it was causing trouble urther on. I the timber are a bit short you can fix down short pieces on the ends to make it look right. As those bits wouldn't be functional it should be ok.  You are a bit concerned that 12deg 1:4.7 is a bit tight but it is a wye turnout with the two tracks curving away from each other also known as split leads so if you image each side matched with a straight track they would be fairly gentle.  So don't worry about the sharp crossing angle on that one. 

I dont see any problems using the versaline chairplates and I do consider starting with the diverging branch first, help to boost your confidence in taking on anothers work

 

Incidentally I have seen stamped on the side of crossing chairs 5.25-5.75  so obviously full size there was an allowance for odd angles 

 

Don 

[justin1985]

I think you are right Bill probably intended it to be a bit further over when he laid the timbers but perhaps found it was causing trouble urther on. I the timber are a bit short you can fix down short pieces on the ends to make it look right. As those bits wouldn't be functional it should be ok.  You are a bit concerned that 12deg 1:4.7 is a bit tight but it is a wye turnout with the two tracks curving away from each other also known as split leads so if you image each side matched with a straight track they would be fairly gentle.  So don't worry about the sharp crossing angle on that one. 

 

Many thanks Don, much appreciated. Seeing 1:4.7 in black and white made it sound sharp, but I hadn't clocked that it's different with a wye. Obvious once you think about it!

 

One thing that isn't clear is whether the points are A or B (I'm guessing not C etc). Should I just assume they're all B? Or is there a way of working out what was intended? I don't see consistent marks for which type of chair was intended on which sleeper.

 

I have some versaline chair plates in stock (had used them within Easitrack points), so might make a start on some of the simpler parts before I order enough to do the whole lot.

 

Justin

[Donw]

If you measure the lead the distance from the crossing nose to the toe by comparing with turnout tables you could probably work it out. Bill might have been planning to use straight switches 9ft,12ft etc. Has Bill may any notes or pencil marks showing the angle of the set. In practice I would say it would be simpler to  to make a balde planed for A  and another for B and see which fits nearest in each case. You can the file them up adjusting it to get a snug fit on each against the stock rail. It matters not whether it is a, B or somewhere between so long as it works well and looks ok.

 

Don

[justin1985]

I can't believe I have left this for so long ...

 

I can't even remember why the junction board got packed back away, but it did, and stayed there until tonight. We're finally rid of the mass of furniture we were storing in the garage for a friend for the last few years, so at last there was the space to properly organise and sort out the layout.

 

 

The junction board is back out, and alas the garage fairies hadn't made any progress on the track in the meantime.

 

 

Looking back through all the wonderful advice I had when I posted about this board before, I guess I just need to get on and start by soldering up some vees to the angles pencilled in on the board, and work from there! 

 

I did spend some time looking at the Working Timetables digitised by the GER Society recently and noticed some interesting little quirks like a pair of fitted vans for Messers Greene & King being worked down from Bury and being joined to a Haverhill service at Melford. This made me realize I'm not actually 100% clear on how the track layout as modelled would operate! Given the size of the yard at Melford station, I'm left wondering what the branch sidings were actually used for, for example? 

 

Justin

 

[Izzy]

I would hazard a guess they would be used to hold just the kind of traffic you mention, being detached from one, put into the designated holding siding, and then attached to the relevant train. Just supposition but it would account for the two similar sidings. 
 

However, looking again at the track plan for Long Melford, and Bill’s interpretation for Short Melford, unless you intend adding Long Melford I think that perhaps a consideration of revising the plan a bit in some way might be needed as otherwise it doesn’t really make sense or work in any practical way, it needs the other trackwork at Long Melford to do that, be able to attach stock from the sidings going in the opposite direction.

[justin1985]

58 minutes ago, Izzy said:

However, looking again at the track plan for Long Melford, and Bill’s interpretation for Short Melford, unless you intend adding Long Melford I think that perhaps a consideration of revising the plan a bit in some way might be needed as otherwise it doesn’t really make sense or work in any practical way, it needs the other trackwork at Long Melford to do that, be able to attach stock from the sidings going in the opposite direction.

 

Thanks Izzy - this is a very good point. The extra short module that Bill had built with a simple crossover, plus the long siding approaching the bridge, might just about make a few more interesting moves possible in literal terms, but perhaps not in ways that would have been condoned on the prototype ...

