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

[Wayne Kinney]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Wayne and Patrick,

 

Thanks for the prototype demo. This is a potentially very exciting development!

 

It looks great but of course that's only half the story. The acid question is how well does it work? It would be great to see some rolling stock passing through it, if possible. Especially things that are known to be a finicky like the front bogies/ponies of many locos. (BTW: I notice a step in the rail level after the frog in Patrick's photos.)

 

Patrick's build demo shows a very simple electrical setup of the turnout. That's fair enough, but does (could?) the kit allow for insulating gaps in the rails, without requiring the use of ugly plastic fishplates? Maybe in positions to do something akin to a "unifrog" turnout?

 

I believe Patrick will be finishing off wiring and testing his loco's and stock.

 

Don't worry about 'step up', I've designed the base so that the casting lines up perfect to the rail tops down to within 0.02mm.

 

Yes, the kits are 'electro frog', and the insulating gap happens either side of the cast crossing frog:

[NFWEM57]

31 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

I believe Patrick will be finishing off wiring and testing his loco's and stock.

 

Don't worry about 'step up', I've designed the base so that the casting lines up perfect to the rail tops down to within 0.02mm.

 

Yes, the kits are 'electro frog', and the insulating gap happens either side of the cast crossing frog:

 

 

Hi,

 

Yes, will be finishing off point and inserting into a new 8 x 4 test track layout I am building (OO, EM and N).  As always, real work getting in the way of progress...!  Baseboard made but needs painting / varnishing, this weekend's task,  then track laying and wiring up can start.

 

Patrick

[Michael Hodgson]

I've never built my own points, but would consider kit building.

This looks very promising, dependent of course on price, although I'm not in the market for track at present.

Peco have dominated this market for far too long, so it would be great to see some competition.

[martin_wynne]

Wow, that's the best-looking ready-made cast model V-crossing I have ever seen. 

 

 

Correct blunt nose, correctly aligned over the timber (which has a correct slab&bracket A chair), minimal infill behind the splice, spacer blocks represented, correct wing-rail length, correct end flare on the wing rails, correct knuckle gap radius.

 

For the best running it could be fettled by taking a few thou off the top of the nose to below the level of the wing rails, and rounding the top corners on the sides of the vee (could perhaps be cast in?):

 

 

There isn't a prototype rail joint at the proposed positions of the electrical gaps, so they need to be a tiny piece of say 5 thou plastic, with neat square ends on the rail, to be as inconspicuous as possible. If I was building it, I would solder short pieces of rail direct to the cast knuckle, and put Exactoscale-style locking H plastic fishplates at the correct wing front joint positions (marked yellow).

 

(If the casting was made longer, separate left and right hand versions would be needed, because of the curve in one rail.) 

 

Those short bent end flares on the check rails look very "pre-group" and don't match the flares on the wing rail. To be correct for most REA (post-group) check rails, the flare bend is much less severe and starts further back (marked red), with special wider check rail chairs at each end. i.e. it should always match the flare end on the wing rails. But I can see that might make threading the check rails more tricky.

 

Martin.

Edited December 4, 2020 by martin_wynne

[dasatcopthorne]

On 03/12/2020 at 10:52, Wayne Kinney said:

Thanks Dave,

 

You have a good eye! Yes it's a 1mm flangeway shown in Patricks photo's. The following will be available once I go into production:

 

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.

 

EM Gauge - Standard 1mm flangeways as per EMG standards.

 

All of the above will be available in either thick sleeper (to match Peco bullhead and C&L Thick sleeper) or thin sleeper (to match C&L thin sleeper & SMP track).

 

Thanks,

Wayne.

 

Excellent news.

 

Hope it all goes well.

[dasatcopthorne]

May I make an observation please.

 

I fully realise that you are well on the way to settling on the current moulded base buy I will say this anyway.

 

My experience of building layouts for exhibiting (and very many are) is that the constraints on baseboard sizes will usually mean that turnout heels end up being very close to the end of a board.

However they cannot be too close because, in the main, some sort of mechanism is needed to operate said point. This often means that the rails at the heel of a point are just too short. I've always prayed for another inch on their length.

 

If you could supply longer stock rails, a couple of loose sleepers could be included to 'top up' the moulded base if required.

 

Only mentioning it.

