Using the easy-assembly Finetrax pointwork kits in 00 and EM (and in P4 from the S4 Society)

[Izzy]

19 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Thanks Guys,

 

The logic is to mask as much as possible the gauge narrowing to 16.2mm. You are correct Martin, that diamonds and slips would be 16.2mm throughout.

 

I got an email earlier from a potential customer also requesting for 16.2mm gauge throughout the turnout as this would also reduce the gap between the stock rail and 'open' switch blade - a very good reason indeed!

 

Anything is possible as I am still in the design stages for 00-SF, would be good to get more feedback there. Either approach is no problem, but I would like to settle on one of them.

 

 

 

Hi Wayne,

 

Forgive me but I believe the logic must be to keep to a constant gauge throughout any pointwork whatever the gauge involved, essential really when you think about it, and especially as you say slips and diamonds would be constant throughout, otherwise how would you join one to the other in close formation as would often generally be needed?

 

Izzy

 

 

 

[Wayne Kinney]

5 minutes ago, Izzy said:

 

Hi Wayne,

 

Forgive me but I believe the logic must be to keep to a constant gauge throughout any pointwork whatever the gauge involved, essential really when you think about it, and especially as you say slips and diamonds would be constant throughout, otherwise how would you join one to the other in close formation as would often generally be needed?

 

Izzy

 

 

 

The gauge would flair out from the wing rails of the crossing frog to the end of the exit roads...

 

Many 00-SF modellers only narrow the gauge through the crossings. Is it better to transition over a shorter or longer distance? Which is most visually obvious?

Edited December 8, 2020 by Wayne Kinney

[martin_wynne]

Hi Wayne.

 

"00-SF" is simply Templot's short name for "EM minus 2". I suggest you simply do that -- take your EM dimensions and subtract 2mm throughout. You get that easily by selecting 00-SF in Templot.

 

Templot doesn't have any function to vary the gauge within a template.

 

You could supply a 16.2mm plain track base for situations where short lengths of plain track are needed within pointwork formations.

 

There is no need to worry about "masking" the difference between 16.2mm and 16.5mm -- no-one can see that difference from more than a couple of inches away, if that.

 

For EM and 16.2mm switches, the recommended switch opening at the tip is 1.75mm -- easily set using the thickness of a 20p coin as the gauge. For 16.5mm switches the switch opening needs to be 2mm. (The prototype opening scales to 1.4mm, so the less excess over that, the better it looks).

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Wayne Kinney]

Thanks Martin,

  

24 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

"00-SF" is simply Templot's short name for "EM minus 2".

I'm not worried about names, but geometry.

 

Given that there is no 16.2mm plain line flexi track available, I would design my 00-SF point work kits to join up with standard 16.5mm gauge plain line. So at some point I would design the gauge to transition between 16.2mm to 16.5mm at the exit roads, ready to join. The question is where to put that transition.

  

24 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Templot doesn't have any function to vary the gauge within a template.

No, I would design that transition in myself.

 

I would not feel comfortable offering kits that have exit roads at 16.2mm gauge. OK, this would be fine if one turnout kit immediately joins to another, but as you say you would not see the difference, it would be standard 16.5mm at the exit roads.

 

Or to put it another way, how many 00-SF modellers use 16.2mm gauge on the plain line? I would imagine most use 16.5mm plain line. So again, from a design perspective, where does that gauge transition happen?

Edited December 8, 2020 by Wayne Kinney

[martin_wynne]

23 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

The question is where to put that transition.

 

Hi Wayne,

 

You supply a "kit" for a transition length of plain track, say 50mm long, which those who want to use 16.5mm flexitrack can insert between the end of the flexi and their 16.2mm pointwork. No need to cut the rails, just remove the end sleepers of the flexi and slide on your converter piece. (It's an extra sale, of something easy to make! )

 

However, most 00-SF modellers, or at least the sensible ones, simply make their own transition section by connecting flexi to a bit of solid 16.2mm, then warm the end inch or two of the flexi rails with a soldering iron so that the chairs soften and adjust to the gauge change.

