Jump to content
 

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


NFWEM57
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Ian_H said:

Hi Wayne, What is the time scale for you having the full range of turnout kits available in 00 similar to the range that you have available in code 40?

 

Ian

Hi Ian,

 

Full range? In all honesty, I don't know. I'm just concentrating on getting the B7 kits out for now. I may well be busy for the first few weeks after release, so it will be harder to find time to design the new kits in CAD.

 

Once things settle, progress can be made. It usually only takes a day to do the CAD work for a new kit. About 2 - 3 weeks to get a new cast crossing angle produced.

 

It may well take a good 6 - 8 months after release to get the range similar to my N Gauge range, possibly longer. I still think that's pretty good progress, though :)

 

Edited by Wayne Kinney
  • Like 11
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

In all the clamour for exotic trap points, I think it has to be pointed out (so to speak) that after a simple point, the single next most useful piece is a single slip. With that, a myriad of prototypical layouts become possible. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

In all the clamour for exotic trap points, I think it has to be pointed out (so to speak) that after a simple point, the single next most useful piece is a single slip. With that, a myriad of prototypical layouts become possible. 

 

First maybe a diamond-crossing. Something about running and walking. :)

 

The proposed assembly sequence will be interesting. I can imagine 2 identical half-diamonds being constructed first, and then locked together with the cast K-crossings.

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

First maybe a diamond-crossing. Something about running and walking. :)

 

The proposed assembly sequence will be interesting. I can imagine 2 identical half-diamonds being constructed first, and then locked together with the cast K-crossings.

 

Martin.

 

Surely the whole point of a point range with prototypical geometry is to enable one to build prototypical formations? A diamond crossing is really of very limited use - if one looks at double junctions on the prototype, they very frequently include a single slip to provide a trailing crossover. And how many modellers really have the space for a double junction anyway? Added to which, most real double junctions have the curve of the diverging route continuing through the diamond or slip...

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/01/2021 at 11:17, Wayne Kinney said:

Wow, many replies since yesterday! :)

 

I appreciate any disappointment 'Edwardian' or others like him may have. Although its physically possible to create thin sleeper versions, the issue is indeed the shear number of variations needed to keep in stock.

 

Let's start with the first kit, a B7 turnout. As I am catering for 00 Gauge, 00-SF and EM Gauge, that's three variants to stock already. Left and right hand? Ah, make that 6 variants.

 

Add a thin sleeper/timber version, I've now doubled that to 12 variants just for a B7 kit.

 

Now, how many kits should I get ready and stocked before releasing...you start to understand the shear numbers needed with all these variants. Not to mention the CAD work involved for each of these versions.

 

I've also been approached by the 3mm Scale and Protofour Scale Societies, which I am very thankful for, but will add another 4 variations for a B7..LOL

 

I am to blame though, as I did of course say in an earlier post that I would offer thin sleeper. But this project is still developing, and so are production decisions, I'm afraid. Sorry for any disappointment.

 

I have offered a transition piece as a solution to those that wish to use thin sleeper plain line. Although I am sure that the majority of modellers wanting to dip their toe into finescale track will most likely be choosing thick sleeper flexi track, most likely Peco Bullhead.

 

I sympathise with your situation, but I do see the fact that you have already laid thin sleeper track as I minority situation, and one where solutions are available.

 

 

sorry your numbers are off there, you need to double them for the flat bottom rail versions.

  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Surely the whole point of a point range with prototypical geometry is to enable one to build prototypical formations? A diamond crossing is really of very limited use - if one looks at double junctions on the prototype, they very frequently include a single slip to provide a trailing crossover. And how many modellers really have the space for a double junction anyway?

 

I said nothing about not having slips. I'm just thinking about the learning curve Wayne is climbing. I suspect it will be much easier to design a slip kit with the experience gained from doing a diamond-crossing first. And the parts a diamond-crossing contains will be very useful in kit-bashing other prototypical formations.

 

Diamond-crossings are not so rare. A common arrangement is for a yard to be accessed via a trailing connection over a diamond-crossing, avoiding the need for a facing-points lock. Here for example is Rubery on the Halesowen Railway:
 

http://www.photobydjnorton.com/RailwayPictures/RuberyStnfromDownHome.jpg


© D J Norton. Image from this excellent site: http://www.photobydjnorton.com

 

Martin.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wayne Kinney said:

It may well take a good 6 - 8 months after release to get the range similar to my N Gauge range, possibly longer. I still think that's pretty good progress, though :)

 

Hi Wayne, I think that is really quick but I won't hold you to it!

 

Thanks

Ian

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Diamond-crossings are not so rare. A common arrangement is for a yard to be accessed via a trailing connection over a diamond-crossing, avoiding the need for a facing-points lock. Here for example is Rubery on the Halesowen Railway:
 

http://www.photobydjnorton.com/RailwayPictures/RuberyStnfromDownHome.jpg


© D J Norton. Image from this excellent site: http://www.photobydjnorton.com

 

But very much more common is the equivalent of that formation on double line to incorporate a single slip giving a trailing crossover between the running lines. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Given that the bases are 3D printed, there presumably isn't a huge tooling cost for each variant? If so perhaps one solution to the issue of things like thin sleepers is to offer that as a 'bespoke' option, printed to order?

 

Personally I'll be going for the thicker sleepers anyway, I find the Peco bullhead much nicer to work with than the SMP, but I'll certainly be wanting a single slip!

Edited by Nick C
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But very much more common is the equivalent of that formation on double line to incorporate a single slip giving a trailing crossover between the running lines. 

 

 

 

Indeed it is.

 

OK you win. Wayne should jump straight from a B-7 turnout to a curved outside slip. This one perhaps:

 

outside_slip_shrewsbury_1978_600.jpg

 

And those wanting a simple C-10 turnout will have to wait.