 

Dave. (16.2 fan)

 

 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

8 minutes ago, dasatcopthorne said:

usually mean that turnout heels end up being very close to the end of a board

 

Hi Dave,

 

Agreed. When building pointwork it is always worth leaving rails over-long and trimming to fit on site when laying.

 

p.s. you mean the toe of a turnout, not the heel (look at a foot sideways).

 

Martin.

[Wayne Kinney]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

Wow, that's the best-looking ready-made cast model V-crossing I have ever seen. 

 

 

Correct blunt nose, correctly aligned over the timber (which has a correct slab&bracket A chair), minimal infill behind the splice, spacer blocks represented, correct wing-rail length, correct end flare on the wing rails, correct knuckle gap radius.

Many thanks Martin, it's nice to have someone of your expertise appreciate my hard work!

 

Yes, I've modelled in as much prototype detail as I can, I have a HUGE library of prototype drawings that I have made use of, hopefully portrayed in my CAD design :

 

 

Thanks,

Wayne.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Wayne Kinney

[Wayne Kinney]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

There isn't a prototype rail joint at the proposed positions of the electrical gaps, so they need to be a tiny piece of say 5 thou plastic, with neat square ends on the rail, to be as inconspicuous as possible. If I was building it, I would solder short pieces of rail direct to the cast knuckle, and put Exactoscale-style locking H plastic fishplates at the correct wing front joint positions (marked yellow).

 

(If the casting was made longer, separate left and right hand versions would be needed, because of the curve in one rail.) 

Absolutely, sure! But in terms of both manufacturing limits, and maximising visual aesthetic, I need to keep the cast section as short as possible while still doing it's job. You can probably open the insulating gap a little over 5 thou while still maintaining a good appearance.

'Cosmetic' 'H' fishplates can still be glued on in the prototypical place.

[Wayne Kinney]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

Those short bent end flares on the check rails look very "pre-group" and don't match the flares on the wing rail. To be correct for most REA (post-group) check rails, the flare bend is much less severe and starts further back (marked red), with special wider check rail chairs at each end. i.e. it should always match the flare end on the wing rails. But I can see that might make threading the check rails more tricky.

Again, you are absolutely right, and I'm glad you mentioned this. The 'prototype' (this word could be confusing, maybe I should call it my 'Work in Progress') does not yet have the correct 'PWX/CC(L)/(R) check rail chairs in place, but are already designed and will be present on the production version.

[martin_wynne]

59 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

But in terms of both manufacturing limits, and maximising visual aesthetic, I need to keep the cast section as short as possible

 

Yes, I agree. That way the castings are unhanded and can be faired into curved pointwork and complex formations.

 

Are they lost-wax castings from 3D wax prints, or sintered 3D metal printing? Or something else? The results look great anyway -- hopefully the process will allow you to produce a wide range of angles. K-crossings especially would be a godsend for many track builders.

 

Martin.

[Wayne Kinney]

15 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Yes, I agree. That way the castings are unhanded and can be faired into curved pointwork and complex formations.

 

Are they lost-wax castings from 3D wax prints, or sintered 3D metal printing? Or something else? The results look great anyway -- hopefully the process will allow you to produce a wide range of angles. K-crossings especially would be a godsend for many track builders.

 

Martin.

Hi Martin,

 

Yes, it starts as a CAD design in Solidworks, then 3D printed in wax on a Solid scape printer. I used to own one of these but sold it on, so now use a 3D printing company.

 

I then make a rubber silicone mould of the wax master pattern, then cut this into a 2 piece mould.

 

I own a Vacuum Wax injector, and make my own wax copies, I had to do this to maintain control of accuracy and tolerance of the wax copies.

 

The waxes then get sent off to be lost wax cast in Nickel Silver.

 

Just look at my N Gauge range, cast obtuse 'K' crossings for diamonds & slips, and also special castings for the 3 way turnout. The 4mm castings will be MUCH more impressive.

 

Thanks,

Wayne.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Wayne Kinney

[martin_wynne]

4 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

I own a Vacuum Wax injector, and make my own wax copies, I had to do this to maintain control of accuracy and tolerance of the wax copies.

 

Hi Wayne,

 

Wow, you are doing serious work there. Will you be able to scale up the quantities to meet the likely demand? Hopefully there will be enough to supply separately in addition to the kits. Either way I can see this product being a game changer.