 

But never say never on 16.2mm flexi ! It will come one day, and you will be ready. Or completely screwed if you have baked 16.5mm into the pointwork bases. Likewise 00-SF modellers who have built gauge transitions into their handbuilt pointwork. I have argued several times against it, but my words are often dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic.  

 

p.s. I have written about your product in relation to P4 here:

 

 https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=80735#p80735

 

There is a "Guest Book" section on that forum if you want to reply without being a member.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited December 8, 2020 by martin_wynne

[RichardT]

Going off-topic for a moment...

 

(also to allow me a breather to get my head round the concept that to be "more finescale" in 00 means making the track gauge even more underscale than it already is...)

 

...can I ask Wayne if it's your intention to redesign your N range along the same lines as these new 4mm s&c kits (not the gauge narrowing, but chairs moulded into sleeperbase, pre-planed switches, redesigned tiebars, pre-wired and common crossings etc)? 

 

Regards,

Richard

Edited December 8, 2020 by RichardT
spelling

[RichardT]

2 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

However, most 00-SF modellers, or at least the sensible ones, simply make their own transition section by connecting flexi to a bit of solid 16.2mm, then warm the end inch or two of the flexi rails with a soldering iron so that the chairs soften and adjust to the gauge change.

Whereas some N modellers wanting a finer appearance use 2mmFS 9.42 gauge plain Easitrack, and then taper it down to 9mm gauge to match Wayne's pointwork kits!

 

(Also makes it easier to convert your N layout to 2mm FS - you get the layout running in N, then convert the pointwork to 2FS once you have a critical mass of locos and rolling stock converted/built to 2FS.)

 

Apologies for continuing the OT.  I'll stop now.

Richard

[martin_wynne]

2 minutes ago, RichardT said:

(also to allow me a breather to get my head round the concept that to be "more finescale" in 00 means making the track gauge even more underscale than it already is...)

 

 

For a small reduction in the gauge, which no-one can see, you get a big improvement in the flangeway gap, which everyone can see, and a big improvement in the running quality of kit wheels.

 

16.5mm is a dimension with no prototype significance at 4mm/ft scale, so it might just as well be 16.2mm.

 

Martin.

[Wayne Kinney]

Thanks again Martin for your input and suggestions.

 

As I've said, it's in the design stage for 00-SF, I'll make what the majority want to see. I'll base it on the feedback I get from here and other sources.

[Wayne Kinney]

23 minutes ago, RichardT said:

...can I ask Wayne if it's your intention to redesign your N range along the same lines as these new 4mm s&c kits (not the gauge narrowing, but chairs moulded into sleeperbase, pre-planed switches, redesigned tiebars, pre-wired and common crossings etc)? 

 

We will see 

[gordon s]

39 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Wayne,

 

However, most 00-SF modellers, or at least the sensible ones..........

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

I’d better go and sit on the naughty step and dribble..........

[polybear]

18 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Thanks again Martin for your input and suggestions.

 

As I've said, it's in the design stage for 00-SF, I'll make what the majority want to see. I'll base it on the feedback I get from here and other sources.

 

For me it would be 16.2mm throughout the turnout, as I intend to hand build all trackwork so 16.2mm makes sense throughout.  Also I've seen just how much slop or "wiggle" there is when testing a wagon on 16.5 then 16.2mm plain trackwork.  It makes more sense to me to keep any gauge transition separate from a turnout, so either adjusting the last couple of inches of RTR 16.5mm flexitrack to suit the turnout, or alternatively a converter piece as Martin has suggested.  HTH

Brian

[gordon s]

50 minutes ago, gordon s said:

I’d better go and sit on the naughty step and dribble..........

In all fairness, I have an excuse as I don’t build many diamond crossings and few if any slips. All the internals are 16.2mm eg through a crossover or switched crossing, but I do flare out to 16.5mm from the last crossing to the end of the turnout, rather than in the flexible itself. Haven’t built track for a while but have five crossovers to build shortly so always willing to correct the error of my ways.........and become sensible.....

