AGR Model Store Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 I received today two built points by two different manufacturers today which one would you have from the photo I think I know which one I would be keeping just want to hear other’s opinions please Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium njee20 Posted November 19, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 19, 2020 The one that’s laid in the layout looks rather neater. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Nickey Line Posted November 19, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 19, 2020 The one on the left would appear to be the more prototypical. It has full chairing, stretcher bars etc. and no moving sleeper to act as a switch. I assume the one on the right is of soldered construction? Difficult to tell from the picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted November 19, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 19, 2020 They do say never judge a book by it’s cover, but often that’s not easy. Obviously they are made differently, one chaired the other soldered, and one appears neater. For me however it would be how stock runs on/through them that was key. Some of the checkrails on the soldered one appear too short. Pity they aren’t to exactly the same template, as I assume the track standards are the same. Standard BRMSB 00? Not easy. Izzy 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Nickey Line Posted November 19, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Izzy said: They do say never judge a book by it’s cover, but often that’s not easy. Obviously they are made differently, one chaired the other soldered, and one appears neater. For me however it would be how stock runs on/through them that was key. Some of the checkrails on the soldered one appear too short. Pity they aren’t to exactly the same template, as I assume the track standards are the same. Standard BRMSB 00? Not easy. Izzy Agreed, functionality is more important than looks! But you can't run a wagon through a photo... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted November 20, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Nickey Line said: The one on the left would appear to be the more prototypical. It has full chairing, stretcher bars etc. and no moving sleeper to act as a switch. But it also has timbering that is very uneven in both length and alignment and separate checkrails where they should probably be continuous. The flares on the wing- and checkrails are inconsistent and mostly way too long. Flange gaps look somewhat variable which could affect running. In contrast, the point on the right appears neat and consistent despite its lack of detail. It could still be consistently wrong of course. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted November 20, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 20, 2020 (edited) I have to say it would have been much better if the chaired example had been produced using different geometry, a template better suited to the particular track standards used. It’s clearly noticeable the soldered one has, which is why on looks alone it appears better. It’s quite easy to produce these in Templot now thanks to Martin Wynne and it does look as if the chaired one uses a B6 as the basis. A bit of experimentation seems to show that with the OO-BF in Templot (the standard commercial fine OO option - others are available), using ‘A’ blades instead of ‘B’s produces a better result in respect of crossing v’s and check rail placement. The curvature and general geometry. Timber shoving/placement is another matter to do, not difficult, just sometimes a bit time consuming to get right. Brilliant that Templot allows this so easily. So, which to keep.... like voting, ‘ none of the above’ comes to mind.......but that’s just me! Izzy Edited November 20, 2020 by Izzy spell-check ..grrr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Nickey Line Posted November 20, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 20, 2020 11 hours ago, Flying Pig said: But it also has timbering that is very uneven in both length and alignment and separate checkrails where they should probably be continuous. The flares on the wing- and checkrails are inconsistent and mostly way too long. Flange gaps look somewhat variable which could affect running. In contrast, the point on the right appears neat and consistent despite its lack of detail. It could still be consistently wrong of course. Some of the issues you describe could be explained by shadows... but yes, on closer inspection I would have to agree... but the right hand one has a missing check rail! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted November 20, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Nickey Line said: .. but the right hand one has a missing check rail! Do you mean in the area I've marked red below, opposite the left hand crossing on the middle route (arrowed), as clearly shown in the photo on the Templot site here? Is that because the geometry is very close to a three-throw where the crossings are directly opposite and check each other? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 Yes, that's the missing check rail, since its on the outside of the curve may well not be an operational issue except perhaps for some loco pony trucks. And yes that one has overlapping switches close to a three throw but with the blade tips to far apart. I certainly prefer the other one which is a proper tandem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Nickey Line Posted November 20, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 20, 2020 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Flying Pig said: Do you mean in the area I've marked red below, opposite the left hand crossing on the middle route (arrowed), as clearly shown in the photo on the Templot site here? Is that because the geometry is very close to a three-throw where the crossings are directly opposite and check each other? I do... and with regard to your second point, it's impossible to tell from the photo. Actually it's not a 3 throw, the second two crossings are not adjacent, indeed they're 2 timbers apart. Edited November 20, 2020 by Nickey Line Correction! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted November 20, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 20, 2020 And both the outside check rails for the central crossing need to be extended back at least another sleeper. Otherwise they are really quite ineffective. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Nickey Line Posted November 20, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 20, 2020 So to sum up, in answer to the OP's original question, neither! 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 The one on the right has really ugly blade operating mechanism but both have awkward timbering, the one on the right could use at least half a dozen more full length timbers before they go to separate sleepers. I have photos of double track crossovers with sleepers continuous from up line to down line, but those irregular spaced sleepers look wrong. I guess when fully ballasted, 1) you won't notice, and 2) the points won't work anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now