 

This does open the can of worms about whether, once this section is (eventually!) finished, I plan on building some version of Melford, as had been Bill's plan, or whether I substitute it with Clare, which I've always found a much more attractive station & setting (despite the fact I grew up in Long Melford). 

 

Melford was MASSIVE, as country stations go, and the extensive yard, turntable and maltings are clearly all "signature" features. Bill certainly had some initial drawings for the maltings, plus some aerial photos he'd taken personally, I gather. And the extensive yard is clearly make for a very interesting operating layout.

 

However, I simply don't have the length to model the whole of Melford Yard + current layout in the garage I can use for the layout, and a layout that can only go up at exhibitions is definitely not my cup of tea at all.

 

I'm now half wondering whether building the area covered by Long Melford Junction box (https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 1064) , and ignoring the area covered by Long Melford Yard box (https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 1065 ) might be a good way to develop the operating potential of the layout in a just about feasible space - although it would still involve some serious compression, and the extra crossover module would still be needed to return the up platform line into the bi-directional branch track. 

 

I think the other option that keeps knocking around my head is to basically, in the long term, treat it as a modular system, and build Clare as a swap-in replacement for the junction + crossover boards. i.e. "Stour Valley" that be assembled and run either as a roundy-roundy with interesting things happening with the junction, OR as a through station with yard shunting. Potentially even built in a way that, at an exhibition with the space, both could be used together (pie in the sky ...).

 

Justin

 

[richbrummitt]

16 hours ago, justin1985 said:

I can't believe I have left this for so long ...

 

The junction board is back out, and alas the garage fairies hadn't made any progress on the track in the meantime.

 

 

That's life.

 

The garage fairies have done nothing much to one of my previous projects either. That has been 7 years now. I'm not ready to abandon it but it is now consigned to the loft to regain the space to work on current projects. This meant some dismantling so it fitted the hatch. I don't expect the loft pixies will be any more productive than the garage fairies. 

 

Interesting to be reminded that the track is(?) separable from the baseboards. 

 

Your operational thoughts are pertinent to my current thinking around a bigger, longer term, project of my own. 

 

Can we look forward to some track progress? I hope so, in your own time though.

[justin1985]

3 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

Can we look forward to some track progress? I hope so, in your own time though.

 

That's what I'm aiming for!

 

Am I approaching this in a sensible way?

 

 

I used Bill's adjustable vee jig to make up a 12deg vee, as the notes on the board suggest. Then I'm using the gauges between the tack soldered stock rail and the tack soldered switch rail (clearly acting as "bendy stick"?) to find the sleeper closest to where the vee intersects the tacked-in switch rail/bendy stick. 

 

Obviously the rails on my vee are not curved (yet) which accounts for some of the discrepancy in the picture, but it seems to me that the angle seems to need to be significantly wider? I can't actually find a protractor though!

 

Perhaps the angles written on the board were simply taken before Bill had adjusted the track alignments to meet the neighbouring boards?

 

[richbrummitt]

The V in that area should be 11degrees, judged by the notes on the board, and the nose 2 timbers to the right (towards the switches). The 12degree is pointing to one of two timbers for the nose of the right hand end of the grade crossing. 

 

Edited March 18, 2021 by richbrummitt
right, not left

[justin1985]

15 minutes ago, richbrummitt said:

The V in that area should be 11degrees, judged by the notes on the board, and the nose 2 timbers to the right (towards the switches). The 12degree is pointing to one of two timbers for the nose of the left hand end of the grade crossing. 

 

Ahhh ... I had thought that note couldn't have been right, but I was putting too much faith in the alignment of the tack soldered switch blade - it's final solder joint was too close to the stock rail, compared to its marked out line. Hence the discrepancy. I think I've got it sorted now

[justin1985]

Some progress! Etched chairs (new type) fitted (apart from the slide chairs which were already Versaline) and vee fitted.

 

 

I also found a crossing jig that Bill had made for a variety of angles - although not all of the angles needed for this formation. 

 

 

J

[justin1985]

Slightly more progress - slow going! This is actually the first Wye turnout I've built - and the first pointwork I've built in absolutely ages.

 

 

Without a detailed template, I'm not 100% about the alignment and curvature of the switches. Does this look OK / any tips on checking it's smooth enough?