[martin_wynne]

2 minutes ago, gordon s said:

five crossovers to build shortly so always willing to correct the error of my ways.........and become sensible.....

 

 

Hi Gordon,

 

You do it your way -- you're the one who has built a fine 00-SF layout, not me.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Just to add to my previous comments. If you build a switch in 16.2mm (or EM), the set bend in the diverging stock rail is essential. As shown on the Templot templates.

 

If you forget the set, the switch will inevitably be tight to gauge. In standard 16.5mm you can get away with that, but not for 16.2mm and EM.

 

Martin.

[Godders]

Hi Wayne, most of the people, who have taken the 16.2mm route, have done so because of Templot. We want to have a consistent system, please don’t ruin your product by diverting from a well trodden route.

 

Cheers

 

Godders

[St Enodoc]

Forgive me but I'm finding this all rather academic. I build my copperclad pointwork to 16.2mm gauge, at Mike Edge's suggestion, then just join it to standard SMP 00 track with Minitrix rail joiners. Presumably because of the "give" in the polythene (?) SMP sleepers, the rails find their own position without any other intervention.

[NHY 581]

On 07/12/2020 at 18:47, Wayne Kinney said:

 

 

The new 4mm Finetrax 'E-Z Build' standard bullhead rail turnout kits will have the following features:

 

• Available in:

  00 Gauge 'Standard' - This uses 1.25mm flangeways and will allow RTR loco's and stock to run without wheel modification (unless the is a rogue wheelset).

   

  00-SF - This uses 1mm flangeways. 'RTR loco's and stock 'should' run through without modification, but a little more strict in having correct wheel 'back to backs'. The base will have the gauge narrow to 16.2mm through the crossing frog area only, the transition between 16.2mm and 16.5mm will be 'baked' into the turnout base

 

Thanks,
Wayne.

 

 

My apologies but I like to keep things simple.  I'm starting to find the ongoing references to  16.2 etc a tad off putting to what initially seemed to be quite a straight forward product to the novice (Me) track builder. 

 

I'm interested from the point of view that at face value at least this was a case of minimal assembly producing finer looking trackwork for 'off the shelf ' RTR 00 products. Therefore I was looking at the 00 gauge 'Standard' point to use in conjuction with PECO Bullhead set track.

 

However, I work on the basis that as no mention was made of this 16.2mm malarkey in the description of the 'Standard' pointwork, then it does not apply. 

 

Is this correct ? 

 

If so, I'm happy to ignore the 16.2mm debate and continue to anticipate the release of what seems to be numpty proof finer looking pointwork for the RTR 00 modeller. 

 

 

Rob. 

Edited December 9, 2020 by NHY 581

[PatB]

17 hours ago, njee20 said:

Personally E-Z build really grates for me. Easybuild would be fine. You won’t sell to the US market, why use a US style name? But then I hate creeping Americanisms! Am I right buddy? Can I get some support here?

 

The product, however, is very interesting! Bit of a shame the FB N gauge are likely to be last to be updated though as that’s what I’d be after!

You might be a bit late with the objection. KeilKraft were doing it 50+ years ago.

[polybear]

9 hours ago, gordon s said:

Haven’t built track for a while but have five crossovers to build shortly so always willing to correct the error of my ways.........and become sensible.....

 

Ahhh....the grovel for mercy.  Always worth a try....

[Wayne Kinney]

4 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

 

 

My apologies but I like to keep things simple.  I'm starting to find the ongoing references to  16.2 etc a tad off putting to what initially seemed to be quite a straight forward product to the novice (Me) track builder. 

 

I'm interested from the point of view that at face value at least this was a case of minimal assembly producing finer looking trackwork for 'off the shelf ' RTR 00 products. Therefore I was looking at the 00 gauge 'Standard' point to use in conjuction with PECO Bullhead set track.

 

However, I work on the basis that as no mention was made of this 16.2mm malarkey in the description of the 'Standard' pointwork, then it does not apply. 

 

Is this correct ? 