 

:)

 

Martin.

  • Round of applause 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Indeed it is.

 

OK you win. Wayne should jump straight from a B-7 turnout to a curved outside slip. This one perhaps:

 

outside_slip_shrewsbury_1978_600.jpg

 

And those wanting a simple C-10 turnout will have to wait.

 

:)

 

Martin.

 

No, no. no. B7 points and a straightforward 1:7 single slip please!

 

How many modellers have room for a C10 crossover? How long is that? Long enough to wait!

 

I do take the point about the development challenge of a slip.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I wasn’t so far down the line, these kits would be a no brainer. With the cost of pcb strip, rail, solder plus the time and basic skill required to solder up a turnout, these kits are very competitive, so I will certainly be in the queue to order a couple to play around with.

 

I wish you every success in terms of quality and meeting the inevitable demand in the coming months.
 

Go for it......:superman:

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

No, no. no. B7 points and a straightforward 1:7 single slip please!

 

How many modellers have room for a C10 crossover? How long is that? Long enough to wait!

 

I do take the point about the development challenge of a slip.

 

 


Somewhere around a metre. I’ve just built one........:D

 

Rest easy, I’m not asking for one.......Just a joke between Martin and I.......

 

I agree with you, B7’s plus a 1:7 single slip would meet most requirements.

Edited by gordon s
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

How many modellers have room for a C10 crossover? How long is that? Long enough to wait!

 

Yes it's long. But you can curve it. Shorter turnouts can't be curved very much without the inside radius getting too sharp. A long curved C-10 crossover can go round the end of the railway room where no shorter crossover would fit. Leaving more space in the station for other pointwork.

 

Martin.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually playing around with Templot at the moment.  I'm just learning what everything does and wondering where I'm going to get a new printer from (to print the control keys list like it says) We have an impending loft flooring session this year and I have permission to put something in the loft so my attention turned to Hornby magazine's Operation Build-It and how that would be an ideal test bed for building turnouts. Maybe if I learn how to plan it using Templot and get a couple of these kits too then I can see what would work best for me.

Edited by The Evil Bus Driver
The terrible grammar. Oh my eyes...
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 01/01/2021 at 22:00, Compound2632 said:

 

The snag is that if you've got a lot of SMP (or thin-sleepered C&L), you're going to end up with a hump in the line at every point.

 

If you've already laid a lot of SMP...

The simple answer may be to lay all the thin-sleepered track on thin card to match the difference in height. Have you ever seen level track? no, I thought not.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, roythebus1 said:

The simple answer may be to lay all the thin-sleepered track on thin card to match the difference in height. Have you ever seen level track? no, I thought not.

 

Missing the point , so to speak: in the instance I was referring to, the thin-sleepered track had already been laid, with unsatisfactory attempts at hand-built points on thin paxolin - not sure if these were SMP kits.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Missing the point , so to speak: in the instance I was referring to, the thin-sleepered track had already been laid, with unsatisfactory attempts at hand-built points on thin paxolin - not sure if these were SMP kits.

Yes, I've just seen that having just read down the other posts1 Just catching up after a busy holiday period rail replacement bus driving! I'll have the same problem as I have loads of thin sleeper SMP and a lot of hand-built C&L points made!

 

I wonder how Wayne's product will affect the sales of C&L? Maybe the 2 will complement each other?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, roythebus1 said:

Yes, I've just seen that having just read down the other posts1 Just catching up after a busy holiday period rail replacement bus driving! I'll have the same problem as I have loads of thin sleeper SMP and a lot of hand-built C&L points made!

 

I wonder how Wayne's product will affect the sales of C&L? Maybe the 2 will complement each other?

 

 

In 00 gauge C&L the flexi track now has a thick sleeper base, in EM gauge it has a thin sleeper base, the converter bases will be of great use

 

As for the effect on C&L sales, the new C&L 00 gauge track is an ideal track base to complement Wayne's product. If you are looking for prototypical detail unlike Peco's (semi) Bullhead offering  it uses bullhead rail, has keys in the chairs, the HiNi rail is far less yellow in colour and the sleepers are laid out in 60' panels, Exactoscale fast track bases come second as they also use bullhead rail and are in 60' panels, but no keys. I guess those wanting to add that extra bit of realism to Wayn's kits, the rail could be swapped for the SMP rail, which being Nickle silver has a yellowish hue to it

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

No, no. no. B7 points and a straightforward 1:7 single slip please!

 

How many modellers have room for a C10 crossover? How long is that? Long enough to wait!

 

I do take the point about the development challenge of a slip.

 

 

Plan to have a four C10s on my planned layout...!  But construction is a year or so off so I can wait..!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s the C10 crossover I built over the past few days. It measures 1150mm overall, but the track centres are wider than normal, so that in itself increases the length. I must be honest I had forgotten the real reason for using C10’s, until I saw Martin’s note last night. I set a minimum radius of 36” and you have to go to C10’s where you have pointwork on the curve, particularly the inner radius. With the ability to flex the base on these new turnouts, C10’s could be ideal, unless you can accommodate tighter radii.

 

image.jpeg.3bfab30b2fd728678ad6324144693249.jpeg 


 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dhjgreen said:

Cannot be harder than these surely :)

https://www.britishfinescale.com/category-s/1841.htm

 

As you increase the scale the amount of detail that can be seen increases, plus the mass of the item increases fourfold. As it is Wayne has stated that P4 is out of the question at the moment due to the finer tolerances required

 

I am not speaking for Martin, but the way I read Martin's reply, is that Wayne will have his work cut out developing the 1-7 in the 6 variations and building up stock levels before going off developing a wider range, designing 3 double slips on top of the existing workload is asking a bit much

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...