[Izzy]

The only real difference with a wye is how the switches are set. Whether they are handed one way or the other, or split equally. This will be reflected in the drawing of the pointwork and may be determined by whether one route is more used/important. This will of course affect how the stock rails lay regarding a set. Has the one laid got a joggle perhaps instead? Looking along track as in this shot is I feel the very best method of judging rail alignment, which appears fine. Perhaps the tip of the blade could be a bit thinner and curved just very slightly to seat firmly into the stock, hard to tell.

[Lacathedrale]

I thought, naievly, there was no such thing as a "wye" - just a right hand point on a left curve, or vice-versa? i.e. they always have to be handed somehow? I think the only reason I know this is Martin Wynne telling me that's why you set curviform or ... whatever the other option is ... is whether the main line curves with the diverging route or away from it.

[Izzy]

Curviform etc is concerned with the V crossing angles. I’ve always understood blade deflection could vary as needed with any pointwork but I think it’s still the case that split deflection can’t be generated in Templot anyway just offset either hand.  

[martin_wynne]

58 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Curviform etc is concerned with the V crossing angles. I’ve always understood blade deflection could vary as needed with any pointwork but I think it’s still the case that split deflection can’t be generated in Templot anyway just offset either hand.  

 

Hi,

 

It's easy to split the deflection in Templot by rotating about the switch toe (CTRL-2), and making the switch front a separate partial template. For a symmetrical Y-turnout it is better to start from a half-diamond template rather than a turnout. See the first half of this video for some ideas:

 

 https://flashbackconnect.com/Movie.aspx?id=HsnZXmGuv1HmpYOmoQoaSQ2

 

In the next program update there will be a new function to automate the process. For some info about that, see:

 

https://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=3817&forum_id=1

 

For detailed up-to-date info about Templot it's always best to ask on Templot Club: https://85a.uk/templot/club

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[justin1985]

8 hours ago, Izzy said:

Perhaps the tip of the blade could be a bit thinner and curved just very slightly to seat firmly into the stock, hard to tell.

 

Thanks for all the thoughts! Looking again this morning I definitely agree the blade needed to be thinner - I've now replaced it.

 

Thanks for the Templot tips, but seeing as I'm working to a fully laid out (pencil) design that meshes into completed sections of track, it's probably more trouble than its worth trying to replicate the design into Templot?

 

 

Now it's finished and working! My little test "see through tender" ran flawlessly through the "main" Cambridge line even without checkrails, but occasionally rode up the nose of the vee when taking the sharper diverging Bury line - until I installed the check rail. It is always satisfying when things run through a turnout without check rails, but I realize checkrails are essential, so I'm happy that it seems to work nicely now anyway. The real test will be locos under power, I guess! 

 

The check rail is definitely one sleeper too long on the Bury route, which does look a little weird compared to the shorter flare of the wing rail. I had miscounted when soldering in the etched chairs, and decided to go with it for now. Not sure if I should pop it out and trim back, and trim back the check chair and use a solder blob to replace inside chair. Thoughts?

 

Another question - I've had to use copious amounts of flux (Carrs Yellow) - any tips for in-situ cleaning to prevent any longer term corrosion from it?

 

The big question is the order I tackle the rest of the board in? I have in mind to work my way down the Bury (right hand) line first - mainly because it seems the quickest route to getting a functional route!

 

 

Am I right in thinking the best way forward will be to complete the two "normal" turnouts, THEN the diamond to fit into them? 

 

I was going to work from the existing turnout, soldering on the straight stock rails to both turnouts first to set a smooth alignment with the finished and ballasted plain track at the far end. Does that sound sensible?

 

Justin

[Izzy]

I'm not sure anything about this junction could be called 'simple' could it, but going by my experience with Priory Road and seeing how much more integrated the diamond is with the two points I would suggest that after laying the stock rail you will then need to put in the two crossings and the side of the diamond that butts up against them.

 

This is because you will need to somehow find room to fit in isolation gaps ( the two crossings and the K crossing will all need to be isolated from each other) and it can become awkward if it's not dealt with as part and parcel of the whole sheebang. Then you'll be able to work outwards back to the switches and finish off with the other side of the diamond whose crossings will also have to be dealt with along with the outer point stock rails, again isolation gap provision.

 

I do think that perhaps working out the wiring of it all, where all the feeds and isolation cuts need to be, should be sorted out on paper before laying any rails. Trimming rails to fit and allowing for gaps I do find rather easier in this scale than trying to cut them after the rail is fixed down and with all the diamonds here might prove better.