Jump to content

New range of simple to assemble 00/EM gauge pointwork kits


NFWEM57
 Share

Recommended Posts

As I'm one of those suffering from the lack of Peco Bullhead slips, how will you compare with the angles of the Peco geometry?

Is it very far out?

 

My layout is built and running and I was waiting to replace the Flatbottom slip with a Bullhead one.

 

Dave (ho was 00-SF but not this layout)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
47 minutes ago, dasatcopthorne said:

As I'm one of those suffering from the lack of Peco Bullhead slips, how will you compare with the angles of the Peco geometry?

Is it very far out?

@dasatcopthorne

 

Hi Dave,

 

Here you go:

 

peco_v_finetrax_slips.png.e215126aff1653cc4f98ee8fc1a0893c.png

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi Wayne

 

Any plans to do an outside slip at some point 

 

appologies if this has been mentioned before and I have missed it

 

thanks

 

Mark

Edited by Asterix2012
Predictive text
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
3 hours ago, dpgibbons said:

The clearance at the tip of the switch rail in the third pic looks rather tight - does the build require a set in the curved stock rail?

The blades are not moved all the way over, there is still a gap between switch blade and the straight stock rail.

Edited by Wayne Kinney
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/07/2021 at 18:34, Darius43 said:

I purchased a couple of OO gauge Finetrax turnout kits a couple of weeks ago and today decided to have a go at one of them - having never tried a trackwork kit before.

 

30 minutes after starting, here we are.

 

5735A1CA-5909-4788-9E46-A76CB82B2FA9.jpeg.736a3f4af190f2e1f29e05b0dc8fbea7.jpeg

 

7BE20044-3C0C-412E-BBFC-8A367737A6BA.jpeg.2c77190a5ff6bab49fdb883135656286.jpeg

 

D70F00C5-E167-4E60-ABC8-D23E5A61D319.jpeg.caa478702cb16da82158c2d01729407b.jpeg

 

38FB56FB-6288-4FB5-972C-E521419CB3D1.jpeg.1fe776e91786b796c601a0c9340f2090.jpeg

 

The kits are very easy to assemble.  The only thing I discovered is that you need to trim carefully the soldered wires to the switch blades that engage with the tie bar to stop them fouling the moulded sleeper base.

 

I still need to solder the electrical connections and frog wire.

 

A truly excellent product!!!

 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

Excellent build, Darius.

 

Try blackening the flangeway of the cast crossing, and then polishing the tops and sides of the 'rail' on the casting. This really improves it's visual appearance, and will better match the look of the actual rail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Try blackening the flangeway of the cast crossing, and then polishing the tops and sides of the 'rail' on the casting.

 

Hi Wayne, I have never built a turnout, well perhaps one but since it didn't work we can't include that one;-) so I have never built a turnout but I am looking forward to giving these ago. You mention "blackening the flangeway of the cast crossing" ... with what are we to blacken this with, most people will probably know the answer but I don't!

 

Thanks

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Hi Wayne,

 

I have a question about combining your kits into formations: Using your template for the OO B7 turnout I notice that there isn't a simple way to form a crossover between tracks at the scale track-centre-to-centre measurement of 45mm.

 

If the turnouts are left unmodified and the sleeper spacing is maintained then the track spacing is too big at ~49.7mm (blue rectangle):

254449559_FTOOB7crossing1.png.903e0e96e7ee9a2ca4368858044b2a64.png

 

On the other hand, to maintain the required 45mm track spacing (green rectangle), the templates have to be overlaid so that they interfere with each other quite seriously and the sleepering doesn't align:

735677913_FTOOB7crossing2.png.1b6115a12f7c82ae116b36350dc9a44c.png

 

So what is the recommended method for forming a crossover at 45mm track spacing? And will it also apply to the forthcoming crossings?

 

Thanks.

Edited by Harlequin
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Wayne,

 

I have a question about combining your kits into formations: Using your template for the OO B7 turnout I notice that there isn't a simple way to form a crossover between tracks at the scale track-centre-to-centre measurement of 45mm.

