Two OO Gauge built points

[AGR Model Store]

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 

[njee20]

The one that’s laid in the layout looks rather neater. 

[Nickey Line]

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.

[Izzy]

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

[Nickey Line]

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... 

[Flying Pig]

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. 

[Izzy]

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

[Nickey Line]

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!

[Flying Pig]

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?

 

[Grovenor]

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.

[Nickey Line]

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!

[Izzy]

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.

[Nickey Line]

So to sum up, in answer to the OP's original question, neither! 

[DCB]

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.