 

p.s. Would it be possible to remove a bit more of the infill beyond the vee splice? There just shouldn't be anything there beyond the B chair. Sensibly you have dropped it below the rail top so that it can be lost with paint. I've seen so many model turnouts spoilt by a big infill of solder between the vee rails.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Wayne Kinney]

38 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Wayne,

 

Wow, you are doing serious work there. Will you be able to scale up the quantities to meet the likely demand? Hopefully there will be enough to supply separately in addition to the kits. Either way I can see this product being a game changer.

 

p.s. Would it be possible to remove a bit more of the infill beyond the vee splice? There just shouldn't be anything there beyond the B chair. Sensibly you have dropped it below the rail top so that it can be lost with paint. I've seen so many model turnouts spoilt by a big infill of solder between the vee rails.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Hi Martin,

 

It's all down to CAD design, rather than manufacturing limits.

 

These are the 3 main drawings/reference photo's I have been working from:

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Wayne Kinney

[Compound2632]

@Wayne Kinney, presumably you have a website for at least the N gauge range? A link would by handy.

[Wayne Kinney]

Just now, Compound2632 said:

@Wayne Kinney, presumably you have a website for at least the N gauge range? A link would by handy.

Thanks,

 

I am not currently an 'advertiser' on this forum so do not wish to upset site admin by posting links. I am only answering direct questions, currently.

You can search my company name in Google to find my site, thanks.

[martin_wynne]

Your second drawing is interesting -- shows slab&bracket design for all three X-A-B chairs.

 

p.s. This is what I mean about no visible infill beyond the vee splice (GWR crossing, only the A chair is slab&bracket):

 

 

Martin.

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

You can search my company name in Google to find my site, thanks.

 

Thanks, I've done so. Perhaps you can't but I don't think that stops me.

 

Hey, look folks, this is interesting. (No connection &c.)

Edited December 4, 2020 by Compound2632

[Wayne Kinney]

16 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Your second drawing is interesting -- shows slab&bracket design for all three X-A-B chairs.

 

p.s. This is what I mean about no visible infill beyond the vee splice (GWR crossing, only the A chair is slab&bracket):

 

 

Martin.

Hi Martin,

 

It's interesting, isn't it? In my drawings/photo's, the only one that doesn't show the infill beyond the V Splice is the one that has slab&bracket design for all three X-A-B chairs..LOL

I decided to use 'only the A chair is slab & bracket' for my design, seeing this the most common and shown in Exacto scale drawings.

 

I guess this demonstrates the vast variety of formations that were built. Your photo doesn't clearly show from the top, though.
 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Wayne Kinney

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Many thanks Martin, it's nice to have someone of your expertise appreciate my hard work!

 

Yes, I've modelled in as much prototype detail as I can, I have a HUGE library of prototype drawings that I have made use of, hopefully portrayed in my CAD design :

 

 

Thanks,

Wayne.

 

Wayne

 

I see in a previous reply you are working on check chairs, looking at this diagram you do not have an elbow (or is it a knuckle) chair in the W timber position and in the Y position no bridge chairs ?

[Wayne Kinney]

9 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

Wayne

 

I see in a previous reply you are working on check chairs, looking at this diagram you do not have an elbow (or is it a knuckle) chair in the W timber position and in the Y position no bridge chairs ?

Old picture, all L1 and M1 chairs (if applicable) are now in the correct position.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Wayne Kinney

[Derekstuart]

The sleeper spacing on the diverging road looks somewhat generous. If replicated in reality, I doubt it would survive many trains before the rail broke.

 

(constructive criticism- good luck with the project)

[hayfield]

27 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Old picture, all L1 and M1 (if applicable) are now in the correct position.

 

Wayne

 

Thanks, I went back to the first post and saw them in the photos

Edited December 4, 2020 by hayfield

[Wayne Kinney]

Just now, hayfield said:

 

Wayne

 

Thanks, I went pack to the first post and saw them in the photos

Thanks, please remember this was the 'work in progress' at the time of sending to Patrick. Much work has been done since, and WILL be reflected in upcoming photos...

[Theakerr]

I am not in the market for points so my question is really academic as of today but the answer might change things.  Can the basic shape be altered by the builder?   I am referring to some posters on this forum who have taken Peco straight point and made them into slightly curved points.