 

If the turnouts are left unmodified and the sleeper spacing is maintained then the spacing is too big at ~49.7mm (blue rectangle):

254449559_FTOOB7crossing1.png.903e0e96e7ee9a2ca4368858044b2a64.png

 

On the other hand, to maintain the required 45mm track spacing (green rectangle), the templates have to be overlaid so that they interfere with each other quite seriously and the sleepering doesn't align:

735677913_FTOOB7crossing2.png.1b6115a12f7c82ae116b36350dc9a44c.png

 

So what is the recommended method for forming a crossover at 45mm track spacing? And will it also apply to the forthcoming crossings?

 

Thanks.

Thanks.

 

I will be releasing crossover kits with proper spacing and shared timbers...

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil

 

Whilst Wayne may have other Ideas, I would firstly obtain a Templot Template (plan) of a B7 crossover where the timbers have been adjusted. This way you can assess what needs doing.

 

I would then replace the last 3 timbers on each turnout with 3 or 4 long timbers from the Exactoscale range and the appropriate number of S1 chairs. Then continue the build for the crossover as you would for a turnout and just thread the chairs on the rails as you go. May sound a bit daunting for some but it looks to be a very simple job

 

The one difficulty I can foresee would be in obtaining the parts required, no doubt one of us who use these materials would be happy to help out with the odd part now and again

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Thanks.

 

I will be releasing crossover kits with proper spacing and shared timbers...

Thanks Wayne but can you produce kits for all the formations we might want to create?

 

Even just for crossovers, we might want to incorporate diamonds and slips in a wide variety of combinations. And then there are all kinds of other formations to consider.

 

Wouldn't it be simpler for everyone, including you, if the kits would just "do the right thing" (get track spacing and timbering right) when combined? (I'm thinking of the way Streamline parts usually do the right thing when combined.) I realise that would mean some compromises would have to be made.

 

Maybe some means of adapting the last few timbers on standard kits, as @hayfield points out, would work?

 

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

15 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Wouldn't it be simpler for everyone, including you, if the kits would just "do the right thing" (get track spacing and timbering right) when combined? (I'm thinking of the way Streamline parts usually do the right thing when combined.) I realise that would mean some compromises would have to be made.

 

It's not possible to make the kit work for both without the timbering being incorrect for the of them. The timbering is different for a crossover vs a single turnout. Even the Streamline has the incorrect track spacing when joined together.

It's better to release a dedicated crossover kit, with correct spacing and shared timbers.

 

17 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Thanks Wayne but can you produce kits for all the formations we might want to create?

Obviously that would be an infinite number of combinations, but I plan on making standard and ladder crossover kits, incorporating either a diamond or slip.

 

They are kits, and no doubt a certain amount of trimming/kit bashing maybe required for some formations. Maybe adding separate chairs and timbers into the range would be a good idea?

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

It's not possible to make the kit work for both without the timbering being incorrect for the of them. The timbering is different for a crossover vs a single turnout.

Yes, that does make things more complicated!

 

3 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Even the Streamline has the incorrect track spacing when joined together.

I know the Streamline track spacing is wrong for prototype but it's right for their system almost however you join parts together. It's very clever.

 

3 minutes ago, Wayne Kinney said:


Obviously that would be an infinite number of combinations, but I plan on making standard and ladder crossover kits, incorporating either a diamond or slip.

 

They are kits, and no doubt a certain amount of trimming/kit bashing maybe required for some formations. Maybe adding separate chairs and timbers into the range would be a good idea?

Yes, that might be very useful!

 

Thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wayne Kinney said:

Excellent build, Darius.

 

Try blackening the flangeway of the cast crossing, and then polishing the tops and sides of the 'rail' on the casting. This really improves it's visual appearance, and will better match the look of the actual rail.

 

Naive / beginner's question here but from Darius's photo it appears the two inside exit rails of the turnout are not connected to the frog or each other, or is there wiring underneath to make it into one continuous connection? The "Electrofrog" turnouts from that other place which I have a mental image of (never having used one I confess) have the inner rails + frog as one piece if I'm understanding correctly.

Edited by BWsTrains
clarity
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BWsTrains said:

 

Naive / beginner's question here but from Darius's photo it appears the two inside exit rails of the turnout are not connected to the frog or each other, or is there wiring underneath to make it into one continuous connection? The "Electrofrog" turnouts from that other place which I have a mental image of (never having used one I confess) have the inner rails + frog as one piece if I'm understanding correctly.