 

If so, I'm happy to ignore the 16.2mm debate and continue to anticipate the release of what seems to be numpty proof finer looking pointwork for the RTR 00 modeller. 

 

 

Rob. 

Hi Rob,

 

16.2mm gauge only applies if you have chosen to go down the 00-SF route. Otherwise, just ignore it and choose the 00 Gauge 'Standard' with 1.25mm flangeways.

 

Having said that, my suggested approach of transitioning the gauge within a 00-SF turnout was so the modeler doesn't have to think about it, therefore being no more complicated to build the kit.

[Enterprisingwestern]

On 07/12/2020 at 08:49, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

As Harlequin has said, we are now entering the waiting phase, I for one am sat patiently salivating.

The "flurry of responses" will restart when we have prices and a physical product to build, then the fiscal pontificators and trackwork "experts" will be along to enlighten us as to where Wayne is going wrong!

 

Mike.

 

I didn't expect my prophesy to come true so quickly!

 

Mike.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I was keeping out of this but, as Wayne has asked for feedback, I favour 16.2mm. I am convinced that running, particularly when reversing (setting back into sidings), will be greatly improved by removing the "slop" from 00 dimensions.

 

Or, I will if I don't take the opportunity to go EM.

[hayfield]

3 hours ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Thanks Martin,

  

I'm not worried about names, but geometry.

 

Given that there is no 16.2mm plain line flexi track available, I would design my 00-SF point work kits to join up with standard 16.5mm gauge plain line. So at some point I would design the gauge to transition between 16.2mm to 16.5mm at the exit roads, ready to join. The question is where to put that transition.

  

No, I would design that transition in myself.

 

I would not feel comfortable offering kits that have exit roads at 16.2mm gauge. OK, this would be fine if one turnout kit immediately joins to another, but as you say you would not see the difference, it would be standard 16.5mm at the exit roads.

 

Or to put it another way, how many 00-SF modellers use 16.2mm gauge on the plain line? I would imagine most use 16.5mm plain line. So again, from a design perspective, where does that gauge transition happen?

 

Wayne

 

You are stuck between a rock and a hard place, the solution you are proposing is what many builders do when they are building stand alone turnouts. But is it to 00-SF specifications ? only through the crossing.

 

If the modeller wants to build a complex of two or more turnouts and or crossings the gauge looses its continuity. I am glad I am not making the decision.

 

Martins  suggestion of having converter lengths seems the most practicable and allows you to supply turnouts and crossings to 00SF standards, rather than a turnout which is to all intense and purposes dual gauge. The converter lengths could be slid on to lengths of flexi track after removing the appropriate number of sleepers and sold in packs of 6 or ten, or just adapt the joining flexi track where it joins

 

Which ever way you choose someone will prefer the other solution. Good luck

[hayfield]

On 07/12/2020 at 07:49, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

As Harlequin has said, we are now entering the waiting phase, I for one am sat patiently salivating.

The "flurry of responses" will restart when we have prices and a physical product to build, then the fiscal pontificators and trackwork "experts" will be along to enlighten us as to where Wayne is going wrong!

 

Mike.

 

Mike

 

I agree its a great move forward and for those who require a better looking 00 gauge product then the standard offering is all you need to worry about

 

However there will be some 00 gauge modellers who want something finer and Wayne is proposing 2 offerings, one being 00SF the other EM, both sets of gauges have well published standards. Wayne is keeping to the EM standards but is considering options with the 00FS, if the so called experts/those who have actually experience of the gauge did not offer their advice on which way to go then issues may arrise.

 

One fact which has not been stated is the sale of goods act, but could cause Wayne issues is that if the turnout was built to 00SF standards in the crossing but to 00 gauge at the exits how do you describe it, its clearly multi gauge being neither 00 or 00SF. 

 

Another consideration is if used in conjunction with other turnouts and or crossings its ideal for the 00SF gauge to remain constant. Both for performance and looks

 

Wayne has asked for feedback as he has not fully decided on the final design options. Surely its better to have this discussion now rather than after a lot of work has been carried out.