 

There are two ways of doing this.

 

Firstly bond the two exit rails and join with the wire from the common crossing. There will have to be an isolation break where the turnout joins with the plain tracks

 

Secondly you could use the gaps as electrical isolation breaks and just make them live. This may have consequences with DC wiring (cab control) with section breaks.

 

I may be confusing some with this reply, but you in theory you can make a system where the switch rails power the common crossing, this method requires the switch rails to pick up power on one side whilst loosing it on the other. Whether its worth the hassle is another case

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

There are two ways of doing this.

 

Firstly bond the two exit rails and join with the wire from the common crossing. There will have to be an isolation break where the turnout joins with the plain tracks

 

Secondly you could use the gaps as electrical isolation breaks and just make them live. This may have consequences with DC wiring (cab control) with section breaks.

 

I may be confusing some with this reply, but you in theory you can make a system where the switch rails power the common crossing, this method requires the switch rails to pick up power on one side whilst loosing it on the other. Whether its worth the hassle is another case

I used  gaps between frogs and rail to provide electrical isolation rather than use unsightly plastic fishplates when I made the subsequent (EM) prototypes.  Looks far neater in my humble opinion.  I have a test track which I can 'flick' between DCC and DC, there are no issues but I do not use cab control. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NFWEM57 said:

I used  gaps between frogs and rail to provide electrical isolation rather than use unsightly plastic fishplates when I made the subsequent (EM) prototypes.  Looks far neater in my humble opinion.  I have a test track which I can 'flick' between DCC and DC, there are no issues but I do not use cab control. 

 

Your comment of unsightly  plastic fishplates I assume relates to plastic rail joiners

 

Exactoscale and C&L both make functionable (H shaped) plastic fishplates which both look superb and work well, these are also available as cast brass items as well which have quite a few uses.

 

 

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

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

 

Naive / beginner's question here but from Darius's photo it appears the two inside exit rails of the turnout are not connected to the frog or each other, or is there wiring underneath to make it into one continuous connection? The "Electrofrog" turnouts from that other place which I have a mental image of (never having used one I confess) have the inner rails + frog as one piece if I'm understanding correctly.


Hence my writing:-

 

“I still need to solder the electrical connections and frog wire”.

 

In my post.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

Not 00 related, and I know I've been a little quiet on here lately, but I've been quite busy working on the 2mm Finescale & 3mm test kits:

 

DSC05719.jpg.87f59c9062fe61610045dd1b21882a67.jpgDSC05720.jpg.59113c5764f0643e80fd23d1f8fc19e2.jpg

 

3x '2mmFS' kits on their way to 3x 2mm Scale Association committee members.

 

Spending the rest of this week on the 3mm scale test kit. Should return to the 00-SF release next week and also continue work on the diamond crossing.

 

Steady progress :)

Edited by Wayne Kinney
  • Like 11
  • Agree 1
  • Round of applause 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

 

Your comment of unsightly  plastic fishplates I assume relates to plastic rail joiners

 

Exactoscale and C&L both make functionable (H shaped) plastic fishplates which both look superb and work well, these are also available as cast brass items as well which have quite a few uses.

 

 

I had no idea C&L and ES sold them..! But I think i'll stick with the frog rail gap solution.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NFWEM57 said:

I had no idea C&L and ES sold them..! But I think i'll stick with the frog rail gap solution.

 

 

Exactoscale have sold them for years, C&L came out earlier this year, I used them in the EM gauge teat build in either this thread or its sister thread

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Darius43 said:


Hence my writing:-

 

“I still need to solder the electrical connections and frog wire”.

 

In my post.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

Hi Darius,

 

I had seen your comment but it didn't completely address my specific question viz. regarding the exit rails. However all is now clear thanks and BTW fine job you did with the assembly. I'm "sold", looking forward to being a happy customer soon.

 

It's clear now that the exit rails can be left disconnected from or live to the frog. The former appeals to me as it avoids insulated joiners but I'll perhaps trial with both options once I get going as I'm pure DCC Ops.

 

Regards,

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...